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

George Takei Nails What’s So Dumb About Trump’s ‘Rigged Election’ Gibberish

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Not to mention collusion with the media and manufacturing violence at Trump rallies.

Also voter fraud from all over the country where democrats are operating.

I wouldn't put it passed the GOP to be engaged in shady crap either.

But to come out and deflect like this is simply another reason not to trust democrats.

Can't be honest to save their lives.

Just a suggestion, don't make this about "all democrats" or "all liberals." A lot of us are against all of this. It's the power elite we are fighting, not rank and file of either party.


The rank and file of both parties seem to be doubling down on their respective levels of disgusting.

Democrats own this like republicans own Trump and all of his disgusting behavior.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Where was georgey a couple weeks ago. please use



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Byrd, do you deny that the DNC rigged the nomination process in favor of Hillary?

Yep. Bernie was popular among certain groups but he wasn't that popular. It's kind of like the Ron Paul crowd -- loyal fans, showing up everywhere, lots of vocal support and lots of support from those age 35 and under. They will even contribute to the causes in large numbers. The problem is that the younger voters have the lowest turnout when elections come around. Bernie did NOT have the support of the voters who turn out in the highest numbers - those age 40 and older (up to 60% of them vote.)

Don't mistake youthful enthusiasm for a quorum.


Do you deny that the mainstream media can be shown to be manipulating information? Do you deny that the media refuses to cover Clinton's actual problems, such as regime change pursuits in Libya and Syria, or corruption with Wall Street? The media studiously avoids these topics, and focuses instead on distractions such as gender, Benghazi, and email.

Our life experiences are different.

You've probably never lived in an area where there was a real dictator who would shoot dissidents or where there was just One Official Newspaper and One Official Radio and nobody got their news from anywhere else.

I grew up in places where the media was controlled like that.

This mess that's the American media isn't working in concert with anyone or anything. And if this is "manipulation", they're doing a really bad job of it. If you want to see good manipulation, read Russian news sources or Korean news sources or Chinese news sources and countries where publishing contrarian information is a death sentence.

I think the American media's all over the map. You couldn't get them to collude on anything - they'd be dashing off to report on the attempted bribery and getting more eyeballs (traffic) to their websites and news channels.

And (as ATS shows) any time you get one mainstream media source reporting on something, you get half a dozen reporting on the other side.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

NO that was Starship Troopers ,Star Trek was woo,woo utopia, AFTER we destroyed the civilization.
...TO boldly go and espouse our values on life, THROUGH OUT the galaxy!



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

How long have you been in media?

I wholly disagree with your theory.
Examples abound and are extreme...all the WET stuff is from the Foundation I would guess,not the DNC...

viralliberty.com...
edit on 19-10-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

All that matters is that the sacrifice of truth at the altar of political religion is made.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Byrd

Another celebrity who's opinion about politics is completely irrelevant.

Hey George!

No. One. Cares.


SO does that sentiment work with Trump then?

Funny how Trump supporters pick and choose which "Celebrities" matter and who doesnt........

But youre right, "Hey Trump, no one cares about your celebrity opinions on politics"


No it does not apply to Trump because he's in the ring running for president, whereas George isn't and is just posting his opinion on twitter acting like it matters. How dumb does one have to be to not grasp that?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

No celebrity's opinion about politics matters, whether for Trump or for Clinton.

If they want to be involved in politics then they need to do what Arnold Schwarzenegger did and run for office.



Yes and all GT has done really is spew very basic race and wealth animas at Trump. Not to mention that mom and pop ect, ect may be getting rigged but that rigging has everything to do with Trump rigging because of his statements like "I will fight for you"....and ...that he will take down AHCA ect. But GT cant see past his face.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


What really emboldened them was when many, many americans lost so much of 401k ect, investments ect, Ponzi bullslaughter......and then the government turned right around and "bailed out" the guys that drop the baby on its head......and the people did nothing but vote in more republicans who did nothing.

I wonder if Hillary watches Waco video reruns?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: projectvxn


What really emboldened them was when many, many americans lost so much of 401k ect, investments ect, Ponzi bullslaughter......and then the government turned right around and "bailed out" the guys that drop the baby on its head......and the people did nothing but vote in more republicans who did nothing.

I wonder if Hillary watches Waco video reruns?



I truly believe it doesn't matter anymore.

