It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

You're being manipulated. More evidence of blatant censorship.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 09:17 AM
a reply to: butcherguy

I hope it's evident when she craps her pants at her first POTUS news conference and subsequently has a seizure at the podium. then there will be crap smeared all over while EMTs try to take care of her limp old fat arse rolling around on the floor beside the podium. Well, one can dream, right. Rumor has it that she has suffered from incontinence and seizures ever since her accident where she fell down the stairs and had to take six months off for rehabilitation. edit on b000000312016-07-27T08:15:01-05:0008America/ChicagoWed, 27 Jul 2016 08:15:01 -0500800000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

That kind of filthy vindictive thinking is exactly why people need to think about who they would elect as President.
Really America, is the candidate that this guy supports really want you want?
Do you want to live in a country ran by someone who shares the values of one who could publicly post such vile dark demented fantasies?


posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 09:30 AM
The beautiful thing is, this will hit the media outlets and work in favour of Trump.

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 10:44 AM
a reply to: dreamlotus1111

She is NOT the first woman to run for the office of the presidency see below

Please check your facts before stating them

Victoria Woodhull (1872)

Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for President of the United States as the candidate for the Equal Rights Party. She was a suffragette, a champion for equal rights (as her party’s name suggests), and an advocate for “free love,” which she meant as the freedom for people to marry, divorce, and bear children without government interference.

Woodhull’s groundbreaking run for the presidency is even more impressive when its full context is considered: She ran for president in a time when women did not even have the legal right to vote. Woodhull was a pioneering suffragette, and she believed, and publically argued, that women actually already had the legal right to vote under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. She presented this argument before the House Judiciary Committee in 1871, but the Supreme Court ruled against her interpretation of the Constitution. Women who showed up to the polls to vote for any party in the 1872 election were arrested.

Woodhull’s campaign was also revolutionary in its nomination for vice president, electing former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass to its ticket (though Douglass never publically acknowledged the nomination). It was the goal of Woodhull and the Equal Rights Party to reunite the causes of women’s equality and racial equality, as a schism between the movements was created two years earlier when the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote but still denied the right to women of every race.

For all her revolutionary acts on behalf of women’s rights, Woodhull had trouble securing the support of even the most revolutionary female thinkers and activists in the country—the women who perhaps should have realized, better than most, what Woodhull’s run for the presidency meant for their own lives and their liberal causes. (It’s, sadly, a familiar tale even today, told by Hillary and her strained—sometimes non-existent—support from female Obama and Bernie loyalists.) The most striking example of women denying support to Woodhull involves suffragette Susan B. Anthony.

Thirteen years before Woodhull’s run for the presidency, in 1859, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a leading figure of the early women’s rights movement, wrote to Anthony, “When I pass the gate of the celestials and good Peter asks me where I wish to sit, I will say, ‘Anywhere so that I am neither a negro nor a woman. Confer on me, great angel, the glory of White manhood, so that henceforth I may feel unlimited freedom.’” The correspondence between the friends and peers shows their early recognition of the disadvantages women of all races faced in the U.S. However, when it came to the 1872 election, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton did not vote for Woodhull, though both publically applauded Woodhull’s pioneering efforts on behalf of all women. Anthony’s (illegal, and therefore irrelevant) vote was cast for a straight Republican ticket. Woodhull did not receive any electoral votes, and Republican Ulysses S. Grant won the election.

Woodhull tried again to run for president in 1884 and 1892, gaining more traction in ‘92, when she was nominated to be the presidential candidate by the National Woman Suffragists’ Nominating Convention. Marietta Stowe was nominated to Woodhull’s ticket as the Convention’s candidate for vice president. The nominations were more symbolic than anything, unfortunately, as the nominating committee was unauthorized and nothing came of their proposed Woodhull/Stowe ticket.
edit on 27-7-2016 by tow69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 10:46 AM
One more side note 12 woman have ran for office before Hillary

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 11:10 AM
Bing is trying to slow Gary Johnson's progress too.

How long did it take for you to notice his small square?

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 11:52 AM
a reply to: UnknownQuantity

I did a bing search in America and got this.

