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

Top Trump Adviser Roger Stone: The Moon Landing Video Was A "Hoax” Filmed In New Jersey

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

As long as you know that a particular media source might be telling lies, isn't that normal to be suspicious ?

And once again, the fact that you chose to dismiss alien existence does not mean that Podesta or his contacts agree with you :



John, with this email I am requesting a conversation with you and President Obama regarding the next steps in extraterrestrial disclosure for the benefit of our country and our planet.
Fifty years ago Battelle, Brookings and RAND studies on UFOs convinced the government to remove knowledge of the extraterrestrial presence from the citizens of our country. These organizations advised with their best information. However, today much, if not most, of the extraterrestrial reality they examined is known by our citizens. These organizations' resultant strategies and policies of 50 years ago no longer hold credibility or benefit.
Five decades of UFO information have dramatically shifted the public awareness of an extraterrestrial presence. And yet, our government is still operating from outdated beliefs and policies. These are detrimental to trust in government transparency, science, religion, and responsible citizenry embracing the next step in our country’s space travel and research.

Source : /podesta-emails/emailid/15052


Good news about the author :


Edgar D. Mitchell, ScD

Chief Science Officer & Founder, Quantrek

Apollo 14 astronaut

6th man to walk on the Moon




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


As long as you know that a particular media source might be telling lies, isn't that normal to be suspicious ?


One should always exercise critical thinking. This is not the same thing as "being suspicious." The Kremlin is trying to convince people that it is impossible to know the truth. To accomplish this, it floats many different counter-narratives to both current events and history. They want people to be suspicious of everything because it is not possible to know the truth. Critical thinking permits one to evaluate sources and the likelihood of events. It is possible to determine the truth.


And once again, the fact that you chose to dismiss alien existence does not mean that Podesta or his contacts agree with you :


I know one of Podesta's relatives. He does believe in ETs. So did Ed Mitchell, who did a lot of '___'. Just because they believe that doesn't mean it must be true.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
One should always exercise critical thinking. This is not the same thing as "being suspicious." The Kremlin is trying to convince people that it is impossible to know the truth. To accomplish this, it floats many different counter-narratives to both current events and history. They want people to be suspicious of everything because it is not possible to know the truth. Critical thinking permits one to evaluate sources and the likelihood of events. It is possible to determine the truth.


Where is critical thinking when the logic goes by "Russian info = propaganda" or any other form of russian scapegoating, neo-McCarthyism, done in the name of Clinton's electoral interests.
Source bashing without consideration for the content is typical of people who fancy the ostrich policy.
And any individual who asks for the silencing of a particular news source "just because" is on the verge of totalitarianism.


originally posted by: DJW001
I know one of Podesta's relatives. He does believe in ETs. So did Ed Mitchell, who did a lot of '___'. Just because they believe that doesn't mean it must be true.


So why are the moon landing supposed to be true ? Because you believe that or because Mitchell didn't sign "6th man to walk in a new Jersey studio under Lysergic acid diethylamide" while mentioning who precisely suppressed the info he would like to see released ?

If the idea of your OP is to discredit Trump because of the views of his (former) campaign manager, I'll remind you that - as usual - the very same can be said about Clinton (current) campaign manager and, - as usual - if Trump is bad, Clinton is far worse.


edit on 26-10-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke




Clinton is far worse.

Her campaign manager believes in "chemtrails?"



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Don't know. The beliefs of the campaign manager are theirs.
You don't vote for campaign managers, mostly the ex-ones.

I don't know if Trump sacrificed a chicken to Moloch in his garden but Clinton did.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Fried chicken is a southern favorite.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Fried chicken Bohemian Grove style ...

Feel free to share the recipe.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Where is critical thinking when the logic goes by "Russian info = propaganda" or any other form of russian scapegoating, neo-McCarthyism, done in the name of Clinton's electoral interests.


Russian information =/= propaganda. Critical thinking is used to tell the difference. Most independent Russian sources are reliable because their credibility is important. A Russian academic will not lie because it would discredit his theories. Non-state publications also have a vested interest in telling the truth.


