Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rinzwind

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/06/1981

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Computers, politics, socialising
  • Occupation
    IT Support
  1. The mainstream (defunct) media has been caught telling blatant lies so many times that they are no longer credible in the eye's of the majority of the people and rightly so. That's why they weren't believed about brexit and why they are not believed now when talking about Trump vs Clinton. A regular strategy is one of omission. They simply won't talk about the breaking news scandals that should bury Clinton. By not talking about them, other sites that rely on "verified mainstream sources" cannot mention them either. Wikipedia is a good example of this. Who get's to decide what is a credible mainstream source? I don't think any of the mainstream sources are credible and I'm certainly not alone.
  2. Where is the rule on only posting factual information from reputable sources Medusa? Can you quote us all that rule? If your going to factor out alternative sources or any sites that actually dispute the mainstream narrative given by "sky news" or the "BBC" then it's impossible for alternative opinions to be voiced here effectively. I think wikileaks is a mainstream source. What about RT? Can we quote RT?
  3. Wikileaks has an ten year unblemished record in delivering factual information. Not a single one of their leaks has ever been refuted by anybody. Is that reputable enough? That being said....I think everybody should take this email at face value. It seems a middle-aged lawyer wants $9600 up front for 480 stuffed animals who are “cat and dog friendly” and have human personalities (“some are sassier than others”) because his “parents are visiting this weekend” and they “can’t find out.” The email was released by wikileaks in their podesta email dump. Nothing to see here.
  4. Isn't this just speculation? Where is your actual evidence that Hillary has cleaned up with women and minorities? Early voting suggests she hasn't done nearly as well as she expected with minorities. Also the woman vote could change drastically in the next day or two. If rallies were irrelevant then why do they have them and why did Hillary invite Beyonce and Jay-z to get people to go to hers? Also saying that trump only has rednecks as supporters is insulting to all his other supporters. It's just repeating the meme they tried with brexit, namely that only people who are stupid racists vote anti establishment. That didn't work so well with the brexit and I don't think it will wash here either.
  5. I didn't really think it would make any difference. I wanted to have a poll for two weeks just to get a measure of what people thought. It wasn't timed particularly to end with the election day.
  6. Then why express an opinion on something you know nothing about? My video explained (to Anna and others) how a single person can rig the vote.
  7. Yes, Eric Zeusse and RINF. What's your problem with this site? Are you suggesting these laws aren't real laws and don't exist? Is Eric Zeusse just making them up? More importantly, which of those laws are you saying Hillary Clinton did not break? Lets have some details about what you think. What exactly is your point? Rather than attack a messenger you disagree with (without any explanation of why you are doing so), why don't you instead address the message? "Eric Zeusse Ha Ha" is not an argument. One. Did you even watch ? I don't know, why don't you ask them? Obviously they think it's worth the bother of trying to fiddle the count or they wouldn't be doing it would they.
  8. Here are six laws Hillary Clinton is known to have broken. This is not a "conspiracy theory" Her own public testimony confirms she has broken these laws. Collectively these crimes carry a sentence of 70 years in prison if anyone else commits them. FBI director James Comey, simply refused to investigate them, instead focusing on the hardest-to-prove crimes that she probably but not definitely committed. Clearly Hillary Clinton is above the law. The emails she deleted contained details of her pay to play scandals (and probably much more besides). That is the selling of US policy decisions to wealthy foreign donors via the "Clinton Foundation" One such example is the approval of some 90 billion dollars worth of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia even though she knew (according to her own email) that they were providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL. That's treason right there. As Julian Assange has rightly pointed out, the Clinton Foundation and ISIS are both financed by the same people. Even the chairperson of the Department of Homeland Security called it treason. Julian Assange also rightly pointed out Trump will not be allowed to win the election. The system is rigged so that he cannot win no matter how many people cast their vote for him. Before anyone calls this another "conspiracy theory" please watch detailing another actual mechanism for rigging the election. After watching the video can anyone else suggest another plausible reason why votes would be recorded as fractional numbers (numbers with a decimal place like 1.234) rather than integers (whole numbers like "1 vote" "2 votes" etc) if not to facilitate the rigging of the election? Those who cry "conspiracy theory" are looking more and more ridiculous to everybody else who has actually bothered to follow the falling apart of the various government narratives over the years. To suggest that there are never conspiracies or crimes against democracy is utterly preposterous. In my opinion that's just as idiotic as believing in Lizards.