All I see all day long is hypocrisy, disgusting behavior, some of the worst corruption to ever be exposed in American politics, and people are just glossing it over. It's the whole concept of "I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for _________". What a lazy ass attitude. So reflective of just how lazy and comfortable this society has become. Corruption is just another means of for the American public to entertain themselves. It's another soap opera.

Most of this country is fat, or on pills and other drugs, they are emotionally weak, lack any kind of critical thought, and the weirdest part is that they all think they're better than each other because they are red or blue. Today it is the majority we have to worry about.

Majority isn't always correct. If we continue to assume that such nonsense is legitimate, then we are going to let the majority kill us all.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Byrd, do you deny that the DNC rigged the nomination process in favor of Hillary?

Yep. Bernie was popular among certain groups but he wasn't that popular. It's kind of like the Ron Paul crowd -- loyal fans, showing up everywhere, lots of vocal support and lots of support from those age 35 and under. They will even contribute to the causes in large numbers. The problem is that the younger voters have the lowest turnout when elections come around. Bernie did NOT have the support of the voters who turn out in the highest numbers - those age 40 and older (up to 60% of them vote.)

Don't mistake youthful enthusiasm for a quorum.


Do you deny that the mainstream media can be shown to be manipulating information? Do you deny that the media refuses to cover Clinton's actual problems, such as regime change pursuits in Libya and Syria, or corruption with Wall Street? The media studiously avoids these topics, and focuses instead on distractions such as gender, Benghazi, and email.

Our life experiences are different.

You've probably never lived in an area where there was a real dictator who would shoot dissidents or where there was just One Official Newspaper and One Official Radio and nobody got their news from anywhere else.

I grew up in places where the media was controlled like that.

This mess that's the American media isn't working in concert with anyone or anything. And if this is "manipulation", they're doing a really bad job of it. If you want to see good manipulation, read Russian news sources or Korean news sources or Chinese news sources and countries where publishing contrarian information is a death sentence.

I think the American media's all over the map. You couldn't get them to collude on anything - they'd be dashing off to report on the attempted bribery and getting more eyeballs (traffic) to their websites and news channels.

And (as ATS shows) any time you get one mainstream media source reporting on something, you get half a dozen reporting on the other side.


Except, there are emails and documentation of the DNC trying to skew the primaries in Clinton's favor. This demonstrates a form of corruption, or at the very least failing in their mandate of remaining neutral in the primaries between Democratic candidates.

I've spent a lot of time abroad, and I studied formally at the graduate level the Syrian conflict, as well as the Libyan conflict. From these studies, there is no doubt in my mind that the media obscures what is going on, and tows the Pentagon line when it comes to foreign policy. It has done so since the 1950's. If you haven't, I would suggest doing an in-depth study of history from 1950's Guatemala to the second Iraq War, and look at the US media coverage of these events. It's clear that the mainstream media operates as a virtual loudspeaker for the government when it comes to foreign policy issues, and even outright issues propaganda. Rarely can your average joe be said to be given a real picture of these events, from the media coverage.

Going back to Clinton, again, if the media is so free and investigative, why do they focus on minor straw man arguments surrounding endless email controversies, Benghazi (rather than the fact that the West and Nato violated several major principles of the UNSC Chapter VII Resolution, bombing the government forces, providing weapons to the opposition, and allowing regime change to occur), gender (rather than Clinton's long history of being for deregulation of the financial industry and demonstrating a cozy relationship with them), "qualifications" (rather than Clinton's readiness to fund, arm, and train militants in a bloody civil war in Syria)? Why would they not focus on the much BIGGER issues, that are demonstrable?

Either entire media empires are complete incompetent idiots, or there is something else going on. We have around 6 major media conglomerates, which are inter-connected heavily with the military industrial complex. I think the evidence is sufficient to show that the media rarely can be said to be executing any kind of investigative or journalistic functions. The media definitely appears to be heavily forgiving to Clinton, and skewed heavily in subtle pro-Clinton pieces.
edit on 19-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Not to mention collusion with the media and manufacturing violence at Trump rallies.

Also voter fraud from all over the country where democrats are operating.

I wouldn't put it passed the GOP to be engaged in shady crap either.

But to come out and deflect like this is simply another reason not to trust democrats.

Can't be honest to save their lives.

Just a suggestion, don't make this about "all democrats" or "all liberals." A lot of us are against all of this. It's the power elite we are fighting, not rank and file of either party.


The rank and file of both parties seem to be doubling down on their respective levels of disgusting.

