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.

 

I'm calling it now... there was no Russian collusion.

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: UKTruth

It was DNC documents that showed DNC corruption. DNC is not even public, it's a private organization.


If it is not public, what they do is their own business. No "corruption" was exposed. That is purely Russian spin. Both parties put their political priorities first. If you don't like the candidate they choose, you don't have to vote for them. This is not Russia or Iran where the government picks and chooses the candidates.




posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: UKTruth

It was DNC documents that showed DNC corruption. DNC is not even public, it's a private organization.


If it is not public, what they do is their own business. No "corruption" was exposed. That is purely Russian spin. Both parties put their political priorities first. If you don't like the candidate they choose, you don't have to vote for them. This is not Russia or Iran where the government picks and chooses the candidates.

Actually they can pick and choose the candidate, so much for that theory. The problem was they claimed they were having a fair election. They can do what they want, but they can't lie about what they are doing. They can say votes don't matter we are going to just pick. But they can't claim to be impartial and then be partial.

So again, is it wrong if a whistleblower did it?
edit on 14-6-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: UKTruth

It was DNC documents that showed DNC corruption. DNC is not even public, it's a private organization.


If it is not public, what they do is their own business. No "corruption" was exposed. That is purely Russian spin. Both parties put their political priorities first. If you don't like the candidate they choose, you don't have to vote for them. This is not Russia or Iran where the government picks and chooses the candidates.


Plenty was exposed... enough for the Chairperson to lose her job and people to see just how hypocritical and dishonest the DNC were during the election.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And start an actual lawsuit by DEMOCRATS ...

But nope, nothing was exposed.
edit on 14-6-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Actually the DNC members who are suing DWS and the DNC will force justice to define if it was OK for the Dems to screw Sanders like they did.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Based on the assessment from a private organization CrowdStrike. What evidence is there Russia hacked DNC?


The fact that it damaged the candidate Vladimir Putin did not want to have to deal with is a clue. Besides, all the Russian trolls here keep denying it.


The DNC didn't even allow the FBI to physically perform a forensic examination on the server. They allowed a private firm with connections to the DNC whom they paid to release a report that Russia did it. Which the FBI actually accepted without dispute or second opinion. On top of that, the evidence they present from supposed Guccifer 2.0 is easily disputable. That's all the have aside from they hate Trump.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Actually the DNC members who are suing DWS and the DNC will force justice to define if it was OK for the Dems to screw Sanders like they did.

Which means the Democrats themselves believe there was wrongdoing. So claiming on the forum no wrongdoing was uncovered and ONLY Russia is saying it is patently false. Democrats were pissed at what was revealed.

Hillary supporters are also suing the DNC, there are multiple groups within the DNC all pissed off.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Actually they can pick and choose the candidate, so much for that theory. The problem was they claimed they were having a fair election. They can do what they want, but they can't lie about what they are doing. They can say votes don't matter we are going to just pick. But they can't claim to be impartial and then be partial.


I don't recall anyone saying the DNC is fair and impartial. Could you link to the DNC saying that somewhere?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Which means the Democrats themselves believe there was wrongdoing.


Yes, a party faction is angry because the Machine picked a losing candidate. That's the problem, not the Machine's "corruption."



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Which means the Democrats themselves believe there was wrongdoing.


Yes, a party faction is angry because the Machine picked a losing candidate. That's the problem, not the Machine's "corruption."

As I read in the stories about the lawsuit, Bernie Sanders supporters are angry that the Machine picked the candidate before the primaries even started. They are angry because they gave money to the DNC, thinking that the DNC was unbiased at that point.... because the DNC charter says that they are supposed to be unbiased.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Would you have given money to DNC as a Sanders supporter if you knew that everything was fixed in advance and HRC was going to get the primary ?

I don't remember anyone at the DNC stating that their primaries was just a farce, just aimed at keeping the apparences of a democratic process.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Actually they can pick and choose the candidate, so much for that theory. The problem was they claimed they were having a fair election. They can do what they want, but they can't lie about what they are doing. They can say votes don't matter we are going to just pick. But they can't claim to be impartial and then be partial.


I don't recall anyone saying the DNC is fair and impartial. Could you link to the DNC saying that somewhere?

Well ..

the suit argues that the DNC violated its own charter—specifically, Article 5 Section 4—which states the chairperson of the party “shall exercise impartiality and even-handedness” between candidates running for president and their respective campaigns.


Their charter requires it.
www.dailydot.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Which means the Democrats themselves believe there was wrongdoing.


Yes, a party faction is angry because the Machine picked a losing candidate. That's the problem, not the Machine's "corruption."

No, they are angry because they were conned into donating to Hillary so she would win based on being told the DNC was being impartial and thus the contributions were needed, when their donations were not needed because the DNC was not impartial.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

What he says and what he does are not the same. Trump never lifted Russia sanctions.



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

hey OP, i was hoping you could clear something up.



I think what has happened, is butthurt Democrats whose whole existence right now is about derailing President Trump, have gone full retard in regards to Russian interference of the election. Which did happen.


if you concede that no voter manipulation occurred because of russian interference, if you concede that neither trump nor his cabinet had anything to do with it, and if you really don't think there's anything to this story...

why do you think russia "interfered in the election"? what exactly "did happen"?
edit on 14-6-2017 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DJW001

What he says and what he does are not the same. Trump never lifted Russia sanctions.


His party would not let him. If he tried it now he might even get impeached. Glad you understand that Trump says one thing and does another. It's called "lying."



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: butcherguy

Would you have given money to DNC as a Sanders supporter if you knew that everything was fixed in advance and HRC was going to get the primary ?

I don't remember anyone at the DNC stating that their primaries was just a farce, just aimed at keeping the apparences of a democratic process.

No way I would give money to them if I knew my candidate had no chance getting past them.
Yes, that is the point of the lawsuit. It seems well founded to me.

The DNC took the Bernie people's money the whole time, planning on spending it on their chosen candidate Hillary, no matter what their charter says to the contrary.
I say sue the pants off of them!
edit on b000000302017-06-14T09:37:05-05:0009America/ChicagoWed, 14 Jun 2017 09:37:05 -0500900000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


I say sue the pants off of them!


And the donors who gave to the GOP in the hopes of someone other than Trump being chosen? What should they do?



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Nothing.
Trump won the Republican primary, Hilary stole the democrat one.



edit on 14-6-2017 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: -



posted on Jun, 14 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy


I say sue the pants off of them!


And the donors who gave to the GOP in the hopes of someone other than Trump being chosen? What should they do?

OH.
I guess I missed where the Republican establishment railroaded Trump into the nomination.

You do realize that the establishment Republicans opposed Trump.... but didn't pull a 'DNC' and stop Trump... Right?



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join