The Fix Is In

Soon we will have a dead Iranian scientist gratis Hillary's email jaffe, as she discusses him divulging details about the Iranian nuclear program to her. He has been sentenced to die by an Iranian court. How many others; ambassadors, spies, moles, inside sources have been discovered and killed or compromised due to the contents of the files on her server being hacked?

I don't think the US intelligence community wants Hillary as President and feel she cannot be trusted. The bankers and globalist crowd have preselected Hillary but what if the NSA, CIA and FBI decided that isn't going to happen? They have a great deal of power and truly are at the center of control in many ways, the financial world being it's own entity expects to get it's way as it has for the last 100 years.

Perhaps a compromise will be worked out but if there is any real opposition to the NWO from inside our Alphabet agencies we may see a power struggle we never imagined happening. People like to dream there are "White hats" inside that will save us but it's just as likely they have their own selfish motives and not bound by the Constitution nor do they treat us like people but as citizens - a legal fiction to bind the individual to the state.

This could get messy in too many ways I don't want to start speculating about that.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

However, I simply loathe Trump and the Repubs even more. Trump called for putting all American Muslims in a database, surveillance of Muslims, closing mosques, etc. That directly affects myself and my family and is absolutely unacceptable.

You are already in a database. We all are.
You are already surveilled. We all are.

As for closing mosques... any Mosques that are proven to preach hatred should be closed and bulldozed.

1. If he was simply referring to the databases that you think we're already in, there'd be no need to make special ones just for Muslims. And you might want to check the 14th Amendment to our Constitution (Section 1).

2. What's the line between "preaching hate", "free speech, and "freedom of religion"? Because churches here (Deep South) openly preach against homosexuals, transsexuals, and even against Muslims. Does that count?

And terrorist groups like the KKK are completely legal here, even though they've killed thousands of Americans, burned down countless African American churches, and terrorized entire communities of Americans for 150 years (including killing 2 of my great uncles). And even conservative talk radio openly says stuff like this:

BTW this is the very same Mike Savage who was banned from entering your country for hate speech, but it's completely legal here too.

And listen to this justification for the Christian conquest of Native American lands.

But every single time we point out the "hate" that these groups preach, they claim that it's simply "free speech". So what constitutes "preaching hatred"?

1. Perhaps check all your amendments and then ask yourself why they all seem to be ignored at some point by the corrupt govts. that seem to share power from cycle to cycle in the US. Try placing your angst there.

I don't understand your point here. I want the govt to treat all citizens equally, which is in the 14th Amendment. Targeting Muslims is an obvious violation of that. As is censoring our freedom of speech and freedom of religion (1st Amendment violation). And targeted surveillance of our entire communities is at the very least a 4th Amendment violation against us, as well. Is that what you mean? Or are you saying it's ok to violate our constitutional rights?

2. If ANY religious (or other) gathering is planning, inciting or organising violence then they should be shut down and those involved arrested.

I notice you changed your words. Originally, you say "spreading hatred" which is what caused my response. As everyone on this board should know by know, I'm a pacifist. So obviously I'm against anyone who promotes or engages in violence. But that goes for everyone, not just Muslims.

The biggest terrorist threat today is radical Islamic terror.

And yet we're all more likely to die from cancers, heart disease, the flu and pneumonia, strokes, car accidents, dog bites, and nearly everything else.

We should deal with that first.

1. In the US, more than 30,000 Americans are killed from gun violence every year (with at least 10,000 of those being homicides). Compare that to less than 60 deaths by "Islamic" terrorism per year and I don't think it's the issue that needs the most addressing.

2. If you really feel like that, then you should be against our constant overseas wars & our unwavering military support of MidEast instigators. Drone strikes and "collateral damage" policies only increase the cycle of "murder which leaders to vengeance, which leads to murder, which leads to vengeance...".

Perhaps you should consider how the muslim community can best help and get involved.

(facepalm) I AM part of the Muslim community. You see my avy and sig don't you?

If you want to get into a contest on who can post the most clips of radical hatred being spewed, then it's radical islam that will win hands down.

And of course, you completely missed my point. I'm asking who determines what is considered "spreading hatred". I gave examples of what I consider to be "spreading hatred" in my country, yet all of those examples are perfectly legal here on "free speech" grounds.

