The best defense against this mirrors the establishment's strategy against whistle-blowers and moles.  Intimidation.  Unlike the tactic of (litterally) shooting people in the back which is ethically bankrupt, intimidation can be completely ethical and the right thing to do because of the 'swamp' environment in which we find ourselves.

If I were Trump, I would say something like:


There is enough of a danger that Trump or someone like him may take power that low and mid-level bureaucrats would be silly to risk their necks to steal a few votes here and there.  Simple risk/reward calculus which even the drooling idiots who [wo]man our local polling stations can do.  It is both ethical and should be effective to put them into a 'scared straight' mode of thinking.  And it will be vastly more difficult to implement a theft with the on-the-ground army of petty-bureaucrats acting in an unpredictable manner.

It's as clear on the nose on one's face that the establishment plans a massive theft of the election.  The main reason it is massive is that it needs to be, and the main reason for this is that they picked one of the most corrupt of their stable of politicians possible in Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Best I can figure they had a inflated view of the power of their aparatus (dem, repub, media, corp, tech, etc) and were intertaining themselves, and are now basically traped into a what is likely a plan-B (straight up theft on a massive scale.)  Whatever the series of mistakes were will be uncovered eventually.  Wikileaks indicates that when the plan-A (Clinton-II vs. Bush-III) fell through they very stupidly hoped for Trump who they thought they could beat.  Anyway, after whatever mis-steps it's now up to massive fraud...

The natural strategy on the part of the to-be-defrauded is to expose it.  There are a variety of efforts on this front, and some of them reasonably creative.  One of the most basic is efforts and citizen poll watching.

The counter-play to this is to quash the exposers.  The neo-McCarthyism of blaming everything and the kitchen sink on the Ruskies is laughable and probably won't be enough.  Leveraging the implanted (and riduculous) idea that Trump supporters are inclined to violence and intimidation and thus that the poll watchers are acting in a legal and/or ethically and/or operationally objectionable manner and thus need to be stopped will be a strategy.  I've seen that building for several months.

Were I advising the Trump side, I would say the following:

 - We have some legitimate concerns about potential election fraud and the reasons for these concerns are clear and abundant (thanks PVA and others!)

 - We detest any form of intimidation on the part of our volenteer activists monitoring polls and will not tolarate it.

 - We welcome any activists who wish to monitor our volenteer activists and we believe that it will produce confidence in whatever findings we arrive at.

 - We will not tolarate any intimidation or violence against our perfectly valid and common-sense activities, and unfortunatly this election has proven that the Democratic candidate has already funded such violent efforts so we are legitimately concerned here.

The red shirt idea seems to be taking hold.   I put on my opposite hat and asked what would I do to thwart such a thing?  If it seems to be something which would produce a threat, I would advise Dems to also wear red.  Remembering that the kinds of mind-numbed drones which populate the left these days, all one needs is a plausible excuse no matter how far fetched.  The mainstream media will shout out 24/7 that the sea of red shirts means nothing.

This was a relative snoozer to me.  Yes, it pretty much nailed down what it technically criminal behavior on the part of Clinton herself, but it's weak because in most peoples' minds it can be framed as a harmless little idea which should be legal for her to implement.  If she bent a few 'silly' rules in the heat of battle, oh well.  If she was not working under Obama's justice department it could prove a source of problems, but she is and we have to accept that.

If I were a corp/gov strategist, I'd make lemonade out of lemons here.  The herd can't help but be getting a little uncompfortable with the union between Clinton and corporate America.  Here we have an opening to 'prove' that some evil corporation thwarted Hillary's ideas so she was forced to bend a little rule.  I'm pretty sure I could implant that idea into the 'hive mind' in a fairly solid way if I had my hands on the levers.

As I recall Assange did a degree of hacking (using the term as representing the simple act of writing code to solve interesting problems) at points in his career.  Probably more importantly, a degree of threat analysis to inform his designs.  The one I remember was (at least a stab at) a hierarchical scheme of encrypting file-systems such that one could be rubber hosed into 'giving up' something and an attacker would not know if it was complete.  In some respects it is an expression of steganography though not in the typical form or solving the typical problems that is more commonly considered.

I sometimes wonder how much of Assange's current predicament are a result of living out a dream which he clearly envisioned, and how much of his earlier work was a result of future plans.

