Project veritas part 1 Rigging the election

a reply to: AveedMajd

Interesting. Can you elaborate further? Name some 'suspects' or what have you, please? 'Bankerese' is hard on the eyes for many people.

Might this have implications on the election?

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Good post. The mass media is already claiming the 'rigged election' theory is only for tinfoil hat types.

NPR This Morning

They're going to make most people think about election-rigging like it's Bigfoot or little green men -even with evidence.

originally posted by: fatefulday
a reply to: JacKatMtn

Good post. The mass media is already claiming the 'rigged election' theory is only for tinfoil hat types.

NPR This Morning

They're going to make most people think about election-rigging like it's Bigfoot or little green men -even with evidence.

Apparently NPR sycophants can't watch video and understand it!?

Yeah the shill Media is hoping Hillary will wipe out small media that is eating their lunch. Some small media outlets like Infowars dwarfs traditional media in viewership and in reach. The MSM like NPR is hoping that Hillary will outlaw media competition or license it. So licenses can be pulled by the govt. easily.

Amerika, Heil Hillary.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Who can view ATS but not youtube?

a reply to: yeahsurexxx

I'm at a Fortune 100 company that blocks ATS, but not Youtube. I am curious as to why ATS, but I'm guessing it was on some block list by the IT people that run the company filters.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: lovebeck
Why wouldn't Trump continue to campaign?? Why would he quit? That makes no damn sense. At all.

Well, rigged means he can't win. You do understand that right?

Maybe you should look up words you don't understand before stating untruths to others. Unless you just intended to mislead others by lying in which case...you should join the Clinton campaign.

rigged
1. The word rigged is used to describe situations where unfair advantages are given to one side of a conflict.
2. Describes the side of the a conflict that holds an unfair advantage.

a reply to: kruphix

After reading through this whole thread and chuckling through some of your antics . It was indeed rather refreshing watching all your stars diminish . Looks like your losing supporters in this thread .

Now let us hope the same thing happens to killary when this hits the MSM ...

I don't even know what to say anymore. But the "See no Evil" people here amaze me!

...letting that anger control you to where it effects your decisions is not normal.

This bit right here is why we are in the position were in now (as a country). People don't get angry enough to take any real action.

originally posted by: XxBman006xX
I don't even know what to say anymore. But the "See no Evil" people here amaze me!

There are about 6 active pro Hillary people posting in almost every thread thread, and ATS knows who they are.
There is another 6 that are what I call soft supporters they don't post in every thread, but they are more neutral in that they will advocate the third party line.

I also have to say I think there is about 3 pro Hillary mods, they have been censoring both sides but they are censoring the Trump people harder.

Come on people, when Rubio comes out and says ignore the Wikileaks that is the final straw that we are in the land of Oz, and there is that great Wizard trying to hide the truth from us all, thankfully most of us here at ATS ripped down that curtain they are hiding behind, years ago.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Those definitions are from urban dictionary, the wiki of definitions.

Those definitions are in the no. 1 spot but the No. 2 seems more eloquent
rigged: unfair or #ed up in some sort of way that just makes you feel that someone or something is #ing around with you


I'll stick with: To manipulate dishonestly for personal gain

Which in practical terms means that you can't win because someone else is manipulating things.

originally posted by: Kapusta
a reply to: kruphix

After reading through this whole thread and chuckling through some of your antics . It was indeed rather refreshing watching all your stars diminish . Looks like your losing supporters in this thread .

Now let us hope the same thing happens to killary when this hits the MSM ...

Do you post for stars?

Because I don't.

This has already "hit" the MSM, outside of Hannity's show, the narrative is about another highly edited video by O'Keefe and how quickly the two subjects in the video have been addressed.

Getting out in front of a hit piece = killing the hit piece.

originally posted by: Mizzijr

...letting that anger control you to where it effects your decisions is not normal.

This bit right here is why we are in the position were in now (as a country). People don't get angry enough to take any real action.

What is "real action"?

I'm curious what you think actually should be done.

Interesting.

Robert Creamer, one of the scum bags in the videos shown so far has visited the Whitehouse 340 times in the last few years.
Wonder who he was reporting to?