In fact, the LGBT community can rightfully say that anyone promoting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is preaching hatred of homosexuality. So does that fit under "hate speech", "free speech", or under "freedom of religion"?

All citizens should be treated equally. Everyone is being surveilled, so they are.

My point is that singling out potential databases and monitoring on mosques is nonsensical, both from Trump suggesting it in the first place and those complaining he said it. You should be upset with the current administration (and the one before) that rode roughshod over the constitution in order to ‘keep you safe’. Something they have not delivered on.

Yes, for clarity – ALL people promoting violence should be arrested.

Other causes of death are already the topic of much discussion and effort to alleviate the problem, from medical research to cure cancer to background check for guns (though the guns are not the problem – another topic). Radical Islamic terror is not being tackled effectively, however, and a plan is needed to address it. It’s getting worse the world over.

I am very much against overseas wars and nation building. I hold America accountable in a large part for the troubles in the ME. That said, the past can not be undone and the motives for terrorism can not be taken into account in dealing with the immediate problem. For sure a part of the solution must be the cessation of the current American foreign policy, but it also has to tackle radicalization within the Muslim community.

I am well aware you are part of the Muslim community. How do you think you can help solve the problem, other than being critical of people who recognise it and are offering solutions (however unpalatable to you)?

“Spreading hatred” is not simply being nasty. I am talking about those that call for and actively incite violence and murder. It has nothing to do with free speech or freedom of religion.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DoctorCowboy
All I know is if you are poor, gay, tranny, or black lives matter supporter you are 100% with Her. Those are the kind of people my mom didnt want me to hang around.

Your mom told you to stay away from poor people?

She must be a lovely woman.

Only chronically poor but yes shes an angel. Can you believe that in an environment where tens of thousands of people are hired every single day that there are people who cant even feed themselves for periods of years??

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: DoctorCowboy
All I know is if you are poor, gay, tranny, or black lives matter supporter you are 100% with Her. Those are the kind of people my mom didnt want me to hang around.

Umm, is that a compliment or an insult?

I guess that depends on if youre into trannys or not? If you think we should fry cops like bacon? Or if you believe dropouts making freedom fries are worthy of $15 an hour? I know my friends and family vote no. Now I suppose you could turn things around and claim the fry fryers and trannys are actually the winners in all this but to each their own.

SOROS is spreading HIS IDEAS of fear...wearechange.org...



NOT in EXEPTIONAL America

originally posted by: DoctorCowboy

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: DoctorCowboy
All I know is if you are poor, gay, tranny, or black lives matter supporter you are 100% with Her. Those are the kind of people my mom didnt want me to hang around.

Umm, is that a compliment or an insult?

I guess that depends on if youre into trannys or not? If you think we should fry cops like bacon? Or if you believe dropouts making freedom fries are worthy of $15 an hour? I know my friends and family vote no. Now I suppose you could turn things around and claim the fry fryers and trannys are actually the winners in all this but to each their own.

That's what I figured you meant. I want to make conditions better for the poor; help members of the LGBT communities gain (and keep!) equal protections, rights, and social opportunities; and want our law enforcement and judicial system to treat minorities equally. I also want to end world hunger and homelessness, which directly help the poor.

I guess that means we're ideological opponents. Meet you at the ballot box.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Make up your mind. First you act like experience doesn't matter, then you make a long rant about it.

Besides, how does being an elected official at 2 different levels of government not count as "experience"? WTH? And someone doesn't have to be a business executive to be qualified to run for public office. You do understand that right?

On one side you have 2 people who have done little but politics their whole lives, and haven't been very successful in actually doing what America needs and/or messing up badly. On the other end you have a person who has been very successful in the private sector at a very high level. Do we stay with the professional politicians again or not...lol

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Are you blind? I've already mentioned I actually voted for Bernie in my State's primary and that I don't care for the Clintons. I'm pretty sure I know more about that situation more than you do, since I've been dealing with it since last summer when I was leaning more towards O'Malley than towards Bernie.

I asked for specifics because I don't see how that relates to this thread. You keep moving the goalposts in your posts as if you're deflecting from the original issue here, which is that Trump is alienating most American demographics, will get trounced in the general election, and is already pushing a "fixed/rigged" narrative to save face.