Something else I just thought of is that for certain relatively special persons, a bullet in the brain-pan may be an action that is eventually regretted due to specific physical damage.  Hal Finney might be an example since his brain may well be the only source of access to an eventual source of great monetary value.  Assange because there is really no realistic limit to certain dead-man's switch configuration parameters (or the number of such switches.)  Crynogenic suspension might be a indicated in such instances in case it can actually be made to work.  Hal opted for that on his own, or so the story goes at least.

To a certain class of 'management style' in certain not uncommon environments, 'transparency' of the dead bodies and the means by which they became cold is not a bug, it's a feature(tm).  Yes, historically it's not been that common here in the U.S., but it is routine in other parts of the world.

It's about as clear as the nose on one's face that Hillary Clinton has leave to do, or have her operatives do, basically anything she likes without interference from the (cough, cough) 'justice' department.  Increasingly it is also an operational necessity to ramp up the intimidation factor to deter some of the most damaging types of behavior such as whistle-blowing.  As nasty as Obama has been here, he's a real Mr. Nice Guy compared to what is possible and, by every indication, what is planned under a Hillary Clinton regime.

Those drawing attention to the so-called 'Clinton body count' are at this point doing the woman a favor.

Remember this thing was always supposed to be Jeb v. Hillary.  Just like GW vs. Kerry (and pretty much every other election in recent memory), the establishment couldn't lose.  If some outsider or undesirable (Carson, Paul, etc) would have gotten the Rep nod the mainstream media would have just turned up the heat until he/she was toasty brown and it would not have taken 1/10th of what they've hit Trump with.  They have been pedal to the metal for months now and have already scored cylinders and thrown rods in the process and are effectively a 'junk core' as mechanics call it.  They had no choice and were not a picture of health even before.  Now their only hope is for Hillary to save their asses by criminalizing the alt media...same as the scientists who won't capitulate on the settled pseudo-science of global climate change.

What would have been really interesting would be if Sanders could have pulled it off.  In that case the establishment could not win.  The would have had to do some sort of false flag.  That may well be their course of action for the Trump crisis yet.

The only comparable election within my memory was the Clinton/GHWBush/Perot.  (Anyone here remember what the 'giant sucking sound' line was about?)  Ross was made an offer he could not refuse.  I'd bet money that Trump has been made the same offer several times by now but saw it coming and had something up his sleeve.

---

Edit:  Since it is not readily findable and some/most people don't know, when one buys a remanufactured replacement engine one ususally submits a core which is the old worn out engine.  The remanufacturer then performs various machine work on the core, installs new or similarly re-manufactured components and sells it to the next guy.  Sometimes an engine block is so fucked up that it is not possible to used.  An example would be having a hole in the side where a thrown connecting rod exited.  This would be a 'junk core' and valuable only for scrap.  Not even worth the shipping costs.

The mainstream media is into the 'junk core' stage of damage at this point as I read things.  Not even possible to re-build.  Yes, they still have some value in being able to influence some decent fractions of lower-end lemmings and have various intellectual property holdings and what-not, but probably don't have the potential to ever again have any meaningful credibility.  Next we see them will be under a new name a-la: al qaeda ('the [[CIA's]data]base') --> ISIS/IS/ISIL/daesh/etc.

I've found the internet 'different' in some nebulous way that I cannot put my finger on over the last few days.  Lots of suspicious things about anything related to Assange and Wikileaks, and a few other sensitive subjects.  Old vids which are not labeled as such from new-ish actors and frustrating stuff like that.  Mainly just a lack of information.  Some say Assange has been captured or killed.  Whatever the case, the amount of information of any quality which is available does not seem to be nearly up to my expectations in terms of volume.

(BTW, this is what I, and seemingly I alone, would expect a so-called 'internet kill switch' to look like.  Much more subtle than most people probably envision.)

One interesting hypothesis that I've heard and credit some youtuber named montegraph for is this:  Basically, Wikileaks is 'under new management' and by elements of the U.S. intelligence apparatus.  The catch is that they are basically carrying on with business as usual because they don't want Hillary either!

Such a deal would suite both Assange and the proposed intel folks well.  The former might get his freedom and his life and his most important current project seen through to boot.  The latter might be able to avoid release of the dead-man's switch and get some technical assistance running the ship.

Ya, it's a pretty wild hypothesis but sometimes life is stranger than fiction so one never knows.  At least it's rare in real-time.

---

I think it was several years ago by now that I pointed out somewhere here on this board somewhere that the giant mass of data which the NSA (and others) are collecting has at least one possible upside to go along with it's immense dangers.  Only with access to such a thing would it be possible to do a thorough job of 'draining the swamp.'  Whether this happens or not probably comes down to the disposition of only a handful of people who we will probably never know of.  They truly swing the chute door between one of several completely different futures for the world.

