If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.
This is a horrible idea, full of corruption. Obama laughed and criticized Trump's accusation that the election may be rigged. He said the Government has no control over elections, and now DHS wants full access, and it looks like they will get it. What makes this a big deal is Jeh Johnson, the Director of the Department of Homeland Security has publicly ridiculed and criticized Trump, calling him dangerous and saying he's a national security risk.
Yes. This guy may now be in charge of the 2016 Election. This guy is pro-Hillary, and now he may have total control of making her President.
I hope the rest of you Americans already have your guns, because it sounds like we're gonna need them.
I've never even fired a gun before. Trump is going to need a landslide victory becayse it's a foregone conclusion that the election will be rigged in Hillary's favor if it's close.
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
I can't comment on this anymore, but refer to some of my other posts about Trump and Hillary. The fact that the electoral process will taken over by the DHS bodes ill for whatever shred of Democracy is still left in the system and is not good for anyone but those already in power.
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Games are being played behind closed doors and it's simply naive to take everything at face value.
Silver Spoon, Fate/Zero, Legend of Galactic Heroes, Space Patrol Luluco, Psycho-pass, Miss Kobayashi
What Browser do you use?
Chrome, Edge
Favourite Manga
Wizard's Soul ~Holy War of Love~
Nagito Komaeda
Sep 2 2016, 02:18 AM
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Haven't you heard, there two kinds of people. Those who can't do their job without seeping their political views into it, and dead people.
For real unless this person has a history of corruption beyond saying Trump is dangerous, I doubt he'll do anything. And frankly armed rebellion over someone you don't agree with having a position in the government isn't freedom, it's mob rule.
Doesn't help that it's Trump that'll need to rig the election to win.
@Ding It's also paranoid to assume someone you don't like or agree with will absolutely subvert the democratic process.
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Games are being played behind closed doors and it's simply naive to take everything at face value.
So let's go ahead and assume that the DHS, if they do take control, are going to rig the election?
As far as I'm concerned, they're just referencing what the EIU said earlier this year, and what 50 GOP security officials said early last month.
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Games are being played behind closed doors and it's simply naive to take everything at face value.
So let's go ahead and assume that the DHS, if they do take control, are going to rig the election?
As far as I'm concerned, they're just referencing what the EIU said earlier this year, and what 50 GOP security officials said early last month.
Let's hope that people more concerned than yourself can do something about it.
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Games are being played behind closed doors and it's simply naive to take everything at face value.
So let's go ahead and assume that the DHS, if they do take control, are going to rig the election?
As far as I'm concerned, they're just referencing what the EIU said earlier this year, and what 50 GOP security officials said early last month.
Let's hope that people more concerned than yourself can do something about it.
The future of mankind rides in the balance.
Oh, I'm not that concerned about it because it's completely baseless.
You really think that people who head this kind of stuff are neutral? Of course not. Everyone has political leanings, it's just whether they're open about it or not.
Lemme ask you this; if the Government really was planning to rig the election, why would they keep the head of the department while doing so when they know he's been critical of Trump and supportive of Clinton? Do you really think they're that stupid?
Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, Hunter x Hunter (2011)
What Browser do you use?
Google Chrome
Favourite Manga
Monster, One Piece, Naruto, Fullmetal Alchemist, Hunter X Hunter, Death Note, SnK
Jar-Jar Binks
Sep 2 2016, 02:18 AM
The fact that the electoral process will taken over by the DHS
This isn't fact at all. Literally all that happened was the director of the DHS said that there should be a conversation about whether the federal election system should be considered critical infrastructure. He said this in relation to concerns that foreign powers are trying to unduly influence the election. This jump to then saying that the DHS is running the election is rubbish being paraded around by right wing lunatics.
Pro tip: If you find yourself agreeing with something Alex Jones has said then you should reconsider your position.
Silver Spoon, Fate/Zero, Legend of Galactic Heroes, Space Patrol Luluco, Psycho-pass, Miss Kobayashi
What Browser do you use?