Source bashing without consideration for the content is typical of people who fancy the ostrich policy.


It works the other way around. One needs to judge how reliable a source is before considering what it says. Lies are cheap, credibility dearly won.


And any individual who asks for the silencing of a particular news source "just because" is on the verge of totalitarianism.


Which is why Trump's continual attacks on the press are so troubling.



So why are the moon landing supposed to be true ?


Because there are mountains of evidence. Documentation, eyewitness reports, photographs, physical artifacts... not only from the American government, but from independent sources, including some from their rival, the Soviet Union. It has only been since the resurgence of right wing Russian nationalism that false claims about the Moon landings have been spreading.


Because you believe that or because Mitchell didn't sign "6th man to walk in a new Jersey studio under Lysergic acid diethylamide" while mentioning who precisely suppressed the info he would like to see released ?


He does not know whether the information he wants to see exists or not. There is a complete absence of the sort of documentation and physical evidence for extraterrestrial visitors that there is for the Moon landings. The former is speculation, the latter documented historical fact.


If the idea of your OP is to discredit Trump because of the views of his (former) campaign manager, I'll remind you that - as usual - the very same can be said about Clinton (current) campaign manager and, - as usual - if Trump is bad, Clinton is far worse.


I don't need to discredit Trump; he does that himself. When I saw the tweet in the OP I was stunned. The public needs to know what sort of thinking Trump finds acceptable. No wonder he doesn't think America is great: he listens to people like Roger Stone.
edit on 26-10-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


originally posted by: DJW001
Russian information =/= propaganda. Critical thinking is used to tell the difference. Most independent Russian sources are reliable because their credibility is important. A Russian academic will not lie because it would discredit his theories. Non-state publications also have a vested interest in telling the truth.


Remember ? :


originally posted by: DJW001
The concern is that RT has weaponized the news. It is not merely false information, it is propaganda intended to impede the "West's" ability to respond to Russian military aggression.


Double standard : application of different sets of principles to similar situations.
Ex (off topic):


Who's weaponizing the news ?


originally posted by: DJW001
It works the other way around. One needs to judge how reliable a source is before considering what it says. Lies are cheap, credibility dearly won.


So maybe you could provide a list of western and russian medias that are deemed trustfuls as of your personal criteria.


originally posted by: DJW001
Which is why Trump's continual attacks on the press are so troubling.


I wasn't talking about Trump.
Is it time to make Infowars non grata?




originally posted by: DJW001
Because there are mountains of evidence. Documentation, eyewitness reports, photographs, physical artifacts... not only from the American government, but from independent sources, including some from their rival, the Soviet Union. It has only been since the resurgence of right wing Russian nationalism that false claims about the Moon landings have been spreading.


Then why is there so many US citizens still in doubt ?
And why do you associate them with Russian nationalism ? Isn't that russian scapegoating or neo-McCarthyism ?


originally posted by: DJW001
He does not know whether the information he wants to see exists or not.

But you on the other hand, you do ...


originally posted by: DJW001
There is a complete absence of the sort of documentation and physical evidence for extraterrestrial visitors that there is for the Moon landings. The former is speculation, the latter documented historical fact.


Because information can't be suppressed ? So how does Mitchell knows who suppressed the info ?


originally posted by: DJW001
I don't need to discredit Trump; he does that himself. When I saw the tweet in the OP I was stunned. The public needs to know what sort of thinking Trump finds acceptable. No wonder he doesn't think America is great: he listens to people like Roger Stone.


Trump fired the said person, Clinton's aides had to resign as part of revelations they didn't even bother denying.


edit on 26-10-2016 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: filled out



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


The concern is that RT has weaponized the news. It is not merely false information, it is propaganda intended to impede the "West's" ability to respond to Russian military aggression.


Double standard : application of different sets of principles to similar situations.
Ex (off topic):



Who's weaponizing the news ?


