Insulting their preference is just going to turn them off. Insisting on your preference is no better.

What you need to show them is the level of corruption that has been taking place and that it serves no one except for the entrenched powers to hold on to their place of power and greed.

In other words, the only wedge you have is doubt in the truth of what they have been listening to on the issues. In other words, they have to gradually be exposed to the possibility that their sources are propaganda machines. The real issues include the fact that wikileaks has presented actual evidence that cannot be shown as fabricated, and that it likely came from US insiders. If your friends have been listening to or have loyalty to certain disinfo agents like Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper, you are going to have to show some other credible sources.

Its an uphill battle. Don't sweat it, the main thing is to keep your cool and not get caught trying to lay out too steep of a hill, where you look nuts. Its just a matter of five or ten bullet points that would be relevant in front of someone sane, like Jill Stein.

Any civil process from here would have to be incremental and deliberative. There is no instant solution. Was there an instant solution to German attitudes towards Hitler at the end of WWII? Good Germans were very comfortable with their heads in a hole, and very uncomfortable pulling their heads out.

No need to start out guns blazing with mkultra. Start out with normal corruption and body count before you work your way up to the really messed up stuff. Let them get used to the idea of hillary being slime in the more traditional sense, it will make the more fantastical (but to my mind the most damning and believable) claims easier to swallow. Good luck, keep fighting the good fight!

You can try Clinton Cash documentary on YouTube. One of the bigger hits is how much money she is taking from foreign governments, and also exploited as Secretary of State

I've had success starting off with Syria. Ask them if they know what our mission is there. Then ask them who's involved. Then ask them who's on which side.

That gets people thinking that the news might not be telling them the whole truth.

Then slowly ease them into the murderous, kid fucking, terrorist funding, treasonous, world of the Clintons.

Tell them to OPEN THEIR EYES. Read a book, an article or 650k. Don't convince them, let them convince themselves. Its obvious if you LOOK.

They would say the same thing to him. It's a perfect mirror image.

To who? Trump? Cognitive dissonance. They watch too much (propaganda) T.V. You can't help those who do not wish to be helped.

To OP. And they would say OP likes his conspiracy theories too much, listens to too much right-wing hate speech.

We're both being played.

Ah i see what you are saying now. You are more than likely correct. Anyone questioning the status quo of generalized thought is maligned. Sad really.

Then let them live in ignorance. Its pointless trust me, I remember showing my friends the evidence and it goes no where. Cognitive Dissonance: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

Its not even their fault really, we are propagandized to death with the MKULTRA BOX. Trying to fight an uphill battle my friend.

Give em some shroom's. haha. That will wake them up quick. No but seriously all the info you will ever need is right here on r/conspiracy. I would link some but it is already available to you. She has been lying about shit for decades. Take your pick of info. Benghazi is a great starting point. She said that she was under sniper fire when she arrived and yet there is a video that completely obliterates that claim. She was hugging dignitaries and other ambassadors when she arrived. Zero panic, zero fear, nothing.

The Facts

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not “too dangerous” a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on Jan. 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton’s plane come “under sniper fire” in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including The Washington Post’s John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the first lady. “As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened,” said Pomfret.

Link

Video

Haiti is accessible. It's not murder cover-ups, pedo, or occult "weird" stuff. A simple Google search will show how the Clintons siphons billions of dollars to their friends and associates, while a very tiny fraction was for helping the Haitians. Hell, their most "successful" venture was a sweatshop they built in an unaffected area, "employed" (enslaved) less than 10% of what it was supposed to, and pays no taxes to Haiti. The icing on the cake? The us govt then assisted the corporations in blocking a minimum wage increase from $3 a day to $5 a day.

•Clinton Foundation and Hilary's ties to convicted child trafficker Laura Silsby, caught trying to kidnap 33 children in the chaotic aftermath of Haitian earthquake. *https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794247777756860417

•Hillary and Bill's close friendship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, accused of recruiting dozens of underage girls, as young as 14, into a sex slave network. Flight logs indicate Bill flew on Epstein's 757 nicknamed Lolita Express, reportedly outfitted with a bed for passengers to have group sex with young girls on, at least 27 times and declined SS protection on at least 5 trips. *http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/

•During plea negotiations for child prostitution case, claimed he was co-founder of Clinton Foundation and lawyers touted close relationship with former POTUS *https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3679023/amp/Billionaire-sex-offender-Jeffrey-Epstein-claimed-helped-Clinton-Foundation-touted-close-relationship-former-president-plea-bargain-negotiations.html?client=safari

*Clinton foundation schemed with big pharma to keep the prices of AIDs drugs high and not allow generic AIDs drugs into the United States. *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24440#efmAZwAcGAePAgkAizAj9

•5.7% of Clinton Foundations funds actually go to charity, not 90% claimed by Hillary during last debate *https://i.sli.mg/68kZkR.png

•CF failed to disclose $20 million donations from foreign governments *https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/11/05/the-clinton-foundations-off-the-books-20-million-mystery/amp/?client=safari

