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: Creep Thumper
originally posted by: FlyingFox
My understanding of absentee ballots are they don't get counted unless they exceed the apparent margin of victory from the in-person votes.
State laws vary, but this is an incentive to vote in person.edit on 22-8-2020 by FlyingFox because: This might be their Modus Opperandi , fabricate enough mail-in votes to require a hold on the results from the regular polls.
All votes are counted. This includes absentee ballots.
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: queenofswords
Whatever. Do you believe that our names are on a list? Do you believe that the people that made that list have any power? Will they have power if Biden wins the election. I would’ve rather not exposed myself.
I am not a revolutionary. I just want to be see justice done in equal fashion.
Even if I was of the revolutionary slant I certainly wouldn’t want to announce it to the people I am revolting against.
And by the way I don’t remember that much fair weather
originally posted by: Trillium
Just when you think your on top of thing
cirnow.com.au...
Under the terms of the Foreign Investment Protection Act (FIPA), a bi-lateral treaty ratified with China by the Trudeau government in 2019, Chinese security forces can be stationed on Canadian soil to protect vital Chinese investments, without the knowledge or consent of local authorities. – Canadian Independent Press Review, January 15, 2020
We are being infiltrated by the chinese military and our government likely has no idea how many are currently stationed here
originally posted by: carewemust
Some interesting insights into the legal perjury trap that John Durham placed John Brennan in on Friday.
www.redstate.com...
The above article was near the top of the search results using DuckDuckGo. Google may not even have it. I stopped looking after going in three pages. That should tell you something.
originally posted by: 1010set
originally posted by: Sakiale
a reply to: 1010set
sigh. i just typed up a long response but when i tried to post i got logged out and now its gone... anyway ive been here a while and blind faith is never good but i choose to have an apprehensive belief in Q based on what i see, as well as their core message.
A little background on myself may be in order. I should have done an Intro Post, but it's a little late for that.
I spent 12 years in the service. The first 8 as an C-130 Flight Engineer before an injury took me off the flight-deck. I thought my username may have given that away. The last 4 I was assigned as an Criminal Investigator for the Northeast Command Region stationed in Philly. Due to me being responsible for comms, and other things, I held an TS-SCI my entire career. Because of this, I caught some juicy cases and often collaborated with USSS and the FBI. Nothing Q has transmitted is any thing I recognize. This doesn't mean any thing in and of itself. It's just I'm not familiar with it, nor does it fit any pattern I'm used to.
I'll admit I didn't take this thread seriously when I first decided to engage. I'm an agnostic. I tend to shut down the moment any thing metaphysical, religious or paranormal is brought up. I'm a well trained and experienced investigator. First Aircraft Mishaps, then criminal investigations, and now Industrial Mishaps. What did catch my attention is the DOJs reluctance to pursue investigations into what I find to be demonstrable criminal activity with intent. This would be why I am now more interested than my original curiosity.
Having said the above, it's the contradictions and failed "predictions" that keep me from embracing the movement completely. As well as the metaphysical angles. Also, Q is not needed any longer even if he/her/they are legit. I'm late to the party, but can state that citizens with enough capital and a well networked legal circle can bring down the entire tent. I have neither, and again, am not fully onboard.
Does Q not keep telling you "You have more than you know!"? That to me sounds like a call to action.
originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: crankyoldman
cranky, re-reading your POV post reminded me of the conclusion early on that, whilst Q/NSA knows everything, a lot of their information is not admissable in court; for example some may be known through access to an illegal CIA data base.
We concluded that Q/NSA therefore needed us to pinpoint open source information from the net that IS admissable in court and leads to the same conclusions.
I'm just wondering what percentage of that open source information we have managed to highlight to them so far?
The late 1990s saw his image become irreparably tarnished, following his 1997 arrest and 1999 conviction in the United Kingdom for downloading thousands of items of child pornography.[10] He was also charged at the same time, but acquitted, of sexual activity with an underage girl in the 1970s. Later, Glitter faced criminal charges and deportation from several countries in connection with actual and suspected child sexual abuse. He was deported from Cambodia on suspected child sexual abuse charges in 2002. After settling in Vietnam, a Vietnamese court found him guilty of obscene acts with minors in 2006.... (He) was eventually charged, in June 2014, with historical child sex offences. On 5 February 2015, he was found guilty of attempted rape, four counts of indecent assault, and one of having sex with a girl under the age of 13 between 1975 and 1980. On 27 February 2015, he was sentenced to a total of 16 years in prison.
The flamboyant clothing and visual styles of performers were often camp or androgynous, and have been described as playing with nontraditional gender roles. Glitter rock was a more extreme version of glam.
The UK charts were inundated with glam rock acts from 1971 to 1975.[7] The March 1971 appearance of T. Rex frontman Marc Bolan on the BBC's music show Top of the Pops, wearing glitter and satins, is often cited as the beginning of the movement. Other British glam rock artists include David Bowie, Mott the Hoople, Sweet, Slade, Mud, Roxy Music and Gary Glitter. Those not central to the genre, such as Elton John, Rod Stewart and Freddie Mercury of Queen, also adopted glam styles.