Governments have always weaponized the news. Do you like having weapons directed against you? No? The difference is that I am not afraid of propaganda directed at me because I can see through it. Countries that practice censorship do so out of fear.



originally posted by: DJW001
It works the other way around. One needs to judge how reliable a source is before considering what it says. Lies are cheap, credibility dearly won.


So maybe you could provide a list of western and russian medias that are deemed trustfuls as of your personal criteria.


My personal criteria are irrelevant, of course. Why don't you ask what the objective criteria are? Reliable media check stories by using multiple sources. If there is a single source, they make the attribution clear. They do not confuse speculation with reporting. They give specifics that can be independently verified. They do not publish stories they know not to be true. Their numbers are as accurate as possible. When quoting studies, they explain the methodology. They publish errata when they make mistakes. They only express opinions on the editorial page.

Very few publications outside of academia meet these criteria. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are the most reliable American publications. The Times, Guardian, and Financial Times the most reliable British. Le Monde and L'Express the French. TASS remains a reliable Russian source and Xinhua presents the Chinese government's perspective.

Note that television and internet media do not meet these criteria. They seldom have time to practice proper journalism.


originally posted by: DJW001
Which is why Trump's continual attacks on the press are so troubling.


I wasn't talking about Trump.
Is it time to make Infowars non grata?


Of course you weren't talking about Trump, you are trying to derail. Insisting that a business pay for advertising is not censorship. ATS members who want to read Adam Bell's propaganda are free to visit his site. He can post anything he wants there, and I defend his right to do that in his own domain.


originally posted by: DJW001
Because there are mountains of evidence. Documentation, eyewitness reports, photographs, physical artifacts... not only from the American government, but from independent sources, including some from their rival, the Soviet Union. It has only been since the resurgence of right wing Russian nationalism that false claims about the Moon landings have been spreading.


Then why is there so many US citizens still in doubt ?


There are very few Americans who doubt the reality of the Moon landings.

Only 6% of the public believes the landing was faked and another 5% have no opinion.

Gallup.


And why do you associate them with Russian nationalism ?


I do not associate the uninformed 6% with Russian nationalism; Russian nationalists are seeking to exploit their ignorance. What's more, Russian officials are using deflecting tactics as a smokescreen for their own wrongdoing. here's a recent example:

izvestia.ru...

Translation here:

themoscowtimes.com...

(Note: Markin is not seriously suggesting an investigation of the Moon landings, he is deflecting from Russian corruption in sports. You understand the technique, I'm sure.


Isn't that russian scapegoating or neo-McCarthyism ?


Buzz...buzz....



originally posted by: DJW001
He does not know whether the information he wants to see exists or not.

But you on the other you do ...


Where do I say that?



originally posted by: DJW001
There is a complete absence of the sort of documentation and physical evidence for extraterrestrial visitors that there is for the Moon landings. The former is speculation, the latter documented historical fact.


Because information can't be suppressed ?


Only imperfectly, as the Clinton campaign has been learning.


So how does Mitchell knows who suppressed the info ?


He knew nothing. He believed because he wanted it to be true.

edit on 26-10-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Governments have always weaponized the news. Do you like having weapons directed against you? No? The difference is that I am not afraid of propaganda directed at me because I can see through it. Countries that practice censorship do so out of fear.


So the US is no better than Russia.
The road to success for US foreign policy is paved with disinformation and, transparency is about to become Russia best weapon. That should give any critical thinker some concerns.


originally posted by: DJW001
My personal criteria are irrelevant, of course. Why don't you ask what the objective criteria are? Reliable media check stories by using multiple sources. If there is a single source, they make the attribution clear. They do not confuse speculation with reporting. They give specifics that can be independently verified. They do not publish stories they know not to be true. Their numbers are as accurate as possible. When quoting studies, they explain the methodology. They publish errata when they make mistakes. They only express opinions on the editorial page.


So you're more likely to gobble US propaganda because of the multiplicity of the sources ?
Isn't that simply brainwashing or perception managment?


originally posted by: DJW001
Very few publications outside of academia meet these criteria. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are the most reliable American publications. The Times, Guardian, and Financial Times the most reliable British. Le Monde and L'Express the French. TASS remains a reliable Russian source and Xinhua presents the Chinese government's perspective.