That is right you said you voted for Bernie, and I followed up with that statement to asked you how do you feel about how he was screwed over by the DNC... nothing more or less. The name of this topic is "the fix is in" and it sure was "in" once Bernie actually started to gain on Hillary.

a reply to: UKTruth

All citizens should be treated equally. Everyone is being surveilled, so they are.

You're contradicting yourself. Trump specifically called for new programs of surveillance on Muslims, vetting and closing mosques, and putting all American Muslims in a database. How is that "equal treatment" if he's not going to also add similar programs for Christians and churches; Jews and synagogues; etc? What he's proposing is literally the opposite of equal treatment.

My point is that singling out potential databases and monitoring on mosques is nonsensical, both from Trump suggesting it in the first place and those complaining he said it. You should be upset with the current administration (and the one before) that rode roughshod over the constitution in order to ‘keep you safe’. Something they have not delivered on.

Huh? This thread is about the 2016 Presidential Election supposedly being rigged against Trump. It's not about the Obama administration. I've been focusing on how Trump's policies and words are alienating entire American demographics, which is why he'll lose in dramatic fashion (not because of "rigging").

Yes, for clarity – ALL people promoting violence should be arrested.

Good, we're in agreement here.

Other causes of death are already the topic of much discussion and effort to alleviate the problem, from medical research to cure cancer to background check for guns (though the guns are not the problem – another topic). Radical Islamic terror is not being tackled effectively, however, and a plan is needed to address it. It’s getting worse the world over.

Start a thread about it and I'll happily join. But I simply pointed out your rhetoric doesn't match the stats here.

I am very much against overseas wars and nation building. I hold America accountable in a large part for the troubles in the ME. That said, the past can not be undone and the motives for terrorism can not be taken into account in dealing with the immediate problem. For sure a part of the solution must be the cessation of the current American foreign policy, but it also has to tackle radicalization within the Muslim community.

Shouldn't it be the opposite? If we can stop the motives for terrorism, it will solve the immediate problem of terrorism reprisals.

Also, Muslim communities ARE helping law enforcement in dealing with radicalization. Just because our opponents don't know about or care to learn about these efforts doesn't nullify their existence. But once again, that's a conversation for a different thread. Though I will say that collective punishment will only decrease relations and goodwill, not increase it.

I am well aware you are part of the Muslim community. How do you think you can help solve the problem, other than being critical of people who recognise it and are offering solutions (however unpalatable to you)?

Once again, that's a conversation for another thread (though I've offered my thoughts on this numerous times already). But collectively blaming and punishing an entire demographic is wrong. In fact, collective punishment is literally a war crime, being explicitly forbidden in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention HERE. Though maybe I'm being naive in thinking that people here actually care about following laws, international law, etc.

“Spreading hatred” is not simply being nasty. I am talking about those that call for and actively incite violence and murder. It has nothing to do with free speech or freedom of religion.

One of the links I posted had a radio host calling for the killing of 100 million Muslims. And your own country blocked him from entering because of "hate speech". But that's perfectly legal here as "free speech". So like I said, who determines what is considered "spreading hatred"? And where's the line between "hate speech", "free speech", or under "freedom of religion"? If these labels are going to be passed around, they need to be applied to all demographics consistently.

ETA: Oh yeah, you also said "I am talking about those that call for and actively incite violence and murder". War is violence and murder, as are drone strikes, assassinations, and threats to see if the sand in the Middle East will glow after a nuclear strike. So are you including people who call for and incite these? Or do murder and violence from missiles not count?

It is amazing how many people get caught up in what politicians SAY. It only matters to compare it to what they actually DO. What they say is more about how they want to be perceived, it has very little to do with reality.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: -Blackout-
Can you see that the FIX is in?

I see no indication that there is a "fix" ... Can you be more specific?

Does the noise you hear about the "polls" match up to the reality you see and experience, the opinions you hear, the facts on the ground?

Yes. Most people I associate with will vote for Hillary because they consider her to be the lesser of two evils. The 'noise' on ATS, and in the conspiracy world, of course, is much different, because the active members are mostly Trump fans. That makes sense.

Did you notice that Obama said that his administration may "oversee the election", for the first time in U.S. history?

Would love a source to this. I didn't see a press conference (whose?) with loaded questions, etc. Got a link?

Did you notice that one candidate has now lied under oath to Congress, lied to the FBI and then lied to Chris Wallace about lying to Congress and the FBI, yet remains unindicted and walking free?