Democrats own this like republicans own Trump and all of his disgusting behavior.


Well, yes, most of the rank and file of both sides are pretty apathetic and ignorant, generally speaking. And yes, this partisan duopoly has many people apologizing for and worshiping anything said and done by their respective candidates.

Hell, we see this even on ATS.
edit on 19-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
MORE rigging here..www.tmz.com...


That's not election rigging. Even if it's true (this is TMZ we're talking about here), it shows media bias, not voter fraud.

In my opinion, media bias is a legitimate topic of debate. The idea that there is widespread voter fraud simply is not -- as there is no evidence for it.


I think there is a misunderstanding here though.

Too many Americans think the media is free and separate. Part of the argument is that the media is CONTROLLED, and an organ of propaganda. If you control the information about candidates, policy, history, and global events, and your average citizen is left in the dark and manipulated into a certain viewpoint, then can you REALLY say that we have democracy? Or an unrigged election?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Byrd
A Huffington Post article (yeah, I know... liberal bastion) about a couple of tweets by George Takei (yep. Liberal, gay, actor and politician)

So let me just cut to the chase here:


George Takei Nails What’s So Dumb About Trump’s ‘Rigged Election’ Gibberish
(Link to HuffPo article with details)

Unless you have been nowhere near a television, computer, smartphone, tablet, human being or major metropolitan area in the last week, you have probably heard Donald Trump rambling on about his baseless assertion that the 2016 election has already been “rigged” in Hillary Clinton’s favor.

On its face, it’s a ridiculous claim, and one that could potentially lead to dangerous consequences should Trump actually lose to Clinton on Nov. 8. But George Takei, local genius, thinks Trump could be onto something, albeit not in the way that the GOP nominee intended. As he concisely stated on Twitter on Tuesday:



George Takei ✔ @GeorgeTakei
It's rather galling, isn't it, to hear a billionaire, born into money and granted every advantage, claim the system's rigged against him.
5:44 PM - 18 Oct 2016
11,453 11,453 Retweets 22,203 22,203 likes


and


George Takei ✔ @GeorgeTakei
You know what's rigged, Mr. Trump? The tax system. In your favor, and quite heavily.
7:35 PM - 18 Oct 2016


The article also links to another one that suggests Trump won't release his taxes because he's worth less than 2 billion dollars.

For a white billionaire who's been gaming the system since birth, claims of everything being rigged against him just don't wash. Heck, if he had that much money, he could probably buy a fleet of buses to take people to voting stations to vote for himself.

From my perspective, the system is rigged against people from small towns, against mom-and-pop businesses, against the poor, against people who can't afford a good education -- but it's rigged in favor of people who can afford instant lawyers and who can buy cars from their spare pocket change.
Byrd, do you deny that the DNC rigged the nomination process in favor of Hillary? Do you deny that the mainstream media can be shown to be manipulating information? Do you deny that the media refuses to cover Clinton's actual problems, such as regime change pursuits in Libya and Syria, or corruption with Wall Street? The media studiously avoids these topics, and focuses instead on distractions such as gender, Benghazi, and email.

Denied on all accounts.

And as far as focusing on Bhengazi and emails, yeah that was the Republican's fault.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Byrd
A Huffington Post article (yeah, I know... liberal bastion) about a couple of tweets by George Takei (yep. Liberal, gay, actor and politician)

So let me just cut to the chase here:


George Takei Nails What’s So Dumb About Trump’s ‘Rigged Election’ Gibberish
(Link to HuffPo article with details)

Unless you have been nowhere near a television, computer, smartphone, tablet, human being or major metropolitan area in the last week, you have probably heard Donald Trump rambling on about his baseless assertion that the 2016 election has already been “rigged” in Hillary Clinton’s favor.

On its face, it’s a ridiculous claim, and one that could potentially lead to dangerous consequences should Trump actually lose to Clinton on Nov. 8. But George Takei, local genius, thinks Trump could be onto something, albeit not in the way that the GOP nominee intended. As he concisely stated on Twitter on Tuesday:



George Takei ✔ @GeorgeTakei
It's rather galling, isn't it, to hear a billionaire, born into money and granted every advantage, claim the system's rigged against him.
5:44 PM - 18 Oct 2016
11,453 11,453 Retweets 22,203 22,203 likes


and


George Takei ✔ @GeorgeTakei
You know what's rigged, Mr. Trump? The tax system. In your favor, and quite heavily.
7:35 PM - 18 Oct 2016


The article also links to another one that suggests Trump won't release his taxes because he's worth less than 2 billion dollars.

