It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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

Donald Trump: The Real Manchurian Candidate?

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense


There is no doubt whatsoever fraud has been perpetrated on a massive scale here.


Pffft.


Really? No deceit or trickery was employed during the election. Serious? Clearly you are trolling. Au revoir mon chéri!




posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

My 'pfffft' was directed at this remark of yours:

There is no doubt whatsoever fraud has been perpetrated on a massive scale here.


There may be no doubt of this in your head, but there's currently a distinct lack of evidence in real life.

That might change, but that's the situation now.

What the 4Chan hoaxer said was:


There is actionable intel that there will be widespread electronic voting fraud, and that Putin will leak proof along with other dirt on certain candidates


So you've gone from 4Chan's 'actionable intel' concerning forthcoming 'electronic voting fraud' to your assertion that 'fraud on a massive scale' (i.e., not specifically electronic) has definitely happened and in order to get there, you've stretched the meaning of the term 'voter fraud' in order to encompass stuff that doesn't directly affect votes at all. I.e., Wikileaks - are you saying the Wikileaks releases were fakes, ordered by Putin? Really?

Even if there is 'intel' of voter fraud (which might be non-significant) the public is being kept in the dark and Vlad Putin, who supposedly has so much to gain, appears to be refusing to release the alleged final proof.

This is hooey.

Oh yes, and we still don't know who it was who was really meant to have won the election before Putin's dastardly plot swung the result.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

There is actionable intel that there will be widespread electronic voting fraud, and that Putin will leak proof along with other dirt on certain candidates


So you've gone from 4Chan's 'actionable intel' concerning forthcoming 'electronic voting fraud' to your assertion that 'fraud on a massive scale' (i.e., not specifically electronic) has definitely happened and in order to get there, you've stretched the meaning of the term 'voter fraud' in order to encompass stuff that doesn't directly affect votes at all. I.e., Wikileaks - are you saying the Wikileaks releases were fakes, ordered by Putin? Really?


Voting fraud is anything that causes the outcome of a vote to not reflect the truthful will of the voters; or that aims to encourage a voter to make a choice on a ballot that would have been different if not for having been manipulated with incomplete or bad information.

Let me re-share the definition for fraud:


Fraud [frawd]
noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

www.dictionary.com...


Now let's unpack "electronic voting fraud"...

"Electronic" broadly means anything done through computer, telecommunications, or other forms of electromagnetic or digital conveyance.

Thus if we put the three words together we can now extract the following meaning:

"Electronic voting fraud is any event that uses computer, telecommunication or digital devices to convey information that aims to deceptively change the outcome of a vote -- either through modifying voter records, such as who can vote, or the vote itself; or that deceives or tricks people into thinking about a particular subject related to the vote causing either disenfranchisement or that's geared to manipulate a voter through incomplete or distorted inaccurate information."

Do you accept that definition of "electronic voting fraud?"

If you don't we are at an impasse. On the other hand if you do, we can continue with a reasoned discussion.

edit on 11-11-2016 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: changed "unfairly" to "deceptively" to narrow the definition - "fair" is too subjective



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

I suppose this is a question of interpretation.

You see the words 'electronic voting fraud' and read 'electronic fraud that affects voting'.

But I see the words 'electronic voting fraud' and read 'fraud that affects electronic voting'.

This might explain why we are at loggerheads over such an apparently simple phrase. It's ambiguous (and perhaps the author meant it to be so).

OK, then, let's move on to something we can genuinely discuss.

Wikileaks. Is the stuff put out by Wikileaks fraudulent, as in fake, as you appear to think? If so, what's your reasoning? And who is behind it, and why?



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

I suppose this is a question of interpretation.

You see the words 'electronic voting fraud' and read 'electronic fraud that affects voting'.

But I see the words 'electronic voting fraud' and read 'fraud that affects electronic voting'.

This might explain why we are at loggerheads over such an apparently simple phrase. It's ambiguous (and perhaps the author meant it to be so).


That's reasonable enough. The definition I put forward encompasses the second definition as well,

Electronic voting fraud is any event that uses computer, telecommunication or digital devices to convey information that aims to deceptively change the outcome of a vote -- either through modifying voter records, such as who can vote, or the vote itself;...

However, I would argue if that was what was intended the anon would have said "electronic vote rigging" the same as you had been saying.

Online conversation has the capacity to be fantastically productive if people are willing to focus down specifically to the point of what it is they exactly disagree on. Most of the time however people are unwilling to put in the effort to discover that their disagreement is often over something very narrow and specific, rather than something broad or ideological.

Never finding the actual point of disagreement, people then fight with one another over nothing.

It is a complete waste of time and effort.

Anyhow, I suspect the 4chan author, assuming he actually worked at military base in NC, though this seems reasonable enough with the photos provided showing the date-time/4chan-id on the handwritten note in the base weapon locker, verifying at the very least his role in the military, received a comm from someone higher in command stating that they were preparing for possible civil disobedience as a result of electronic voting fraud (meant in the broadest sense here - with no real specifics as to what would happen other than that the intelligence community saw a mobilization).