  9. No, for the second time, I'm saying you are using the disinformation tactic number 19 articulated in this list. For the second time I do not know why you are doing that. Maybe Clinton has personally asked you, maybe you're just in love with her. Who knows. I'm not speculating about your motives. They have been rigging the election all year. They have been colluding with the media for over a year. They could only rig the primaries during the primaries. They couldn't rig the debates until the debates were actually happening. They can't rig the actual vote with voter fraud until the vote actually happens although the evidence provided by James O'Keefe shows that they have been preparing to do this. They can't rig the count with electronic voting machines until the count happens but the backdoors were available back in 2006. What's ludicrous is your failed attempt to troll this thread.
  10. I addressed the rape allegations against Trump vs Clinton. I stated... I happen to think it's a side issue compared to the mountains of well evidenced corruption that has been levelled at Hillary, not to mention the threat of nuclear war if she enacts her stated policies. To me, nuclear war is much more important. I'd rather elect a possible rapist than a known serial warmonger. How the heck is anybody supposed to know who authorized what? My money is on Hillary Clinton but obviously nobody can prove that. What we know is that senior DNC staffers have been involved in rigging the election. You are demanding impossible proofs like it says in number 19 of this list of disinformation tactics. ---------- Post added 23-10-2016 at 19:50 ---------- What are you talking about? They rigged the primaries this year. Yes voting machins were vulnerable in 2006, nothing has changed. I don't know. Why don't you go ask them? I'm talking about documents that show they've rigged part of the election already. I'm not speculating on anything. No. In this thread I've made a compelling case for how the election has been/is being rigged in favour of Clinton. You have suggested this is lunacy because "They can't rig the election because they would have shot Mr Trump first instead" To me that does not follow. Shooting trump would be so blatant that it would make the democrats even more likely to lose against whoever the republicans trotted out to replace him.
  11. The idea that the election has been rigged is not a conspiracy theory, it's a documented fact. Because those polls are probably unreliable. CNN was caught using polls from a Clinton donor for example and weighting their polls by asking more democrats than republicans. Also Trump has started gaining ground again. It seems his "rigged election" message is resonating with voters.
  12. I have answered the "who." It's in the data I just gave you. Read it instead of asking me to explain everything to you. Just to help you out here are some names to look out for... Scott Foval and Robert Creamer, both Democratic political operatives. Senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary and campaign chair John Podesta...etc. No. I'm suggesting you are ignoring the proof I have presented which is one of the 25 disinformation tactics in this list. I have no idea why you are doing that.
  13. Why don't you believe the how? They were caught admitting it on film. Two individuals got fired over it. hundreds of their own emails prove it. The people who's job it was to investigate . Are you sure you aren't just doubling down on number 19 from this list? You can find out the "who" by reading the information I am presenting.
  14. Clinton's accusers have been accusing him for years and years. It's well documented. He even settled lawsuits with some of them out of court. Clinton's accusers didn't just conveniently jump out of the woodwork two weeks before an election. How come you only want to talk about a handful of suspiciously timed sex allegations. Isn't all the other stuff I mentioned about certain nuclear war, proof of inciting violence, potential murder, suspected drug dealing and proof of financing terrorism more important to you than kiss and tell stuff? (Number 4) I addressed the how in another thread (and earlier in this thread). It's not a conspiracy theory when you have facts and evidence. (Numbers 1, 3, 5, 9 and 19)
  15. Exactly. If it really happened then they should have mentioned it at the time. Not sat on it for 20 years.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.