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.

 

Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden

page: 5
60
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
I believe the influence they had was insignificant

Not worth claiming “Russian influence” like a cNn-fed moron

He still would have won regardless

And he will win again in 2020, regardless


Trump didn't win the popular vote at all, he won the Electoral College vote primarily because of 7 faithless electors who did not vote Democrat, despite being pledged to. Only one EC Republican voter was faithless.

It is a hole in the EC system that because of low numbers of actual voters, it is financially possible to pay off a small number to vote faithlessly and to therefore win the vote.

This appears to be what happened in 2016. If there was electoral corruption, it points directly to the Trump campaign, not the Democrats.


Whoever told you to think this lied to you. The only thing accurate there is that Trump didn't win the popular vote. The rest of it is nonsense. Trump won by 77 electoral votes. 7 faithless electors were not the "primary" reason he won. They're not even the tertiary reason. They literally had zero impact. And there's zero evidence of any payoffs, you just made that up out of thin air.

Learn to think for yourself. You got tricked, bad. Whoever is telling you this crap is making you look like a fool.


Can you not see the holes in the Electoral College system? If say a billionaire paid $1 million to each of 270 electors (you don't have to pay them all off) he would get the Presidency by majority. Absolutely.

How many faithless electors, prior to 2016, have ever been prosecuted? Zero.

How many have actually been prosecuted at this time? Two, who are appealing their $1,000 fines.

If you were given the choice of taking a $1 million bribe, at the risk of a $1,000 fine, Would you vote with your conscience?

... and it doesn't even have to be something obvious like a big cash payment. It could be a business deal, promotion, payrise, property purchase or sale, or even an overseas investment that pays out an annuity.

You know, the type of money laundering operations that Trump's associates Cohen and Mannafort were convicted of.

But hey, a corporation whose principals have been found guilty of crimes, having committed other undiscovered crimes, unthinkable (and why won't Trump release his tax details?).

Can you absolutely state with confidence that such vote buying could not occur?

While ever it can occur, the Electoral College system is open to corruption and while ever it is open to corruption, criminals will seek to use the loopholes. I can guarantee that with high confidence.




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Electoral College Members are bound by State laws.

The 2016 Electoral "Count" saw several Members "replaced" because they wanted to "Vote" against State Laws.

😎

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on Jun-25-2019 by xuenchen because: 😄



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: chr0naut

No. He did not win because the American people were propagandised.

That’s a lie.

And if anyone of the two is comparable to Hitler, it’s hilary, the fascist.


Hitler idealized the Fascists under Mussolini and later, when Hitler had taken power, he sided with the Italian Fascist party. The Nazi's and the Fascists were extreme right-whingers and were both anti-Communist (who were extreme left-whingers).

Once again, word definitions: Definition of propaganda - Merriam Webster



LOL what???


"Only one watt, you're not very bright" - adapted from The Goon Show.



Fascism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fascism - The Free Dictionary

Fascism - Encyclopedia Brittannica

fascism - Dictionary.com

What Is Fascism? - Live Science

Fascism, Its Characteristics, Pros, and Cons with Examples Can Fascism Occur in a Democracy? - The Balance please pay attention to the section "The 7 Characteristics of Fascism" for best definition.

Difference Between Communism and fascism - The Difference Between.net

fascism - The Urban Dictionary

... and;

propaganda - Dictionary.com

propaganda - Cambridge Dictionary

Definition of 'propaganda' - Collins English Dictionary

propaganda - vocabulary.com

Propaganda - Encyclopedia Brittanica

edit on 25/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Electoral College Members are bound by State laws.

The 2016 Electoral "Count" saw several Members "replaced" because they wanted to "Vote" against State Laws.

😎

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Ooooh, that'll keep them honest!

Perhaps they should stand them in the 'naughty' corner too.

Ten voted faithlessly, only two were replaced, one was forced to vote again.