One rather obvious possibility is that Wikileaks has little information on Trump, or little that is of particular importance.  In fact he called for some the other day as I recall.  Wikileaks is first and foremost a messenger and not a generator.

For my part, I think that it's pretty plausible that Wikileaks is awash with info on Hillary in part because so many people 'in the know' are so horrified by the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency that they feel their hands forced to a degree.  Also it is now obvious that there is a wealth of material demonstrating her and her associates malfeasance because they are amazingly corrupt.  Information which is comparable in quantity or quality may simple not exist in the cast of Trump.

The dude can barely speak.  I'd certainly put him somewhere in the puppeteer chain, but neither at the top nor as a neighbor node (aka, a handler.)  Not at the top because of his almost ridiculously public face is unlikely to be characteristic of someone at the top.  My belief is that someone like Soros or Kissinger were chosen and groomed precisely because they showed extreme psycho-pathology (and thus promise) at an early age.  To get an idea of who might be nearer the top, analyze who did this selection.

Soros is, I believe, acting as a honeypot to attract attention and thus detract from it being directed elsewhere.  The dude being like 98 years old or whaterever also gives him a very valid excuse to exit stage-left whenever it is convenient.  His creepy kid is likewise expendable.  Basically a fall-guy in training.

---

Edit:  As for the question, look for someone on the Trilateral Commission.  Study Patrick Woods' work explorations involving 'Technocracy' to understand why I say this.  In fact, do it anyway.  Please!

And...if Trump (should he get in) pulls a Ronald Reagan and is an outsider who immediately stocks his cabinet (and the USTR slot) with a Trilateral, it will answer the burning question about whether he is 'for real' or not.

Clowns (with graduate degrees) and 'climate change' are joined at the hip, and the former promulgate other 'problems' as well.  But higher up the food chain we do find the political and economic actors of corp/gov.

Through 'the wisdom of crowds' a fairly legitimate threat ranking seems to appear after all!

True historically, but it's time to make some changes.

BTW, I personally and I suspect almost everyone, would accept a Trump loss if it is legitimate.  By 'legitimate', I mean a count of only valid votes cast by anyone who wished to do so (and application of our absurd and obtuse electoral college since nobody has gotten around to legally updating it.)

If through obviously duplicitous media interference enough people have been duped into giving Clinton (or Stein or Johnson or Satan) a free and fair win, so be it.  I'll accept that even if it means the end of the constitution,...since under that scenario there really isn't a very different possible outcome anyway but just a question of how long it would take.  That event would simply accelerate my research into how to make an escape factoring in the evolving global landscape.

OTOH, if the election is stolen (again), I don't intend to stand down.  It's probably as common as not for the election to be a result of fraud of one form or another over my 50 year lifetime.  The difference here is that it was not terribly important which of the two puppets happened to win.  Although I am far from certain that Trump is 'for real', and if he is that he will stay that way, he has the highest probability of being so than anyone I've seen in the final so far.  The primary basis for my belief here is precisely the amount of pushback he is getting from the establishment and it's getting extreme.  The more they push and the more shitty and desperate their tactics, the stronger my conviction here.

I'm don't really care if it's 'a gang' thing, and it never crossed my mind.  The idea would be to demonstrate a theft against a landslide, so it doesn't make much sense unless internal polling shows a genuine landslide near the election.  It's more an act of civil disobedience against a system which is telling us to quietly accept deception and don't make a fuss.

If this election and the psy-ops used by TPTB shows anything it shows how powerful the herd influence is.  Probably the longest prong of the efforts have been to try to convince people that Hillary is popular and Trump is not.  Tough to do when Trump has 20,000 showing up to his numerous rallies while Hillary is lucky to get a couple hundred people show up to the few rallies she does have.  Crazy!  The best the MSM can do is to hide this reality, and they are doing a fairly good job of it.

Win, lose or draw, I don't have any qualms about letting the public and the world know that I was a Trump supporter during the election.  It is, to me, the only possible rational choice this time around and I'm happy to be known to have made it and stood fast (absent some actual meaningful complaint against the guy between now and then.)  Even if Trump does get the presidency and turns out to be terrible, I'll still be confident that I made the only rational choice given the available information.