For a white billionaire who's been gaming the system since birth, claims of everything being rigged against him just don't wash. Heck, if he had that much money, he could probably buy a fleet of buses to take people to voting stations to vote for himself.

From my perspective, the system is rigged against people from small towns, against mom-and-pop businesses, against the poor, against people who can't afford a good education -- but it's rigged in favor of people who can afford instant lawyers and who can buy cars from their spare pocket change.
Byrd, do you deny that the DNC rigged the nomination process in favor of Hillary? Do you deny that the mainstream media can be shown to be manipulating information? Do you deny that the media refuses to cover Clinton's actual problems, such as regime change pursuits in Libya and Syria, or corruption with Wall Street? The media studiously avoids these topics, and focuses instead on distractions such as gender, Benghazi, and email.

Denied on all accounts.

And as far as focusing on Bhengazi and emails, yeah that was the Republican's fault.
Then I think you are in denial. The media isn't going into depth about the real critiques of Clinton, which I briefly mentioned.

I will allow Jeff Sachs to lay it out:

m.huffpost.com...

The dnc has been outed for Clinton bias... That's why Shultz had to resign.. Do you deny that too?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Except, there are emails and documentation of the DNC trying to skew the primaries in Clinton's favor. This demonstrates a form of corruption, or at the very least failing in their mandate of remaining neutral in the primaries between Democratic candidates.


There are... and Bernie didn't get as much press coverage as I would have liked. That said, he was popular with a generation that generally doesn't vote.


I've spent a lot of time abroad, and I studied formally at the graduate level the Syrian conflict, as well as the Libyan conflict. From these studies, there is no doubt in my mind that the media obscures what is going on, and tows the Pentagon line when it comes to foreign policy.

I agree that to some extent the US media has to play nice with the generals if they want to be embedded in an action. But the US isn't the world, and other journalists could care less about the Pentagon. A number of sources (PBS, for one) pick up stories from other correspondents.

And then there's the issue of "how interested is the public in it?" Ten seconds of Kim Kardashian doing something scandalous trumps reports on Aleppo and the refugees dying on the beaches by the hundreds in Italy.


It's clear that the mainstream media operates as a virtual loudspeaker for the government when it comes to foreign policy issues, and even outright issues propaganda. Rarely can your average joe be said to be given a real picture of these events, from the media coverage.

While I agree this was the case before 1960, I disagree that it was so afterwards simply because we see the rise of so many independent news organizations.


Going back to Clinton, again, if the media is so free and investigative, why do they focus on minor straw man arguments surrounding endless email controversies, Benghazi (rather than the fact that the West and Nato violated several major principles of the UNSC Chapter VII Resolution, bombing the government forces, providing weapons to the opposition, and allowing regime change to occur), gender (rather than Clinton's long history of being for deregulation of the financial industry and demonstrating a cozy relationship with them), "qualifications" (rather than Clinton's readiness to fund, arm, and train militants in a bloody civil war in Syria)? Why would they not focus on the much BIGGER issues, that are demonstrable?


And I would counter that you might find a lot of these issues unworthy of discussion but a lot of us are very vested in things like gender equality and fitness for duty.

I think we're tired of email leak stories. One commentator I read last week said that the public is tired of old issues that have been flogged for the past 20 years or so.

But our take on "bigger issues" is probably quite different.

However, I'd agree that the news isn't very satisfying these days for me, either.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Too many Americans think the media is free and separate. Part of the argument is that the media is CONTROLLED, and an organ of propaganda. If you control the information about candidates, policy, history, and global events, and your average citizen is left in the dark and manipulated into a certain viewpoint, then can you REALLY say that we have democracy? Or an unrigged election?


I'd disagree here that our media is controlled.

And... we should point out that we do NOT have a democracy. We're a Republic.

And I'll be the contrarian and say that the elections aren't rigged.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
MORE rigging here..www.tmz.com...


That's not election rigging. Even if it's true (this is TMZ we're talking about here), it shows media bias, not voter fraud.

In my opinion, media bias is a legitimate topic of debate. The idea that there is widespread voter fraud simply is not -- as there is no evidence for it.


I think there is a misunderstanding here though.