Then, there's this to consider.



edit on 25/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
I believe the influence they had was insignificant

Not worth claiming “Russian influence” like a cNn-fed moron

He still would have won regardless

And he will win again in 2020, regardless


Trump didn't win the popular vote at all, he won the Electoral College vote primarily because of 7 faithless electors who did not vote Democrat, despite being pledged to. Only one EC Republican voter was faithless.

It is a hole in the EC system that because of low numbers of actual voters, it is financially possible to pay off a small number to vote faithlessly and to therefore win the vote.

This appears to be what happened in 2016. If there was electoral corruption, it points directly to the Trump campaign, not the Democrats.


Whoever told you to think this lied to you. The only thing accurate there is that Trump didn't win the popular vote. The rest of it is nonsense. Trump won by 77 electoral votes. 7 faithless electors were not the "primary" reason he won. They're not even the tertiary reason. They literally had zero impact. And there's zero evidence of any payoffs, you just made that up out of thin air.

Learn to think for yourself. You got tricked, bad. Whoever is telling you this crap is making you look like a fool.


Can you not see the holes in the Electoral College system? If say a billionaire paid $1 million to each of 270 electors (you don't have to pay them all off) he would get the Presidency by majority. Absolutely.

How many faithless electors, prior to 2016, have ever been prosecuted? Zero.

How many have actually been prosecuted at this time? Two, who are appealing their $1,000 fines.

If you were given the choice of taking a $1 million bribe, at the risk of a $1,000 fine, Would you vote with your conscience?

... and it doesn't even have to be something obvious like a big cash payment. It could be a business deal, promotion, payrise, property purchase or sale, or even an overseas investment that pays out an annuity.

You know, the type of money laundering operations that Trump's associates Cohen and Mannafort were convicted of.

But hey, a corporation whose principals have been found guilty of crimes, having committed other undiscovered crimes, unthinkable (and why won't Trump release his tax details?).

Can you absolutely state with confidence that such vote buying could not occur?

While ever it can occur, the Electoral College system is open to corruption and while ever it is open to corruption, criminals will seek to use the loopholes. I can guarantee that with high confidence.


There are literally too many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start...
edit on 25-6-2019 by Rewey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

This is not a discussion on whether or not you like Trump or the definitions of Fascism. This is a discussion on how a single massive company aims to tamper in elections. Get on topic.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

This is not a discussion on whether or not you like Trump or the definitions of Fascism. This is a discussion on how a single massive company aims to tamper in elections. Get on topic.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh 8 voted fathlesly,but you do realize those EC votes were counted to still give it to trump.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanZek
a reply to: chr0naut

This is not a discussion on whether or not you like Trump or the definitions of Fascism. This is a discussion on how a single massive company aims to tamper in elections. Get on topic.


The Trump Organization is a single large company.

Perhaps the convictions of some of its principals for actual tampering within the electoral process during the Trump campaign might indicate that it isn't as off topic as you would like.

If we are to prosecute one, we should prosecute the other equally.

If we pretend that the Russians had no effect on electoral outcomes, we should also say that Google, similarly, has no effect on electoral outcomes.

The double-think that absolves one side and damns another is simply an unbalanced view.

Either Prosecute Google for attempting to affect electoral outcomes and prosecute the Trump Organization and the press. - Or support the Constitutional right to free speech.

My call is that Google have the right to express personal and accumulated views especially if they are countering a vast disinformation campaign organized by an enemy state, that has been going on for decades. They also have the right to identify the veracity or otherwise, of content carried via their media. I do not believe that they have the right to entirely purge the content of opponents of their view, though. That would be contrary to freedom of expression.


edit on 25/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
I believe the influence they had was insignificant

Not worth claiming “Russian influence” like a cNn-fed moron

He still would have won regardless

And he will win again in 2020, regardless


Trump didn't win the popular vote at all, he won the Electoral College vote primarily because of 7 faithless electors who did not vote Democrat, despite being pledged to. Only one EC Republican voter was faithless.

