rinzwind

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Exactly. If it really happened then they should have mentioned it at the time. Not sat on it for 20 years.

If I said that 20 years ago you stole my watch and I don't have any evidence, how seriously would you take me? If he gets convicted in a court then that's one thing but right now it's just slander. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Actually he said "when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything, grab them by the ****, anything." That's not the same as admitting sexually assaulting women. It's actually saying that you can get away with it if you are a celebrity. You probably can. It's very different to actually raping someone like Bill Clinton did several times, or getting a child rapist off the hook by rubbishing the reputation of a 12 year old rape victim like Hillary did and then How about inciting the actual violence that occurred at Trump's political rallies. That was pretty underhand too (not to mention illegal). As is faking sexist job postings to rubbish your political opponents, that's just out an out lying (and it happened long before the Trump tape surfaced so no, the smear campaign didn't start like that, did it). If Hillary cares so much about the plight of women then why is she accepting money from Saudi Arabia even though she knows they finance ISIS? I wonder what favours she promised those guys if she becomes president. Didn't one of Hillary's companies also pay taxes to ISIS? Don't they kill British soldiers? Isn't that directly financing terrorism? Not that killing soldiers concerns Hillary since she has stated she will impose a "no-fly-zone" over a foreign country and if elected. I don't think she'll be putting on a uniform and fighting though will she. Probably wouldn't pass the medical exam. Did you know that Julian Assange's mentor just wound up dead today? Just like his lawyer did a few months ago. Wow! How many more people will Hillary have murdered to become president. Incidentally I'd be very interested in seeing a picture of Assange still alive and holding a copy of today's newspaper. And lets not even get started talking about cocaine smuggling out of Mena municipal airport in Arkansas. Sure Trump made an ill advised comment ten years ago. I'm not defending it but I've heard worse myself. Clinton on the other hand is a career gangster who's life's mission is to start world war 3. I'd therefore still rather vote for Trump. You're attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message. Did I mention that Hillary broke the law by using a private email server to receive classified state department emails? She then deleted 30,000 of them (in spite of being ordered to hand them over by a US court) in an attempt to cover up her role in the murder of ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi who was facilitating arms smuggling to terrorists?

Please go back and re-read my last post. Ask someone to help you if you are struggling.

It's true that black voters traditionally vote Democrat. That doesn't mean the Democrats win all the time. George Bush got only 7% and 3% of the black vote during the two elections he won. He still did win. This time around black voters feel badly let down by their first black president who oversaw more race riots than any other president. Clinton is not black and when her husband stood for election he got less black voters than any democrat since Kennedy. Black voters usually vote for change because they are the people who often feel the most exploited. http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx

Yeah obviously. I think that's exactly why you are saying it. Recently he was ahead in the polls until Clinton started her "trump is a rapist" smear campaign. There's still two weeks to go and Julian Assange said he would bury Clinton before the election for sure. Let's hope he's still alive. That's just total speculation. Did you even read my previous post? I was very clear that Trump supporters are more likely to vote. It's the Clinton voters that will stay home because they can't stand their own candidate. You're pulling these numbers out of where? Can you provide a link to this story you're talking about? Something like this....