Too many Americans think the media is free and separate. Part of the argument is that the media is CONTROLLED, and an organ of propaganda. If you control the information about candidates, policy, history, and global events, and your average citizen is left in the dark and manipulated into a certain viewpoint, then can you REALLY say that we have democracy? Or an unrigged election?


Like I said, a biased media (controlled or otherwise) is something that can be debated by reasonable people.

And yes, a media that served merely as a propaganda arm for the government would certain RIG what information people were exposed to, and as a result, who they were likely to vote for.

But that's not voter fraud. It's something else entirely. Trump is talking about dead people voting, illegal aliens voting, people voting more than once. It simply does not happen in any appreciable amount.

P.S.

I personally don't buy the idea of controlled media, except that it's controlled by the big corporations who own them, which in turn could also be said to indirectly own the government, but in any case, the line of influence isn't necessarily direct or predictable, and alt-news sources are abundant.

When it comes to various forms of rigging (aside from voter fraud), the biggest "rigger" is big money, with a close second going to the Republican and Democrat parties.
edit on 20-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Except, there are emails and documentation of the DNC trying to skew the primaries in Clinton's favor. This demonstrates a form of corruption, or at the very least failing in their mandate of remaining neutral in the primaries between Democratic candidates.


There are... and Bernie didn't get as much press coverage as I would have liked. That said, he was popular with a generation that generally doesn't vote.


I've spent a lot of time abroad, and I studied formally at the graduate level the Syrian conflict, as well as the Libyan conflict. From these studies, there is no doubt in my mind that the media obscures what is going on, and tows the Pentagon line when it comes to foreign policy.

I agree that to some extent the US media has to play nice with the generals if they want to be embedded in an action. But the US isn't the world, and other journalists could care less about the Pentagon. A number of sources (PBS, for one) pick up stories from other correspondents.

And then there's the issue of "how interested is the public in it?" Ten seconds of Kim Kardashian doing something scandalous trumps reports on Aleppo and the refugees dying on the beaches by the hundreds in Italy.


It's clear that the mainstream media operates as a virtual loudspeaker for the government when it comes to foreign policy issues, and even outright issues propaganda. Rarely can your average joe be said to be given a real picture of these events, from the media coverage.

While I agree this was the case before 1960, I disagree that it was so afterwards simply because we see the rise of so many independent news organizations.


Going back to Clinton, again, if the media is so free and investigative, why do they focus on minor straw man arguments surrounding endless email controversies, Benghazi (rather than the fact that the West and Nato violated several major principles of the UNSC Chapter VII Resolution, bombing the government forces, providing weapons to the opposition, and allowing regime change to occur), gender (rather than Clinton's long history of being for deregulation of the financial industry and demonstrating a cozy relationship with them), "qualifications" (rather than Clinton's readiness to fund, arm, and train militants in a bloody civil war in Syria)? Why would they not focus on the much BIGGER issues, that are demonstrable?


And I would counter that you might find a lot of these issues unworthy of discussion but a lot of us are very vested in things like gender equality and fitness for duty.

I think we're tired of email leak stories. One commentator I read last week said that the public is tired of old issues that have been flogged for the past 20 years or so.

But our take on "bigger issues" is probably quite different.

However, I'd agree that the news isn't very satisfying these days for me, either.


Byrd, you are too smart to fall into a false dichotomous argument here. AT NO POINT did I say that gender for example is not worthy of discussion. It is an important and real topic.

However, as someone who cares deeply about social issues such as women's equality, the current dialogue around Hillary makes a MOCKERY of feminism and gender discussions, as it is a poor and manipulative attempt by the Hillary campaign to deflect any real critiques of her, casting them as sexist.

This all links back to what i think are the real issues with Clinton. There is nothing feminist about colluding with big money in politics and engaging in deregulation of the private sector, resulting in growing inequality over the last 2-3 decades. This primarily affects low income people, a large portion of which are people of color. Low income women of color have suffered incredibly in part due to the rise of the prison industrial complex, that Bill and Hillary supported. Broken families, unstable homes, poverty, constant evictions. How is that pro-equality?

There is nothing "feminist" about a woman who apparently is all for US empire, which translates to wars and regime changes in places like the ME, which have resulted in the deaths of scores of innocent people, again in these regions mostly low income people of color, as well as countless women.

Fitness and qualifications matter. But not if those qualifications and experience are focused on what I described above. Who wants an "experienced" corrupt politician, or neo-con?


edit on 20-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join