It is a hole in the EC system that because of low numbers of actual voters, it is financially possible to pay off a small number to vote faithlessly and to therefore win the vote.

This appears to be what happened in 2016. If there was electoral corruption, it points directly to the Trump campaign, not the Democrats.


Whoever told you to think this lied to you. The only thing accurate there is that Trump didn't win the popular vote. The rest of it is nonsense. Trump won by 77 electoral votes. 7 faithless electors were not the "primary" reason he won. They're not even the tertiary reason. They literally had zero impact. And there's zero evidence of any payoffs, you just made that up out of thin air.

Learn to think for yourself. You got tricked, bad. Whoever is telling you this crap is making you look like a fool.


Can you not see the holes in the Electoral College system? If say a billionaire paid $1 million to each of 270 electors (you don't have to pay them all off) he would get the Presidency by majority. Absolutely.

How many faithless electors, prior to 2016, have ever been prosecuted? Zero.

How many have actually been prosecuted at this time? Two, who are appealing their $1,000 fines.

If you were given the choice of taking a $1 million bribe, at the risk of a $1,000 fine, Would you vote with your conscience?

... and it doesn't even have to be something obvious like a big cash payment. It could be a business deal, promotion, payrise, property purchase or sale, or even an overseas investment that pays out an annuity.

You know, the type of money laundering operations that Trump's associates Cohen and Mannafort were convicted of.

But hey, a corporation whose principals have been found guilty of crimes, having committed other undiscovered crimes, unthinkable (and why won't Trump release his tax details?).

Can you absolutely state with confidence that such vote buying could not occur?

While ever it can occur, the Electoral College system is open to corruption and while ever it is open to corruption, criminals will seek to use the loopholes. I can guarantee that with high confidence.


There are literally too many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start...


Not even able to bring a single refutation?

You don't seem to get how debate works. You have to actually refute your opponent. Advertising your inability is not valid cogent argument.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

They are Publishing their Intent , REGULATE NOW !



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh 8 voted fathlesly,but you do realize those EC votes were counted to still give it to trump.


Yes, however I was simply trying to point out one glaring fault in the Electoral College system that is not usually mentioned in such debates. By no means is it limited to this one. If you want to list almost all the possible issues with the system, then simply look at the opposing arguments in Wikipedia.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanZek
a reply to: chr0naut

This is not a discussion on whether or not you like Trump or the definitions of Fascism. This is a discussion on how a single massive company aims to tamper in elections. Get on topic.


The Trump Organization is a single large company.

Perhaps the convictions of some of its principals for actual tampering within the electoral process during the Trump campaign might indicate that it isn't as off topic as you would like.

If we are to prosecute one, we should prosecute the other equally.

If we pretend that the Russians had no effect on electoral outcomes, we should also say that Google, similarly, has no effect on electoral outcomes.

The double-think that absolves one side and damns another is simply an unbalanced view.

Either Prosecute Google for attempting to affect electoral outcomes and prosecute the Trump Organization and the press. Or support the Constitutional right to free speech.

My call is that Google have the right to express personal and accumulated views especially if they are countering a vast disinformation campaign organized by an enemy state, that has been going on for decades.


I see that speaking to you is fruitless since all you do is conflate issues and try to steer away the conversation of the point at hand. Google is a company that will subvert proper elections. No amount of your Orange man bad detracts from that fact.

Google claims its a platform not a publisher and yet it is acting as a publisher in eliminating the free expression of one side.

Google needs to be held accountable for it's actions. This is a non partisan issue.