Note that television and internet media do not meet these criteria. They seldom have time to practice proper journalism.


Ever wondered about their neutrality ?

WSJ :



From:Colleen.Nelson@wsj.com

...

I just wanted to thank you again for your hospitality last night. You were so kind to open your home to us, and the food was as fantastic as promised (everyone at the White House raves about your dinners).
I really appreciated the opportunity to connect with a number of folks from Team Clinton.
The evening was a great way to kick off this crazy adventure.

Source : podesta-emails/emailid/26404


NYT :



From: Leibovich, Mark (leibovich@nytimes.com)

Yes, here's what I'd sent before. I wanted option to use the following (obviously wouldn't use all, but a portion)
These exchanges were pretty interesting…..would love the option to use….

Source : /podesta-emails/emailid/4213


Given the ties between the medias and the Clinton campaign team, no surprise Trump is getting suspicious.


originally posted by: DJW001
Which is why Trump's continual attacks on the press are so troubling.

Of course you weren't talking about Trump, you are trying to derail. Insisting that a business pay for advertising is not censorship. ATS members who want to read Adam Bell's propaganda are free to visit his site. He can post anything he wants there, and I defend his right to do that in his own domain.


But not Alex Jones ... double standard.
And no consideration about the legitimacy of Trump's suspicion.


originally posted by: DJW001
There are very few Americans who doubt the reality of the Moon landings.

Only 6% of the public believes the landing was faked and another 5% have no opinion.

Gallup.



So why do you associate them with Russian nationalism ?


originally posted by: DJW001
I do not associate the uninformed 6% with Russian nationalism; Russian nationalists are seeking to exploit their ignorance. What's more, Russian officials are using deflecting tactics as a smokescreen for their own wrongdoing. here's a recent example:

izvestia.ru...

Translation here:

themoscowtimes.com...

(Note: Markin is not seriously suggesting an investigation of the Moon landings, he is deflecting from Russian corruption in sports. You understand the technique, I'm sure.


No I don't - neither do I find any consistency in your statements in regard of that post on the last page :


originally posted by: DJW001
Did you know that there is an organized movement among ultra-nationalist Russian groups, possibly with government support, to deny the reality of the Apollo Moon landings? It feeds in to the Kremlin's campaign to raise Russia's status by tearing the United States down.


Oh - by the way - none of the sources you make reference to in order to give consistency to that claim happens to be on your own trustful sites lists ... just saying.


originally posted by: DJW001
Isn't that russian scapegoating or neo-McCarthyism ?

Buzz...buzz....


Isn't that russian scapegoating or neo-McCarthyism ?

Because that one deserves an answer.


originally posted by: DJW001
Where do I say that?


Here :


originally posted by: DJW001
I know one of Podesta's relatives. He does believe in ETs. So did Ed Mitchell, who did a lot of '___'. Just because they believe that doesn't mean it must be true.


And here :


originally posted by: DJW001
There is a complete absence of the sort of documentation and physical evidence for extraterrestrial visitors that there is for the Moon landings. The former is speculation, the latter documented historical fact.


(Un)surpringly, I got no comment of yours on that last sentence which is, by far, the one that is the most related to your OP :


Trump fired the said person, Clinton's aides had to resign as part of revelations they didn't even bother denying.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


So the US is no better than Russia.


The difference is that the United States relies on facts. Voice of America never ran stories about a rogue planet about to destroy Earth. RT has.


The road to success for US foreign policy is paved with disinformation and,


Not nearly to the extent of Russia's. Those guys in army uniforms in Crimea? What green men? Oh, those green men. Well, they're not Russian, anyway.


transparency is about to become Russia best weapon. That should give any critical thinker some concerns.