Political pollsters have been very wrong recently. The establishment has been alarmingly wrong all year. The establishment cannot accept how hated they have become by the people. They simply don't believe it and this is causing them to get everything wrong. They still think they are popular. Consequently they keep being surprised. If you recall, pundits were saying Trump didn't have a cat in hells chance of becoming the republican nomination. They were wrong. In addition, there are various reports of news agencies like Fox and CNN rigging their own polls. Interviewing majority democrats who lean towards Clinton. This is predictive programming. They wouldn't be doing this unless they felt they had to. The idea is to make people think Trump doesn't have a chance/has already lost and therefore make people shrug and say... "Well I might as well vote for Clinton then. I don't like her, but at least I won't be labelled as a womanizer or racist." Unfortunately the alternative media seems to be overtaking the legacy mainstream media in terms of influence. People can see through all the lies now. The talking heads on the Telly, political pundits and establishment figures don't know what they are talking about. This is nothing new of course. The only new thing is that the people are aware of it now. Actually Jeremy Corbyn might surprise you (again). If you recall, Jeremy didn't have a chance of being elected party leader. He was a rank outsider until he won in a landslide. Then the PLP thought they could change the rules, deny him loads of votes and successfully challenge his leadership. They were wrong again. Corbyn was elected with an even bigger majority. All the predictive programming in the world doesn't seem to make a difference anymore. I fancy Corbyn's chances. He's the only peace activist I see in Westminster. Lies about Iraq, Libya and Syria have woken people up to the fact that political elites are bloodthirsty psychopaths. It should also be noted that Jeremy and Trump are both political opposites (loving your attempt to conflate the two). Trump is far right and Corbyn is far left. The only thing they have in common is that they are both fighting against the establishment and rightly so. No, you don't. You can't tell what millions of Americans are thinking. You only know what the media you watch are telling you they are thinking. This is the same media that said Trump didn't have a chance of winning the nomination. The media repeatedly draws attention to irrelevancies as if these things matter to people when really they don't. They only matter to easily influenced people who would probably have voted Clinton anyway. Trump is appealing to the "I hate the government crowd" This crowd is IMO substantially larger than the white male crowd. I think I read a survey somewhere that said the majority of Americans prefer cockroaches to politicians. Actually Trump supporters are highly motivated. This is why I consider the majority of the polls wrong. Ask 100 people who they will vote for and they will tell you one candidate or the other. The truth is 40% of them won't bother to vote at all. I would wager that the majority of these people are on Clinton's side because she represents the status quo. Trump voters would crawl through broken glass to cast their vote for him. People voted for Obama because they wanted change. This time around Trump is the change candidate. Again, people don't believe the lies on the telly anymore. All these stories about Trumps sexual misconduct are as transparent as lies about Iraq. None of them have any . If anything these smear tactics will drive more people to vote for Trump, not less. The only people that fall for them are the people that would vote Hillary anyway. The media is continuously talking about them like they are the only stories that matter but anyone intelligent can sense that in the background are much more important stories coming from wikileaks and out of Syria. I'm not the one claiming to know Trump without the media. FYI I've watched most of his rallies on the internet and Clinton's too. What you call "obscure websites" are now far more trusted (and perhaps even more influential) than the . Anybody who uses the internet or twitter or who reads the comments section on any pages that still allow comments, knows for a fact the mainstream media cannot be believed. We also know for a fact that Hillary is a warmonger and a criminal. She has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others. With Hillary you know you are electing somebody with a lengthy trail of death and destruction behind her. Trump on the other hand "might" be a rapist, the jury is still out but so far there is zero evidence beside . It’s going to be either the possible rapist, or else the definite and serial warmonger.

That's not enough. Millions of people sit it out every year and look where we are. The only solution is to campaign like crazy and get a third party candidate in to the running. It's not enough to just vote for them. You have to get millions of other people to vote for them too.

You have no way of knowing why he is losing. You cannot say if it's because of false allegations of misogyny repeated ad nausium in the media or if it's because he says he will work with the Russians after they have been demonized ad nausium in the media. I doubt you would actually know anything about Trump were it not for the media. Have you attended any of his rallies? I'm not even going to dispute whether he's a head case as you put it. He certainly wouldn't be my first choice. The only thing I know for sure is he's a lot better than Hilary Clinton who is not only a criminal and ineligible for the position, but who's stated policy of a no-fly-zone (aka: bombing campaign) would lead to large numbers of civilian deaths (according to her). She would also put her own citizens lives at risk by shooting down Russian planes and her policy would almost certainly which would put all of our lives at risk here in Sheffield. For what? To help some Islamist rebels in Syria? To my mind that makes her even more of a head case than him and I'm not alone in that thinking either.

You're leaving it to Tinfoilhat because you have nothing to say. Clinton Eugene Curtis is an American attorney, computer programmer and ex-employee of NASA and ExxonMobil. He is testifying in court, under oath. He is not the only programmer to express concerns about electronic voting machines. How is believing his testimony lunacy? Are you sure your not just doing numbers 5 and 18 from this list?

Well we can only wait and see. As Anna just pointed out, pollsters have been wrong before and the Media is doing everything they can to help Clinton. They wouldn't be compromising their integrity (lol) if Trump had no chance.

Fair enough. I can't recall where I first read that story and googling for it just now came up with SS95 who I'll admit I've never heard of either. They may be unreliable. That's what happens when you don't check all of your sources carefully before posting them on forums. It's not what happens by default when you use the internet. I don't think you could find anything else I've posted that would be unreliable. If you can then I will be more than happy to agree with you. The internet has a way of filtering out this false information as you just demonstrated. Nevertheless I still maintain that my original statement was accurate. Trump should be winning by a landslide. Without massive media bias, false allegations of sexual misconduct and Hillary's protection from prosecution, Trump would be a mile ahead. I stand by this. My point was that Trump does not believe he has lost. He is a long way from throwing in the towel. Polling figures change daily and Trump is ahead in many states.