You want an Orange man bad thread, go make your own.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DanZek>>>> The alleged Russian collusion and interference with out elections was nothing more than a smoke screen to draw attention away rom the massive manipulation of voter information that was 90% in favor of Hillary Clinton. The MSM( sans Fox) was pro Hillary and anti Trump. Hollywood was out stumping for Hillary. Google and the ISP providers were pro Hillary, channeling information to help her. There was grass roots support for Trump on social media and that was what they tried to deceptively label as being created by Russians. So now they want to limit social media and " ban hate speech" Now they want to warn us about " fake video" and how that can created to sway elections one way or the other. Yeah, but who will have the ability to make professional fake videos. Not some Joe Six pack that hates progressives or some nitwit progressive that hates conservatives. It will be the entertainment industry and the intelligence community that can get the job done. And guess who they'll go after? Anybody they don't want in power. And if some juicy piece of video or photo surfaces that can ruin a campaign or career, what will they do? They'll say its a fake and we should ignore it.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
“The Russians influenced the election”

What a load



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl

I don't disagree with you at all. I mean the media, Hollyweird, music industry, silicon valley, and even some republicans were shilling for Hillary. This is the next step though. This is Google now specifically tampering with an election by controlling the public square by only allowing their version of fairness to be heard. It's despicable.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanZek

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DanZek
a reply to: chr0naut

This is not a discussion on whether or not you like Trump or the definitions of Fascism. This is a discussion on how a single massive company aims to tamper in elections. Get on topic.


The Trump Organization is a single large company.

Perhaps the convictions of some of its principals for actual tampering within the electoral process during the Trump campaign might indicate that it isn't as off topic as you would like.

If we are to prosecute one, we should prosecute the other equally.

If we pretend that the Russians had no effect on electoral outcomes, we should also say that Google, similarly, has no effect on electoral outcomes.

The double-think that absolves one side and damns another is simply an unbalanced view.

Either Prosecute Google for attempting to affect electoral outcomes and prosecute the Trump Organization and the press. Or support the Constitutional right to free speech.

My call is that Google have the right to express personal and accumulated views especially if they are countering a vast disinformation campaign organized by an enemy state, that has been going on for decades.


I see that speaking to you is fruitless since all you do is conflate issues and try to steer away the conversation of the point at hand. Google is a company that will subvert proper elections. No amount of your Orange man bad detracts from that fact.

Google claims its a platform not a publisher and yet it is acting as a publisher in eliminating the free expression of one side.

Google needs to be held accountable for it's actions. This is a non partisan issue.

You want an Orange man bad thread, go make your own.


So, do you believe that there should be no right of free speech? That Google should be prosecuted for having an opinion?

You see, time and time again it is said on ATS that no-one voted for Hillary. Yet the historical fact is that 65,853,514 individual voters, voted specifically for Hillary as President, 2,868,686 more than voted for Trump as President.

The whole idea that hardly anyone voted for Hillary is entirely fallacious but it is turfed out nearly every fifth post in the political forums here, and it is obvious that some here actually believe it, despite the obviousness of the lie.

So, refuting something that is just the noise of some echo-chamber and provably untrue is my quest. I will use the highest credentialed sources as support for my arguments and will continue to challenge your beliefs, undeterred.

And why don't I start a new thread? Because you just ignore anything that doesn't fit your opinions. It would be a waste of my time. I'd much rather be in your face and challenging you in threads that, it seems, you believe should be a circle-jerk of self-affirmation. Tough. I see ATS as a place to debate with reason and truthfulness and will continue to work to that end.

Something about "denying ignorance"...


edit on 25/6/2019 by chr0naut because: But this is going way off topic. I'll stick back to it again as I have said my pieces in response to others.



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
“The Russians influenced the election”

What a load


... and yet Google influenced the election, isn't?




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The left understands that they don’t HAVE to try underhanded cheating tactics, right?

Maybe try actually having a platform. Better yet, a platform that people WANT

MILLIONS of people worldwide ‘anti trump anti trump anti trump’ cNn and ALL media followings suit.
Most definitely attempting to ‘influence’ the outcome

And still lost.

Ha ha haaa. And doomed to repeat again next year in even WORSE fashion



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join