This likely answers your question on the previous page about why the "Nostradamus of the Chans" - which gave me a chuckle - didn't go on to "predict" who would win. He wasn't making a prediction. Working in the armory he was being given information to prep in the event that his unit needed to deploy. No different than how the lead up to the Iraq was telegraphed by military units deploying en masse to the Middle East in 2003.

The whole spetsnatz part of the story made me laugh and say "bollocks."

Amazingly though on October 21st 2016 USA Today reported:

Amid 'rigged' election charges, Russia wants to monitor U.S. vote

The fact that Russia was actively engaging the State Department to deploy numerous "vote checkers" to the United States made me realize there was substantially more going on than I was at first ready to believe.

This gets to a second point.


Wikileaks - are you saying the Wikileaks releases were fakes, ordered by Putin? Really? Even if there is 'intel' of voter fraud (which might be non-significant) the public is being kept in the dark and Vlad Putin, who supposedly has so much to gain, appears to be refusing to release the alleged final proof.


I am sure this doesn't have to be said, but breaking into a website, email system, or any other online service is illegal and fraudulent (re: "electronic fraud" see the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), even more so when the system contains sensitive US classified information.

DHS and DNI have officially stated,


[O]nly Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
www.dni.gov...


The leaks were used to deflect away from Trump's and the other 3rd party candidates shortcomings by getting left-leaning voters to in-fight over Bernie not getting the nomination due to insider politics at the DNC and the shadiness of various arrangements between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. None of which were provably executed in bad faith, illegal, or even corrupt in any sense of the word.

Regardless, stories found in the leaks, like HSBC donating 80 million USD to the foundation and then days later negotiating with Secretary Clinton about the penalty they had to pay for abusive mortgage practices makes me, and millions of other Americans who bothered to keep up with the news, more than just a little angry.

Again, nothing provably shows this was done in bad faith, but it looks suspicious; and that's all that was needed to keep attention off Gary Johnson's craziness, Stein's arrests, and Trump's sexual predations, numerous business failings, abuses of the tax code, along with his shady dealings with companies tied to the mob in and outside of the United States.


Wikileaks. Is the stuff put out by Wikileaks fraudulent, as in fake, as you appear to think? If so, what's your reasoning? And who is behind it, and why?


Where did you get the idea that I think the Wikileaks documents are fake? A number of the emails have signature information attached which allows for verification of the sending servers, timestamp, and email header information. This conclusively shows many are authentic.

However, this misses the point. The documents were released to distract and mislead the public specifically for another candidates benefit. How many documents were also deleted or removed to create a false narrative? To what extent do people have any understanding of what it is they are reading?

Many of the online discussions here on ATS are about absolute nonsense related to these emails.* True unfettered, garbage that wouldn't even be published in The Sun or The Dailymail. I can give you hundreds if not thousands of examples if you like. The problem has gotten so bad at this point that media watchdogs are now calling out Facebook for not filtering flagrantly bullsh*t "news" stories.

NPR (2016-11-11): Zuckerberg Denies Fake News On Facebook Had Impact On The Election

The election process was corrupted with a tsunami of BS and by Russia drumming up fear:

AFP (2016-10-10): Gorbachev warns of 'dangerous point' as US-Russia ties sour

And the American public playing right into that fear:

Positive Effect of Trump Victory: Putin Just Opened the Door Again

There been rampant computer fraud during this election cycle.

ShadowBrokers: Message #5

This is electronic voting fraud, no getting around it.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12-11-2016 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense


Where did you get the idea that I think the Wikileaks documents are fake?


Here:


There is actionable intel that there will be widespread electronic voting fraud (which we've seen), and that Putin will leak proof along with other dirt on certain candidates (in other-words Russia will leak details about the Clintons and the DNC - aka Wikileaks), and the USA will collapse into civil #ing war (there's a rather dramatic uprising going on right now).


Here:


Voting fraud is anything that causes the outcome of a vote to not reflect the truthful will of the voters; or that aims to encourage a voter to make a choice on a ballot that would have been different if not for having been manipulated with incomplete or bad information.


And here:


Electronic voting fraud is any event that uses computer, telecommunication or digital devices to convey information that aims to deceptively change the outcome of a vote



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense


Where did you get the idea that I think the Wikileaks documents are fake?


Here:

"There is actionable intel that there will be widespread electronic voting fraud (which we've seen), and that Putin will leak proof along with other dirt on certain candidates (in other-words Russia will leak details about the Clintons and the DNC - aka Wikileaks)"


Imagine if a thief broke in to your bank account and dumped all your financial information online and said, "Look, look, audubon has a storage unit that he pays for each month. Why would audubon need a storage unit if he has a 3000 sq. ft house with a garage and a shed in the back! What on earth is audubon hiding?!"

This is tantamount to what happened -- lots of smoke machines, but no fire. Mostly true documents obtained fraudulently by electronically breaking into government computers, with the implication of corruption, but with no attempt to find out if there was any substance to the charges.

The Russian leaks from the DNC, John Podesta, and the copy of emails from Hillary's servers through Wikileaks proved nepotism and other unsavory insider politic, bordering on what feels like corruption due to pay-to-play politics, but nothing demonstrably illegal about how Hillary ran the office as Secretary of State.

edit on 14-11-2016 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
22
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join