It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
They way I see it, it is the unstable Trump supporters that cause it because they don't have the emotional maturity to deal with opposition in a civilized way.
Disclosure noted. Now, back to this disturbing video that no amount of editing can explain away.
U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has built political prominence but little personal wealth through his years in elected office. While Sanders has not given a public announcement on the total value of his holdings, analysis of presidential campaign personal asset disclosure forms, his Senate salary, and the value of properties and assets shared with his wife suggests that the candidate has a net worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $800,000.
Bernie Sanders net worth breakdown
Sanders' July 2015 personal filing lists assets valued at between $194,026 and $741,000 in his wife Jane Sanders' name -- with the majority of these assets held in investment funds. The filing also lists credit card debt between $25,002 and $65,000.
The personal asset disclosure forms do not list properties held by Bernie and Jane Sanders, which include a home in the Washington D.C. neighborhood of Capitol Hill where the median home price is roughly $726,000 and a home in Vermont that realtor.com values at approximately $320,000. www.fool.com...
NO REFUNDS: Bernie Sanders Purchases $600,000 Beach House
After getting cucked by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party as a whole; Breadline-Bernie accepts his consolation prize in the form of an expensive summer home located in North Hero, Vermont.
According to Vermont local news, Bernie Sanders and his wife, known for frivolously spending other people’s money, forked out $600K for their modest second home:
With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."
So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: theantediluvian
Sorry man, how can you blame the victims here? Really????
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I found this logo file in scores of #Podesta emails:
It's against the law for the Super PAC to coordinate with the Campaign.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
This one is interesting:
He wouldn't happen to be referring to David Brock (as in American Bridge, Correct the Record, et al.) now would he? As in we don't really have Hillary's campaign manager casually referring to the director of a SuperPAC and what direction that PAC should take, now do we?
But no, there's no coordination between the Hillary Campaign and supposedly third party superPACs. Right?
I am just imaging things, right?
Collusion between Correct The Record PAC and Priorities USA PAC with the Hillary Clinton Campaign!!!!
Political Promotion or Propaganda: Hillary’s Correct the Record Army Invades the Internet
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: kruphix
They were paid to incite violence, not stage a peaceful protest.
Where's your proof that the city of Chicago unanimously did not want Trump there?
At this point, these thugs organizing violence do not deserve any benefit of the doubt. None.