Transparency has never been a Russian characteristic. You can't even get an accurate map of the Metro there.



originally posted by: DJW001
My personal criteria are irrelevant, of course. Why don't you ask what the objective criteria are? Reliable media check stories by using multiple sources. If there is a single source, they make the attribution clear. They do not confuse speculation with reporting. They give specifics that can be independently verified. They do not publish stories they know not to be true. Their numbers are as accurate as possible. When quoting studies, they explain the methodology. They publish errata when they make mistakes. They only express opinions on the editorial page.



So you're more likely to gobble US propaganda because of the multiplicity of the sources ?


No; please read the list again. Reliable media check stories by using multiple sources. If there is a single source, they make the attribution clear. They do not confuse speculation with reporting. They give specifics that can be independently verified. They do not publish stories they know not to be true. Their numbers are as accurate as possible. When quoting studies, they explain the methodology. They publish errata when they make mistakes. They only express opinions on the editorial page.


Isn't that simply brainwashing or perception managment?


Russian propaganda emanates from a single source and then is repeated through various channels. That is perception management.



Ever wondered about their neutrality ?


No, because they make their opinions crystal clear in their editorials. That allows you to judge how impartial their coverage is. They do not simply make things up:

time.com...



Given the ties between the medias and the Clinton campaign team, no surprise Trump is getting suspicious.


Trump is a creature of the media. If he cannot leverage his connections there it is no-one's fault but his own.



Of course you weren't talking about Trump, you are trying to derail. Insisting that a business pay for advertising is not censorship. ATS members who want to read Alex Jones' propaganda are free to visit his site. He can post anything he wants there, and I defend his right to do that in his own domain.


But not Alex Jones ... double standard.


I repeat: ATS members who want to read Alex Jones propaganda are free to visit his site. He can post anything he wants there, and I defend his right to do that in his own domain.

[ETA: I wrote the above before morning caffeination. I wrote "Adam Bell" when I meant " Alex Jones. I have fixed that above.--DJW001]



And no consideration about the legitimacy of Trump's suspicion.


Trump's suspicions are boundless. I have considered them, and they are the product of narcissistic rage. He had no problem with the media repeating his bombast when it overshadowed his opponents in the primaries, but now that his outrageous behavior is making Clinton look presidential, he has no choice but to accuse the media of "lying" when all they are doing is broadcasting what he says and does... exactly like during the primaries.



There are very few Americans who doubt the reality of the Moon landings.


So why do you associate them with Russian nationalism ?


originally posted by: DJW001
I do not associate the uninformed 6% with Russian nationalism; Russian nationalists are seeking to exploit their ignorance. What's more, Russian officials are using deflecting tactics as a smokescreen for their own wrongdoing. here's a recent example:

izvestia.ru...

Translation here:

themoscowtimes.com...

(Note: Markin is not seriously suggesting an investigation of the Moon landings, he is deflecting from Russian corruption in sports. You understand the technique, I'm sure.



No I don't - neither do I find any consistency in your statements in regard of that post on the last page :


originally posted by: DJW001
Did you know that there is an organized movement among ultra-nationalist Russian groups, possibly with government support, to deny the reality of the Apollo Moon landings? It feeds in to the Kremlin's campaign to raise Russia's status by tearing the United States down.


Oh - by the way - none of the sources you make reference to in order to give consistency to that claim happens to be on your own trustful sites lists ... just saying.


Correct; they are examples of black propaganda. That supports my argument.




Isn't that russian scapegoating or neo-McCarthyism ?

Because that one deserves an answer.


Nope. Russia is doing what it is doing. That is not scapegoating. Your accusation is just a buzzword.



(Un)surpringly, I got no comment of yours on that last sentence which is, by far, the one that is the most related to your OP :


Trump fired the said person, Clinton's aides had to resign as part of revelations they didn't even bother denying.


Clinton's aides voluntarily stepped down. They did not go on a psychotic paranoid rampage like Stone. Which reflects better on the judgement of the candidate they supported?
edit on 26-10-2016 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.

edit on 26-10-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
The difference is that the United States relies on facts. Voice of America never ran stories about a rogue planet about to destroy Earth. RT has.