•HC claims her family does not make money off the foundation, leaked email from Bill Clinton's aide Doug Band reveal that Clinton fortune and Foundation are indistinguishable and essentially the same, and donations to Foundation come with kickbacks for all involved and bolster contributors influence. Clinton Foundation even hired a law firm to see if their pay for play scheme would jeopardize their charitable status with IRS. $50 million in for profit activity. *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32240

•As Secretary of State, HC sold 20% of America's uranium to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/286

•Still privately against gay marriage, was publicly against gay marriage until 2013 when Court ruled in favor of it and "evolved" *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emailsemailid/2631

•Publicly condemns any notion of preventing Syrian refugee program from happening as racist and says she wants a 550% increase in Syrian refugees. Privately admits that program will be infiltrated by terrorists *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/905 *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

•Publicly claims to be anti-fracking, privately is pro-fracking *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4081 *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11011 *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927%23attachments

•Racist remarks about blacks and muslims *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1637 •Belonged to a "only whites" golf club at the same time Donald Trump was leading fight to include blacks and Jews in his golfing clubs *http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/21/us/the-1992-campaign-democrats-clinton-says-golfing-at-all-white-club-was-mistake.html *http://conservativetribune.com/what-trump-did-to-jews-blacks/

•Using a female senator to conjure fake sexist claims against Bernie *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22224

•Draft on her plan of supporting the TPP "ahead of action on the Hill". *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6616

•Hillary will tweak her policies based on donor's wants. Proves she will literally do anything for money. She takes money from countries that under Sharia law kill gay people, enslave women. She changes her policies based on who gives her what and sells U.S. assets to countries who donate in pay to play schemes. *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25320#efmAFmAHCATBAUQ

•Clinton Foundation did not pay for services it recieved,related to Clinton Foundation pocketing nearly all funds it raised for Haiti after earthquake. *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25770#efmADXAFGAHrAJq

•Staging fake anti-trump protest, and conspiring with Univision CEO *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3718

•Meeting to go over Cheryl Mills' testimony to FBI/Congress *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12105#efmAC4ADoAHvAIE •Clinton campaign memorized their email cover up script *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1822

•Proof that Clinton campaign is coordinating directly with Correct the Record (Super PAC) against federal campaign law *https://www.wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/5636

•Mark Zuckerberg in direct contact with the Hillary Campaign, wants to meet people who can help him understand 'effective political operations to advance public policy goals' on the specific public policies he cares most about. *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15092#efmARfAUUAZpAd9AfGAf6 •Facebook manipulates its trending stories to not show pro-Trump/anti-Hillary articles,trends,or videos. Pro-Trumo stories with hundreds of thousands of mentions are deleted to make room for anti-Trump stories with less than a thousand mentions. Case across Youtube, Twitter, YouTube, and Google.

•Algorithms,media collusion, and rally policies enacted (Confiscation of mobile devices if 100 supporters, no tv cameras if 100 or more so it could never be reported- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5240) create a completely artificial manufactured reality of overwhelming Clinton support and societal condemnation of Donald Trump despite Trump rallies getting 30,000 supporters (https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/trump-rallies1.jpg) and Clinton getting 200 or less (https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/media-caught-lying-about-the-crowd-size-of-hillary-clinton-rallys)

•CEO of Google (parent company) Eric Schmidt was working for the Clinton Campaign as a consultant. HC campaign headquarters location even followed CEO's suggestion. Schmidt talks about the Voter Key, a database of voters which collects "all that is known about them... In 2016, smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profile on the voter." *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11472

•Clinton campaign and press collude on her Tax Return/Health Records rollout, complete schedule of release (round 1,2,3)and headlines, ledes, and focus expected to be seen. Based on framing of earlier round of stories, best chance of promoting "helpful storylines" and burying possible found inconsistencies in her tax returns. *https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11277

•Between 2010 and 2012, Secretary of State Clinton approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations ,including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar ("level of counter terrorism cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region."), that had donated to the Clinton Foundation. Another $151 billion worth of Pentagon brokered deals to 16 of these nations. In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. *http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

•Hillary often touts the Clinton Foundations AIDs Initiatives as one of the greatest accomplishments of the Foundation. According to its website, "For the first time, there is real promise that we can turn the tide against HIV/AIDS." due to the foundations efforts over the last decade. After months of investigation into the charity,Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortega, concluded that Clinton family was siphoning off tens of millions of dollars annually from funds Foundation has received from a United Nations-sponsored program that uses levies on airline tickets to help HIV/AIDs victims in the Third World *http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/ •While also reportedly distributing useless drugs to AIDSs patients in Third World countries *http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/clinton-foundation-distributed-useless-drugs-to-aids-patients/

[deleted]

You will never convince anybody of anything. You have to give them information that will allow them to convince themselves. For most blue-pill consumers, the types of information they will "allow" themselves to accept is very limited. If you talk about murder coverups, their eyes will glaze over. Talking about CIA mind control, occult, or pedo rings will cause them to immediately shut down any information you give them.

