Two people working against the DNC and Hillary Clinton found dead recently

[sathor]

http://www.newsbbc.net/2016/08/official-who-served-dnc-election-fraud.html

http://www.amtvmedia.com/clinton-researcher-victor-thorn-found-dead/

Reddit /r/conspiracy up in arms over these. Not sure what to make of it, but worth providing the articles.

Also worth mentioning that Clinton pledged over a million dollars to "Correct the Record", an organization who has openly used shills and other internet tools to down vote and remove anti-Hillary posts on the internet for the past six months, as well as abuse those who post the information.

Comments

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I don't think much of either of your sources there.

The first link is cherry-picking from what Snopes.com said in a misleading fashion.

"The rumors spread widely online and left many users were concerned that Lucas' death may have been connected to his role as the process server for the DNC lawsuit. Some versions of the rumor tried to associated Lucas with a sinister plot linked to Hillary Clinton by asserting that he was the "lead attorney" in the DNC lawsuit, but he was just one of the process servers who delivered papers to a DNC office. (Lucas was named in a motion [PDF] filed on 22 July 2016 by the DNC, seeking to dismiss the suit on partial grounds of improper service.)"

Apparently there's no information about his cause of death out at all, so all this conspiracy-stuff is way premature. Seemingly-healthy people do drop dead of sudden strokes, heart attacks and bad prescription-drug interactions every day, all on their own.

As for Victor Thorn, here's what Snopes says about him. It's kind of silly to think the Clintons would bother to kill such a guy even if they were guilty of everything he claims, because he's a crazy Holocaust-denying hater, and the fact that he claims something is true gives it plausible deniability as 'just another conspiracy theory'. There are dozens of such guys out there, cranking out their little books that only other conspiracy-nuts ever read, because nobody else cares.

Sounds to me more like an example of why crazy haters ought not to have guns. On the other hand, I would not want to interfere with either their 2nd Amendment rights, or the course of Darwinian evolution.

Yeah, it's true: all sides use shills and other Internet tools, etcetera; plus biased media, political and family connections, financial inducements. Politics as usual; as it's ever been since before the time of Socrates. If you want to know what a candidate stands for, read/listen to what he or she has actually said in context, rather than other peoples' opinions of cherry-picked quotes, and look at what he or she has actually done, not what other people say about it.

At this point, Hillary would probably have to club a baby seal on video to get me to not vote for her, because holy shit, Trump's plans for the environment would be unbelievably disastrous.

[sathor.livejournal.com]

What are your feelings on wikileaks?

Assange put out a $20,000 reward for information regarding the death of Seth Rich, and hinted at the possibility he may have been one of, or the, DNC email informant. Those leaks caused Debbie Shultz to step down (Sanders supporters had been petitioning for her to do so for about a year, if I'm not mistaken.)

The interview with him is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

Not saying much, but this does add a little more credibility to the possibility it wasn't just some random murder in a rather nice part of DC.

As for Clinton, I'm more concerned about her voting record, TPP support up until recently and war hawkish nature. What is going on with the environment will likely not be negated by a democrat who is an obvious sell out to Wall Street. Of course, this doesn't mean Trump is a better candidate, either. It just means I don't think very highly of Hillary.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

In all honesty, I've paid so little attention to the Wikileaks thing that I have no considered opinion about it. It was obvious right along that the DNC was rigging the game in Clinton's favor, but I have not heard that those leaks turned up anything actually actionable, so the whole kerfuffle sounds like just more smoke-and-mirrors.

"Not saying much, but this does add a little more credibility to the possibility it wasn't just some random murder in a rather nice part of DC.'

Well, no. What would add a little more credibility to the possibility would be some evidence, of a sort that would hold up in court. What you're describing is not credibility, but the illusory truth effect: make enough smoke, and people will believe there's a fire.

There's been a veritable pall of scandal-smoke around the Clintons for decades, but how many bona fide fires have ever been discovered? When there is enough evidence to bring Hillary to trial for something, then I will pay attention, but I'm not holding my breath.

"What is going on with the environment will likely not be negated by a democrat who is an obvious sell out to Wall Street."

It's not going to be negated, no. In point of fact, it wouldn't be negated by either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein either - not even if we had a Democratic Congress, which we don't. But as the environmental activist organizations have all concluded, "some progress is better than turning backwards." Trump has repeatedly stated outright that he doesn't believe in climate change, wants to get rid of the EPA, and plans to repeal all regulations preventing 'business', i.e. environmental destruction for profit.

I don't think very highly of Hillary either, and I'm not happy to have no better choice than to vote for her. Actually, I don't 'have' to vote for her, because Washington is not considered a swing state; it'll go Democrat with or without my help. But voting for Hillary is the only effective way to vote against Trump, and I am definitely against him.