The Russian medias are more and more likely to use American statement as part of what you call their 'propaganda'. Any thoughts on that ? And unlike their western counterpart, they don't need to distort statement. US representatives statement are self-sufficient as a matter of contradiction/hypocrisy.


originally posted by: DJW001
Not nearly to the extent of Russia's. Those guys in army uniforms in Crimea? What green men? Oh, those green men. Well, they're not Russian, anyway.


As I already told you, the world don't give a s... about what you and I may think about Crimea. It's the Crimean people's voice that matters.


originally posted by: DJW001
Transparency has never been a Russian characteristic. You can't even get an accurate map of the Metro there.


Until now ... Why is it that Putin agrees to answer the questions of CNN journalist if he had anything to hide ? Tell me when Obama will go live on RT.



I like that one because personally, I'm not shy to admit that I've been mislead by the western MSM coordinated action to establish Putin/Trump links.


originally posted by: DJW001
No; please read the list again. Reliable media check stories by using multiple sources. If there is a single source, they make the attribution clear. They do not confuse speculation with reporting. They give specifics that can be independently verified. They do not publish stories they know not to be true. Their numbers are as accurate as possible. When quoting studies, they explain the methodology. They publish errata when they make mistakes. They only express opinions on the editorial page.


But they simply forget to report embarrassing things. Consider Trump's accusation VS Clinton's emails, the balance is definitively not even. You don't need to tell BS to be lying, you can lie by omission.


originally posted by: DJW001
Russian propaganda emanates from a single source and then is repeated through various channels. That is perception management.


The western MSM can be narrowed to a single group of interest too : MAP


originally posted by: DJW001
No, because they make their opinions crystal clear in their editorials. That allows you to judge how impartial their coverage is.


So you don't think that neutrality of your sources is worth considering.


originally posted by: DJW001
Trump is a creature of the media. If he cannot leverage his connections there it is no-one's fault but his own.


Absolutely, so the Clinton team needed to activate all their connections and sponsors to assure an unfair treatment to Trump otherwise he would have thrashed Hillary.


originally posted by: DJW001
I repeat: ATS members who want to read Adam Bell's propaganda are free to visit his site. He can post anything he wants there, and I defend his right to do that in his own domain.


But why call for a specific source suppression then ?
Can't you provide a decent counter-argumentation to his claims ?


originally posted by: DJW001
Trump's suspicions are boundless. I have considered them, and they are the product of narcissistic rage. He had no problem with the media repeating his bombast when it overshadowed his opponents in the primaries, but now that his outrageous behavior is making Clinton look presidential, he has no choice but to accuse the media of "lying" when all they are doing is broadcasting what he says and does... exactly like during the primaries.


The links between Clinton campaign staff and the medias are getting more and more obvious every day. Of course, if you wait for the MSM to report it ...


originally posted by: DJW001

Correct; they are examples of black propaganda. That supports my argument.


In response to : Oh - by the way - none of the sources you make reference to in order to give consistency to that claim happens to be on your own trustful sites lists ... just saying.

The fact that you rely on black propaganda to build your claims ? No comment.


originally posted by: DJW001
Nope. Russia is doing what it is doing. That is not scapegoating. Your accusation is just a buzzword.


It's not a buzzword, it's a campaign tactic of Clinton's staff (and supporters).


originally posted by: DJW001
Clinton's aides voluntarily stepped down. They did not go on a psychotic paranoid rampage like Stone. Which reflects better on the judgement of the candidate they supported?


That means two thing :
Trump was right to fire Stone.
Clinton was OK about her staff actions until the fuses need to blow to protect her because the truth came out.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Thank you for your spirited defense of Trump, the Kremlin, and their shared agenda.



posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



 



originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Don't you guys still have the green party ?
It's Jill Stein who is running ahead atm.
Cynthia McKinney would be great at the foreign office imo.


Posted on the 7th of April 2016 ... As of now, Stein at the WH is the most sensible option IMO.
Even if, in the meantime, Alice Cooper declared his candidacy.





top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join