Hillary has been accused of so many lies (not to mention other crimes, including murder), that I've lost track. And, knowing all the times Obama was accused (by the same accusers) of nefarious lies and other dealings, only to have been shown the accusations were false, I'm not inclined to do a bunch of research on the claims of Hillary lies, made by a fearful right wing. All politicians lie, so I'm certain she has lied, but most of the crap slung at her doesn't stick, so a few lies here and there don't matter to me. Both major candidates have lied.

'Accused'?? I cannot believe how brainwashed people are, and deny what is right in front of them. I've shown you this before and you've ignored it, but I'll show it again to those people that are actually still interested in the truth. Anyone who does a web search on 'moriarty clinton libya dia' will discover exactly how evil Hillary was and what she was up to in Libya. Anyone who does a web search on 'clinton mena airport bush cia coc aine' will see exactly how close the Clintons and Bush family is, and the crimes they have overseen. Anyone who does a web search on 'haiti clinton foundation rodham crimes' will discover how the Clintons RAPED the people of Haiti and stole BILLIONS of dollars in aid for the citizens of that country. I could go on, but I'll stop there. There are also at LEAST a dozen books available on Amazon chronicling the Clinton crimes over the last 20+ years, and the thing about books is that if you LIE in a book, you WILL get sued for libel. Now, NONE of the authors of the above books have been sued. Threatened? Yes, Had their families threatened? Yes. Some of them HAVE been murdered, but no, never sued.

So I don't want to hear about 'lies'. Don't you dare insult the intelligence of Americans that, unlike you, actually RESEARCH and VET the candidates they vote for. Anyone with a brain, that isn't completely brainwashed will read the THOUSANDS OF PAGES of proof of the Clinton crimes, both Hillary and Bill.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that people have analyzed social media and found that Trump has something like a 3 or 4 to one advantage over Clinton. EVERYONE is waking up to the fact that these elections are rigged, and that TPTB are attempting to keep public perception close enough so they can rig the states they control, like Florida and Ohio and Iowa and California and Nevada and Arizona (and that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more) and steal the election.

But go ahead and keep your head in the sand and ignore all the 'accusations' about Clinton. Sure, everyone else is lying and you know the truth. I ignore fools...

Yawn

Indeed Trump will lose Utah, as a Mormon is running an independent bid, they are a hive mind and if Romney and him team up it is lost. He has no hope to win the general and he knows it, this is a sabotage spoiler.

All I know is that this year, the polling agencies on both sides have found new ways to twist logic. One poll said Donald Trump had a 5% chance of winning the election.

originally posted by: DoctorCowboy
All I know is if you are poor, gay, tranny, or black lives matter supporter you are 100% with Her. Those are the kind of people my mom didnt want me to hang around.

Donald is that you?

originally posted by: nomoredemsorreps
'Accused'?? I cannot believe how brainwashed people are, and deny what is right in front of them. I've shown you this before and you've ignored it, but I'll show it again to those people that are actually still interested in the truth. Anyone who does a web search on 'moriarty clinton libya dia' will discover exactly how evil Hillary was and what she was up to in Libya. Anyone who does a web search on 'clinton mena airport bush cia coc aine' will see exactly how close the Clintons and Bush family is, and the crimes they have overseen. Anyone who does a web search on 'haiti clinton foundation rodham crimes' will discover how the Clintons RAPED the people of Haiti and stole BILLIONS of dollars in aid for the citizens of that country.

Your idea of truth is "do a web search"?

I just did a web search on "who lies more clinton or trump".

Trump

True (4%)
Mostly True (11%)
Half True (15%)
Mostly False (15%)
False (36%)
Pants on Fire(19%)

Clinton

True (22%)
Mostly True (28%)
Half True (21%)
Mostly False (14%)
False (11%)
Pants on Fire (2%)

Quick everyone, do a web search! Everything you read on the internet is true!

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I don't think the US intelligence community wants Hillary as President and feel she cannot be trusted. .

In fact, that's not true. It's Trump that they don't trust (remember how he blabbed what he heard at his first briefing later that day?) Even the GOP security officials don't trust Trump

And Trump, with his lack of understanding of strategy and his knee-jerk reactions to everything has started firing back at them.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Don't worry about me. I am bent over and have my ankles gripped tightly in full anticipation.