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 01:29 PM
a reply to: Gin

Get the same result in the UK as America

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 01:33 PM
Maybe the reason she pops up first is because her name is the one that is searched the most.

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 03:54 PM
a reply to: UnknownQuantity

More lies from the [scratch]liberal[/scratch] propaganda machine.

The practice of censoring has long been in place for centuries and has become more sophisticated since the days of the Vatican forbidding people to read, or own, a copy of the Bible. However, the basic formula remains unchanged. Propaganda has always been the weapon of choice.

However, I wouldn't be bothered if there wasn't already enough proof that they have been censoring it specifically to prop up their pocket politician.

Google denying participating in a practice of using technology and modern communication for censoring in order to manipulate minds within society is humorous. Governments, businesses, and other special interest agencies have used the media for this across a broad scope of interest since the turn of the 20th century.

"Modern means of communication—the power afforded by print, telephone, wireless and so forth, of rapidly putting through directive strategic or technical conceptions to a great number of cooperating centers, of getting quick replies and effective discussion—have opened up a new world of political processes.

Ideas and phrases can now be given an effectiveness greater than the effectiveness of any personality and stronger than any sectional interest. The common design can be documented and sustained against perversion and betrayal. It can be elaborated and developed steadily and widely without personal, local and sectional misunderstanding." - Edward Bernays from the book Propaganda (1928)


That's just flat out manipulation.

That has always been the end goal and this is why I find it humorous to observe grown ass people invest their energy, thoughts, emotions, time and freedom into debating and participating in politics. See all those people cheering, clapping, and crying at conventions for either side, or are huddled in their living rooms with their faces in the TV? Those are the people who make others wealthy. They are the ones in society who are easily exploited. God bless them for their stupidity.

They should use that time to do something fun in life instead, like follow their passions, or volunteer for a worthy cause instead of being blind sheep cheerleaders.

[The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.

So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.

This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala. His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.

—Noam Chomsky (From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Institute, June 1997)

Under modern conditions of political advertising and manipulation, it has become possible to talk of the engineering of consent by an elite of experts and professional politicians. Consent that is thus engineered is difficult to distinguish in any fundamental way from the consent that supports modern totalitarian governments. Were the manipulated voter to become the normal voter, the government he supports could hardly be said to rest on his consent in any traditional sense of that word. - Edward Bernays

I have no respect for adults, especially those 40 years and older, who still buy into this political ish (propaganda). Half these people, despite their strong opinions, have never heard of The Brookings Institute and its ilk.

Talk about denying ignorance...

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:35 PM
a reply to: UnknownQuantity

You're being manipulated. More evidence of blatant censorship.

I think it best to keep the adage "Life ain't fair" first and foremost in the mind from cradle to grave.

Unfortunately, we will never have Utopia where everything IS fair and life is a breeze. We seem to be condemned to beat the hard path.

posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:38 PM

originally posted by: RealityIncarnate
The withholding of information, i.e., lying, is a horrible infraction against all of the Elements. It violates Free Will because it removes a possible Choice. It violates Chaos because misinformation creates stagnation of Progress. It violates Time because knowing that someone is a liar hurts Unity.

I am Free Will Incarnate. Reality has awoken from its sleep death, in me. I will soon make all right, all balanced.

The End of Everything is nigh.

I am Free Will Incarnate.

Well then. You're just like Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy and an honest politician. They don't exist and neither does free will. Censorship however is going strong, but then corporations like Google base their profit models on trends, so manipulation of the search engine becomes necessary in the event of a trend that would disrupt their profit model. Nothing altruistic here, it's all censorship and propaganda for profit.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 12:42 PM

originally posted by: Badams
It's trump, I'm unsure how this is a bad thing.

Because depending how things swing, next time it could be your candidate. You know...fairness all around?

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 02:39 PM
OH Butcherguy,,,,you totally butchered her....I gotta go show my wife, she'll love it!!!

a reply to: butcherguy

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 02:46 PM
a reply to: dreamlotus1111

So your ok with the fact she has been chosen and the election process is just a farce? thats what you seem to imply in your post

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in