I don't worry about physical attacks for my 'colors' in part because it is not a big threat in my environment and in part because I am obviously capable of defending myself.  Going forward, even if Hillary gets in moves forward with Obama's embryonic domestic brown-shirt programs, I'm even more happy to be recognized locally as the resistance.  If in the worst case scenario it eventually costs me my property or my life (which I would not completely rule out) then so be it.

I particularly like the last idea.  If, somehow, it could be possible to get a large fraction of Trump voters to do this it could make a good visual representation which would be hard to ignore.  Through a bit of polling on a locality basis, it also should be possible to fairly accurately obtain the ratio of:

 - voting Trump, wearing red
 - voting Trump, no red - forgot
 - voting Trump, no red - don't wish to be identified
 - not voting Trump - happened to be wearing red

and thus paint a pretty clear picture of his support.

In my state we vote by mail (making fraud a lot more difficult and catching it more easy if there is a will to do so.)  If a 'red shirt' effort caught fire I would find one and plan on going to town to take care of whatever errands I have stacked up.

BTW, it will be awfully interesting to see if the state of Oregon differs significantly from the exit poll and final tally results in other areas.  I plan to put a secret mark on my ballot and take a picture of it.  If there is a re-count and things get that far, I'll expect to see my water-marked ballot among the group.  Typically there are about 100 ballots from my unincorporated area so it should not be difficult to find it.  I know the local election folks at one point at least had the ballots segregated to this level of precision else they could not have gotten the count.  If they shuffle them together and claim that it's to onerous to find mine, or if they burn them before a re-count could be performed, it will be quite suspicious.

---

Lastly, I noticed with interest that Trump made a point of NOT clarifying what he meant at the end of the debate when the question of accepting the 'results' came up.  He left himself open to attack, and the attacks have been fast and furious already.  I think it's a trap.  Now he can use the PVeritas material to the max which will make it difficult for the media to sustain a blacklist of it, and will ultimately result in it capturing people's interest and thus more eyeballs.  If I'm right about the trap, Trump is a hell of a smart cookie and also a very fast thinker.  He needs to be with so much stacked against him!

I was conversing with one of my NPR-ish progressive informants recently and stated my position that 'if the election is demonstrably stolen and some other groups who I could have some degree of confidence in stages a coup, I would support it.'

My informant was shocked.  I tried to describe my philosophy which is, in my opinion very rational, but I'm not sure it sunk in.

My philosophy is that if the election is stolen, the 'victors' are thieves.  If a coup is undertaken successfully, the participants are also thieves.  So it is a matter of picking the thief who one considers to have the highest probability of producing a good outcome.  'Good' is subjective and means different things to different people of course.  For my part, 'good' means furthering of the nation in something close to the form that the framer's envisioned.

Indeed, in the case of a coup dealing with a stolen election in a putative Democracy, it is a matter of a thief stealing from another thief.  In a double-negative-ish sort of way it could be the case that a natural non-thief was converted into one by a bad situation.  So, there is more hope for the coup participants who might be OK than for the election subverters who are 'bad' by definition...as I define it at least.

I also pointed out, or tried to, that there are nations in which coups are not all that uncommon in modern times and those who have pulled them off (often the military) have relinquished power as the threats to the nation diminished.  Or as support drained away, or whatever.  From my crude understandings, Turkey is a good example of this.

---

With respect to the election, I'm sensing quite strongly that there is a media psy-op regarding the polls.  The goal is just to provide some cover for an election theft.  Part of what makes me suspicious is that it is what I'd do as a strategy if I were 'evil' (and paid.)  The other part is that even given the massive media efforts to assult Trump and prop up Clinton, it makes not much logical sense that the polls are doing what is reported (for the most broadly reported of them) and it doesn't square with the on-the-ground support which can be seen/sensed through the media smokescreen.

I'm not saying that my senses here are right, but in just about every other part of this campaign my senses, when they have been this solid, have been right on.  The volumes of Wikileaks data, as well as other sources such as PVeritas, have time and time again simply provided fairly bullet-proof confirmation of something I've sensed with a high degree to be the reality.  It's almost spooky.

I'd almost bet money that we'll at one point see leaked confirmation of a polling psy-op as I've described.  The main reason I would not is that I have little confidence that leaks will be common, or even possible, if the Clinton side 'wins'.  It has ever likelihood of being an earth-changing development and a gateway between today's relative mobility (in multiple ways) and a world with is significantly different in this regard.

Me too, and I was sort of one myself for a long time although I always had some significant policy differences.