Chrome, Edge
Favourite Manga
Wizard's Soul ~Holy War of Love~
Nagito Komaeda
Sep 2 2016, 02:31 AM
Ding
Sep 2 2016, 02:28 AM
Nagito Komaeda
Sep 2 2016, 02:23 AM
Ding
Sep 2 2016, 02:20 AM
Nagito Komaeda
Sep 2 2016, 02:18 AM
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Games are being played behind closed doors and it's simply naive to take everything at face value.
So let's go ahead and assume that the DHS, if they do take control, are going to rig the election?
As far as I'm concerned, they're just referencing what the EIU said earlier this year, and what 50 GOP security officials said early last month.
Let's hope that people more concerned than yourself can do something about it.
The future of mankind rides in the balance.
Oh, I'm not that concerned about it because it's completely baseless.
You really think that people who head this kind of stuff are neutral? Of course not. Everyone has political leanings, it's just whether they're open about it or not.
Lemme ask you this; if the Government really was planning to rig the election, why would they keep the head of the department while doing so when they know he's been critical of Trump and supportive of Clinton? Do you really think they're that stupid?
Evidently.
Frankly if we cannot trust someone with opinions on this to do their job, this country is doomed anyway, no matter who gets put in charge.
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Games are being played behind closed doors and it's simply naive to take everything at face value.
So let's go ahead and assume that the DHS, if they do take control, are going to rig the election?
As far as I'm concerned, they're just referencing what the EIU said earlier this year, and what 50 GOP security officials said early last month.
Let's hope that people more concerned than yourself can do something about it.
The future of mankind rides in the balance.
Oh, I'm not that concerned about it because it's completely baseless.
You really think that people who head this kind of stuff are neutral? Of course not. Everyone has political leanings, it's just whether they're open about it or not.
Lemme ask you this; if the Government really was planning to rig the election, why would they keep the head of the department while doing so when they know he's been critical of Trump and supportive of Clinton? Do you really think they're that stupid?
Anything is fair game as long as they maintain plausible deniability and label any investigators as crazy conspiracy nuts. Also, changing the head of the department during an election would only raise more eyebrows and would be a pointless/overly defensive play.
Wait, so you mean that somebody can't be a critic of a person or in support of another without intending to rig an election? They have to be completely and utterly neutral? It's almost as if you think that people are incapable of leaving their thoughts and views at the door when it comes to heading stuff like this.
Also, as you stated in both the title and the OP, it's a possibility at this point, so stop touting it as a reality.
Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Games are being played behind closed doors and it's simply naive to take everything at face value.
So let's go ahead and assume that the DHS, if they do take control, are going to rig the election?
As far as I'm concerned, they're just referencing what the EIU said earlier this year, and what 50 GOP security officials said early last month.
Let's hope that people more concerned than yourself can do something about it.
The future of mankind rides in the balance.
Oh, I'm not that concerned about it because it's completely baseless.
You really think that people who head this kind of stuff are neutral? Of course not. Everyone has political leanings, it's just whether they're open about it or not.
Lemme ask you this; if the Government really was planning to rig the election, why would they keep the head of the department while doing so when they know he's been critical of Trump and supportive of Clinton? Do you really think they're that stupid?
Anything is fair game as long as they maintain plausible deniability and label any investigators as crazy conspiracy nuts. Changes head of the department during an election would only raise more eyebrows.
Really? Raise more eyebrows than having someone who's apparentlly Anti-Trump and Pro-Clinton being in charge of this massive 'take-over' of the electoral process?
Also, any investigator worth their salt would obviously have evidence before presenting their findings and conclusions, so calling them a 'conspiracy nut' would be completely pointless.
The fact that the electoral process will taken over by the DHS
This isn't fact at all. Literally all that happened was the director of the DHS said that there should be a conversation about whether the federal election system should be considered critical infrastructure. He said this in relation to concerns that foreign powers are trying to unduly influence the election. This jump to then saying that the DHS is running the election is rubbish being paraded around by right wing lunatics.
Pro tip: If you find yourself agreeing with something Alex Jones has said then you should reconsider your position.
To be honest this thread is the first time I've heard of this. I wasn't saying that it was a fact but that the concept of it is bad.
Also, refer to some of my previous posts for my opinion on Alex Jones