And we are all out of KY.

Youch.....

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: UKTruth

All citizens should be treated equally. Everyone is being surveilled, so they are.

You're contradicting yourself. Trump specifically called for new programs of surveillance on Muslims, vetting and closing mosques, and putting all American Muslims in a database. How is that "equal treatment" if he's not going to also add similar programs for Christians and churches; Jews and synagogues; etc? What he's proposing is literally the opposite of equal treatment.

My point is that singling out potential databases and monitoring on mosques is nonsensical, both from Trump suggesting it in the first place and those complaining he said it. You should be upset with the current administration (and the one before) that rode roughshod over the constitution in order to ‘keep you safe’. Something they have not delivered on.

Huh? This thread is about the 2016 Presidential Election supposedly being rigged against Trump. It's not about the Obama administration. I've been focusing on how Trump's policies and words are alienating entire American demographics, which is why he'll lose in dramatic fashion (not because of "rigging").

Yes, for clarity – ALL people promoting violence should be arrested.

Good, we're in agreement here.

Other causes of death are already the topic of much discussion and effort to alleviate the problem, from medical research to cure cancer to background check for guns (though the guns are not the problem – another topic). Radical Islamic terror is not being tackled effectively, however, and a plan is needed to address it. It’s getting worse the world over.

Start a thread about it and I'll happily join. But I simply pointed out your rhetoric doesn't match the stats here.

I am very much against overseas wars and nation building. I hold America accountable in a large part for the troubles in the ME. That said, the past can not be undone and the motives for terrorism can not be taken into account in dealing with the immediate problem. For sure a part of the solution must be the cessation of the current American foreign policy, but it also has to tackle radicalization within the Muslim community.

Shouldn't it be the opposite? If we can stop the motives for terrorism, it will solve the immediate problem of terrorism reprisals.

Also, Muslim communities ARE helping law enforcement in dealing with radicalization. Just because our opponents don't know about or care to learn about these efforts doesn't nullify their existence. But once again, that's a conversation for a different thread. Though I will say that collective punishment will only decrease relations and goodwill, not increase it.

I am well aware you are part of the Muslim community. How do you think you can help solve the problem, other than being critical of people who recognise it and are offering solutions (however unpalatable to you)?

Once again, that's a conversation for another thread (though I've offered my thoughts on this numerous times already). But collectively blaming and punishing an entire demographic is wrong. In fact, collective punishment is literally a war crime, being explicitly forbidden in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention HERE. Though maybe I'm being naive in thinking that people here actually care about following laws, international law, etc.

“Spreading hatred” is not simply being nasty. I am talking about those that call for and actively incite violence and murder. It has nothing to do with free speech or freedom of religion.

One of the links I posted had a radio host calling for the killing of 100 million Muslims. And your own country blocked him from entering because of "hate speech". But that's perfectly legal here as "free speech". So like I said, who determines what is considered "spreading hatred"? And where's the line between "hate speech", "free speech", or under "freedom of religion"? If these labels are going to be passed around, they need to be applied to all demographics consistently.

ETA: Oh yeah, you also said "I am talking about those that call for and actively incite violence and murder". War is violence and murder, as are drone strikes, assassinations, and threats to see if the sand in the Middle East will glow after a nuclear strike. So are you including people who call for and incite these? Or do murder and violence from missiles not count?

I was simply pointing out that you crying about surveillance is rather silly when you are already surveilled. It's not hard to understand but you seem to want to cling to your perceived victimisation. Surveillance and databases also have nothing at all to do with Trump's point about a rigged system, so please spare me the mental gymnastics about how you were on topic.

Focusing on Muslims is a smart thing to do and a lot more focus should be given to weeding out the radicals and either deporting or jailing them at the first opportunity, given the severe issue of radical islamic terror. As I said before the Muslim community needs to do a lot more. Trying to switch the discussion to cancer, guns, missile strikes and nuclear war just tells me you are not serious about helping to solve the problem.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I don't think the US intelligence community wants Hillary as President and feel she cannot be trusted. .

In fact, that's not true. It's Trump that they don't trust (remember how he blabbed what he heard at his first briefing later that day?) Even the GOP security officials don't trust Trump

And Trump, with his lack of understanding of strategy and his knee-jerk reactions to everything has started firing back at them.

What did Trump 'blab' after his first security meeting?