Part of what kept me voting mostly Dem was that the Republicans were autrocious.  Finally we have a candidate that is hated by the establishment Dems and Repubs (which I never expected to see and didn't think possible in today's world) and probably the most flawed Dem candidate ever to run, and my fam continues to be team players.  Worst still, some of them are getting more hard-core against Trump as each jaw-droping wikileak comes out about the Dems and each ridiculous attack on Trump is pumped by the MSM.  They are not even total drueling idiots either!  Just sort of trendies I guess.  It's really disapointing.  Were it not for my experiances here, I would completely rule out that the polls are not rigged by 25%.  As it is, just looking at the polling methodology in the MSM (when it is even available) shows what's going on.  They just need 'plausibly deniability' for an election theft, and it looks like that is what is on the drawing board.

Again, if the election is demonstrably stolen and the right people in the govt stage a coup, I'd probably support it.  Things are this desperate as I read the tea-leaves!

To a degree my views are shaped by working in environments where probably half of my peers were H1B.  They did a huge amount for the industry and the country (to the extent that our work was not net negative and history is yet to be written on that one...one way all of us working on our tasks were at least neutral.)

Actually, my experiences in school and simply just personal philosophy and study of history led me to my way of thinking before I worked in the tech industry.  My experiences there simply solidified up my views.

To me 'American' is a mindset, and the best proxy for it is outlined in our constitution.  Even now, 240-ish years and much gorp/gov abuse later, that still holds.  That is why I say that there are a lot highly 'American' people have never been to our country and may not have even considered it.  Unlike the above (scrape other nations for talent), this construct is a fairly recent invention of mine.

I've never been much of a patriot of flag waver and only fairly recently started to appreciate certain of the positives of the country as I study things more.  Now I am quite interested to retain hold on what we have left and hopefully claw back some of what we've lost.  Immigration could help a bunch or hurt a bunch depending on who is implementing it.  It could be the case that so many native born Americans are so brainwashed and fucked up that immigrants are actually our only hope.

Actually, the kind of foreign person who would support Trump's America, or at least the picture he paints of it, may well be welcomed with open arms.

As a system analyst and strategist, I consider the U.S.'s best hope would be to create an environment which people would wish to live in, then selectively accept the most 'cream of the crop' from other nations.  This means liberty, fairness, opportunity, and rule of law.

My only qualm about this strategy are ethical;  it screws other nations and puts them at a perpetual disadvantage.  My hope would be that in order for the other nations to compete they would try to better their own country as well.  I admit that this hope is fairly pie-in-the-sky though.  If we really wanted to be good guys, we'd refuse to take good people from shitty countries with the hope that they would stay home and work on fixing their problems.

Just talking to an informant on the Democrat side.  Unsurprisingly, this person heard that throwing political opposites in jail is a 'third world thing.'  I heard the (shell-shocked looking) Andrea Mitchel say this right after the debate so I knew it was going to be a talking point that would get play.  Here would be my rebuttal:

You know what else goes on in third-world banana republics?  Politically powerful people get away with anything and everything since they are above the law.  That's what!

I'm pretty sure I myself have said worse things than the 'locker room talk' of The Donald...but in my defense, I kind of stopped doing it a lot about 20 years ago.  Not because I 'found religion' or because recording devices became ubiquitous, but mostly just that I came to view it as mildly low-class and unnecessary.  I'm quite sure that I never meant anything genuinely demeaning about women even back in the day, and I'm pretty sure that about the same percentage of women at least say fairly lewd things about men in their various hen-parties.  To me it is fairly normal human nature.

Trump has found the long-lost 'moral majority'.  It was hiding out in the Democratic party all along!

In Trump's captured and retained utterances, I find several things to like:

 - He is willing to give up on something he really wants when he wants it for the wrong reasons.  He didn't 'take it by force'...and his 'wife' (more accurately, his biz-partner) thus didn't cover for him by intimidating his victim.

 - He is willing to admit failure.

 - He doesn't care for fake breasts.

I find it plausible that the Trump side leaked the recording just to tie up opposition.  More than anything the tape speaks volumes about the desperation of the mainstream.  Here again we see a 'two day atop google-news' item which means that it is pumped strategically.  I really expected more genuine dirt to come up on the real-estate mogul who played with casinos...but we still have almost a month.

Anything which pops up at this late hour I will consider quite suspicious no matter what side it is from.  I consider the mainstream (MSM, DemPublican, corp/gov, etc) and their candidate to be desperate and willing to do literally anything.  The Trump side, on the other hand, has a mountain of un-mined raw material to work with which is already public...simply neglected entirely by the media which is totally in the tank for Hillary.