The trick is finding the right type of information that they're willing to accept, and presenting in in a way that allows them to process it themselves, without too much of your own (ranting) commentary. It's slow going, and it won't fully win them over, but it's a nudge in the right direction, and it's all you can realistically expect.

This is why, when discussing Clintons' vileness with folks, I don't dive into elaborate murder coverups, pedocculty stuff, and any of that. Sure, I believe it's true, but I know that they'll never listen to a word of it. But I've used the available Haiti evidence to convince a few Hillary voters to change their minds. They still hate Trump, for good reason, but now Jill Stein has a few more votes :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI

Abby Martin on Hillary Corruption. About 6 months old though.

This doesn't count as evil necessarily, but she once supported the TPP. Now she says she doesn't support it anymore.

My two cents: You won't convince them that she is evil. Can't be done. Everything you've listed up there won't be believed for a second. Yet.

Discussions of politics these days have become a competitive place. When we discuss "politics," we are addressing choice--mainly because that is all the power that the average person has. We chose Candidate A or Candidate B, red or blue, pro- or anti-. If we care about more than one issue, then we weigh the stated positions accordingly. "Well, Candidate B is on my side of 8/10 of the issues I care about, so I suppose I'll vote for B."

Rhetorically, public discourse has been backed into a corner. It isn't that we actually discuss the issues themselves, we discuss conclusions related to the issues. There's little going on that leads someone to reach a conclusion themselves, just defenses offered against those who claim my conclusion is wrong or inadequate. This sets up a dialectic that we see modeled on the news, in the debates, etc., so that any regular person who wants to be "politically engaged" has plenty of reference models to look to when determining how to behave. It's about defending your candidate and undercutting the other, not about working through claims based on their merits.

Some here are likely victims of this, too. There is defeatism in the form of "if Hillary wins, then we lose." Or, "There are absolutely no good reasons to vote for Hillary even if Trump is the worse candidate." What does it mean to win? To lose? For a reason to be good or bad? Suppose I vote Hillary because were she to lose that's likely the end of her in politics. Maybe she needs to stay in the spotlight, make a few more moves to cover her tracks, keep all the attention on her so when she makes a mistake she'll be noticed.

Maybe I vote Trump. Just as many of use believed that Obama might usher in a new era of sincerity in politics, it seems that there are many Trump supporters who view his possible election as a gloriously erect middle finger to the establishment. It likely will not be. There is but one Trump; there are hundreds in Congress, thousands in consequential positions within the Executive apparatus who would all need to be on board in rocking the very boat that is sailing them to a happy retirement. I would not be surprised if the RNC brass are sitting on a Trump-ending bombshell that they could use in the event that he strays too far from the master plan.

It's less about who you vote for, and more about how you talk about politics. Winning and losing a race, a policy proposal, etc., is just participating in a framing device that Washington insiders have been using for decades.

Ask you family what makes a good government? What makes a fair process? How much should the people be listened to by those they represent? Ask them if they were in charge of making changes to politics that might result in a more representative, responsive government, how would they proceed?

Instead of being told what they can have and then accepting that they need to chose from one of the two, they can have an honest conversation about what they feel the purpose of a governing body should be. It will then be easier to show them how, on so many levels, we fall short of these ideals. It's about getting those you love to begin to ask questions themselves, not to be fed yet another conclusion--whether it comes from you or from the MSM.

So many respond, "So what? That's the way the game is played. If you don't want to see how the sausage is made, get the hell out of the kitchen." Does this mean there can only be one recipe?

If your family is math oriented or are gamers or something, I'd take some time to maybe explain or set up some play scenarios to illustrate ranked choice voting. The purpose is for people to look at the process of decisionmaking, not just the outcomes. Does RCV appear to be more fair? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses between RCV and first-past-the-post? Take a critical look at the concrete steps that are used in getting a candidate in office. Then maybe point to the letter the League of Women Voters wrote when they were bumped out of the debate process in 1988.

Sit down like you're reading over the rules of a boardgame. Does this seem fair? Why or why not? How can it be better? What kinds of things would count as a win for a voting public? Are these the same conditions of victory that might motivate a candidate for office?

Once we can ask these questions, it may be a little easier to see that there are certain dirty tricks out there that a campaign might use to achieve their goals that may not necessarily be in line with what might be best for a constituency. The goal is to get people to admit that A) Politics is a game in which fighting dirty is almost imperative to get ahead, and B) Having a game which basically requires winners to cheat is probably not a very good game for those of us on the sidelines.

This probably won't make them change their minds (and will likely take you months to adequately explain without alienating them completely), but maybe by next cycle they'll have a different outlook. "How has it come to pass that this is the decision I am faced with?" is a much, much better question than "Who do I vote for?" Teach a man to fish and whatnot.

Jon Voight's video about George Soros

Show them this from Wikileaks as well.

not much you can do at this point except sit back and enjoy the shitfest.

There are emails that specifically contain Chris Stevens being sent into Benghazi and him begging for extraction which never came.

Fox also reported that the state department hired AL queda connected people to protect them, and they turned on them.

That alone is treason.

Don't call it pizzagate. That sounds fun and friendly.

Call it KidFuckGate.

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/