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.
originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: DJW001
You ask for evidence then, in the next breath, make a baseless claim. Let's see your evidence of Rsmussian tampering.
originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: DJW001
He only had a zero chance of winning is because you believed the msm, who was colluding (and still is) with the opposing party. Everyone else, including Obama, knew that wasn't true.
originally posted by: DJW001
A Clinton victory seems all but certain: even if Donald Trump somehow manages to win a plurality, that is, more of the popular vote than Clinton, the Clinton campaign's strategy seems certain to deliver the Electoral College. In other words, Trump can "win" the popular vote and still lose the election.
Here are my questions to Trump supporters:
1. Do you intend to monitor the polling places on election day, looking for voter fraud? What would you look for? If you suspect voter fraud, what would you do? Have you familiarized yourself with the election laws in your state? (They vary from state to state.)
2. How do you think Trump will react on election night as the media predicts a Clinton victory?
3. How do you think Trump would react if the election is officially called in Clinton's favor, although Trump had a larger share of the popular vote? Would he concede graciously? Would he contest it in the Supreme Court?
4. How would you react? Would you shrug and say to yourself "ya win some, ya lose some," or would you take to the street?
5. What if the Supreme Court, all of whom were appointed by the "mainstream" parties, ruled in Clinton's favor? How do you think Trump would react? How would you react?
All of this is hypothetical, of course, but I am curious as to how Trump supporters feel. It is easy for Trump skeptics to predict chaos and rioting, but I am hoping to see honest, thoughtful, and conciliatory reactions from my fellow ATS members.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
The dossier was proven to be a complete fabrication.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.
You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?
originally posted by: YouSir
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.
You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?
Ummm...no...what we know is that they're not accusing them of it...anymore...
YouSir
originally posted by: YouSir
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.
You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?
Ummm...no...what we know is that they're not accusing them of it...anymore...
YouSir
Despite repeated assurances to the contrary from the Obama administration, and despite the lack of any supporting evidence, a majority of Democrats believe a conspiracy theory in which Russia tampered with the voting tallies in last month’s election to rig the outcome in favor of Donald Trump
originally posted by: YouSir
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.
You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?
Ummm...no...what we know is that they're not accusing them of it...anymore...
YouSir
originally posted by: TheMadTitan
a reply to: DJW001
The simplest way to put it would be the Obama Administration was terrified of Trump winning because they (Obama Admin) are in cahoots with the Clintons and they knew that if the Clintons won it would help further their collective nefarious agenda/s. Spy on Trump to help Clinton.
It's known that Obama Admin had no problem using government agencies against his political opponents (IRS for example; why else did Lerner plead the 5th?). It's not stretch at all to think that willingness extended to using those powers to help sway elections too.
And why does everyone assume this was *only* used against Trump?
It might have been used against Sanders, Webb, and the other Republican nominees in an effort to make sure the election was safely put in the hands of the chosen candidate. There is good evidence the DNC conspired against Sanders with the Clinton Campaign.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: DJW001
The narrative the White House seems to be selling is that a President who was not up for re-election ordered government assets to spy on a potential candidate who was being given a 0% chance of winning.
It's already been established that information was gathered from the Trump campaign via the FISA warrant and then handed to the Clinton campaign.
And 0%? Really? 60 million votes is a lot for someone who was given a 0% chance of winning, don't you think?
Who gave him this 0% chance of winning?
You?
Seems ironic considering that he was the leading candidate in the GOP primaries from the moment he announced he was running all the way through to the nomination. All of this and before anything from Wikileaks.
But no, somehow all of this overwhelming support that Trump had amassed before he was nominated is irrelevant because Russia got him elected.
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.