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.

 

Over 1 million vote in "Who is your pick for President" - Drudge Report

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: 727Sky

That's the one.


They found trillions to give to the banks in 2008 and how many social programs could that theft of tax dollars paid for ?




posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Slickinfinity

Remember, it's only bad and Socialist if the money goes to helping the people, rather than banks or corporations.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: schuyler

Sanders wrote about rape.

Trump committed rape.


Wow - you do know you can get sued for your statement here right?
Suggest you alter the words.


Well, let's see how lawyers would look at it...



Facts vs. Opinion To be considered defamation, the statement must be one of fact, not opinion. The reason for this distinction is that the First Amendment protects opinions. Distinguishing fact from opinion, however, can be difficult and often depends upon the context and circumstances as a whole. For example, just because the defamatory speaker uses words like "I think" or "in my opinion" does not mean the statements were merely opinion. Courts will look beyond the actual words used to see whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact, i.e., that the statement can be proven to be true or false. Some courts have even stated that statements made on message boards or in chatrooms are probably opinions or hyperbole, unless the context proves otherwise.


Now, Trump is a public figure, so that comes into play:



Generally, public figures must overcome a higher standard to prove that they have been defamed. Public figures have to prove that the defamer published the statement with "actual malice." Actual malice means that the defamer published the statement with either knowledge of its falsity, or in reckless disregard for the truth.

alllaw.com

I'm not a lawyer, so...but I think if someone can call Obama a Muslim, gay, or any of the other horrible things conservatives constantly have been accusing him of being (or doing) over the last 7 years...I'm pretty sure someone can take Ivanna's words and reasonably form the opinion stated above. And, opinion isn't fact.


Opinion shoud be stated as opinion - that is not what happened here.
Outright calling trump a rapist when he has never even been charged or convicted of such is very dangerous ground in my opinion. What people choose to say about Obama has nothing to do with it. In your first example, what was said would ceratinly fall into the category of defamation in my view.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think I can be sued for stating a hyperbolic opinion.

Besides, to do so would go against Trump's "Non-PC" campaign.

Hilariously, he's actually my No. 2 pick for president, anyway.


You didnt offer an opinion, you stated a fact.
You said 'Trump committed rape'. No other context, just that statement.
Its not about being PC or not PC. If his lawyers saw your post and decided to make an example of you, you'd be in trouble.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The problem with this poll is that it is completely biased, Drudge report appeals to those that want to seek out a broad spectrum of news and are very much skewed towards anti establishment. This is a poll of drudgereport visitors.

It's a similar effect to the one we saw in 2012 with Ron Paul - he won a lot of online polls but got nowhere near the presidency.

In all polls like this anti establishment always wins big.

In my view the president will come from one of Clinton, Bush, Rubio.

Sanders, and I believe Clinton, will get the same actual votes that Ron Paul did.

Lots of silly little people swaying and weeping and jumping up and down during polls and various parties.

But they can't remember what day that doggone vote was. They wake up a day or two after, climb out of the beer bottles, bongs, and pizza boxes, and start screaming about who got elected.

If America ends up with Clinton, Bush, or Rubio....it will show that a majority of America doesn't care about America existing into the future. Just treating the presidential election like "America's got talent"....caring only about crowing "haha we won" for 3 days, and then returning to their oblivion and MTV / BET.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think I can be sued for stating a hyperbolic opinion.

Besides, to do so would go against Trump's "Non-PC" campaign.

Hilariously, he's actually my No. 2 pick for president, anyway.


You didnt offer an opinion, you stated a fact.
You said 'Trump committed rape'. No other context, just that statement.
Its not about being PC or not PC. If his lawyers saw your post and decided to make an example of you, you'd be in trouble.

It's amazing that some people want to claim "crimes" that didn't happen and have no proof....but blithely announce that real laws don't apply to them.

Ah well, it's how we got Clinton and Sanders representing one of the 2 parties.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: schuyler

Sanders wrote about rape.

Trump committed rape.


Wow - you do know you can get sued for your statement here right?
Suggest you alter the words.


Well, let's see how lawyers would look at it...



Facts vs. Opinion To be considered defamation, the statement must be one of fact, not opinion. The reason for this distinction is that the First Amendment protects opinions. Distinguishing fact from opinion, however, can be difficult and often depends upon the context and circumstances as a whole. For example, just because the defamatory speaker uses words like "I think" or "in my opinion" does not mean the statements were merely opinion. Courts will look beyond the actual words used to see whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact, i.e., that the statement can be proven to be true or false. Some courts have even stated that statements made on message boards or in chatrooms are probably opinions or hyperbole, unless the context proves otherwise.


Now, Trump is a public figure, so that comes into play:



Generally, public figures must overcome a higher standard to prove that they have been defamed. Public figures have to prove that the defamer published the statement with "actual malice." Actual malice means that the defamer published the statement with either knowledge of its falsity, or in reckless disregard for the truth.

alllaw.com

I'm not a lawyer, so...but I think if someone can call Obama a Muslim, gay, or any of the other horrible things conservatives constantly have been accusing him of being (or doing) over the last 7 years...I'm pretty sure someone can take Ivanna's words and reasonably form the opinion stated above. And, opinion isn't fact.


Opinion shoud be stated as opinion - that is not what happened here.
Outright calling trump a rapist when he has never even been charged or convicted of such is very dangerous ground in my opinion. What people choose to say about Obama has nothing to do with it. In your first example, what was said would ceratinly fall into the category of defamation in my view.

lmao at somebody comparing "call him a muslim or gay" to "call him a rapist". And not understanding that opinion should be prefaced by "I believe..." or "I think..."

Egad I worry about the future of humanity.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think I can be sued for stating a hyperbolic opinion.

Besides, to do so would go against Trump's "Non-PC" campaign.

Hilariously, he's actually my No. 2 pick for president, anyway.


You didnt offer an opinion, you stated a fact.
You said 'Trump committed rape'. No other context, just that statement.
Its not about being PC or not PC. If his lawyers saw your post and decided to make an example of you, you'd be in trouble.

It's amazing that some people want to claim "crimes" that didn't happen and have no proof....but blithely announce that real laws don't apply to them.

Ah well, it's how we got Clinton and Sanders representing one of the 2 parties.


Exactly.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: schuyler

Sanders wrote about rape.

Trump committed rape.


Wow - you do know you can get sued for your statement here right?
Suggest you alter the words.


Well, let's see how lawyers would look at it...



Facts vs. Opinion To be considered defamation, the statement must be one of fact, not opinion. The reason for this distinction is that the First Amendment protects opinions. Distinguishing fact from opinion, however, can be difficult and often depends upon the context and circumstances as a whole. For example, just because the defamatory speaker uses words like "I think" or "in my opinion" does not mean the statements were merely opinion. Courts will look beyond the actual words used to see whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact, i.e., that the statement can be proven to be true or false. Some courts have even stated that statements made on message boards or in chatrooms are probably opinions or hyperbole, unless the context proves otherwise.


Now, Trump is a public figure, so that comes into play:



Generally, public figures must overcome a higher standard to prove that they have been defamed. Public figures have to prove that the defamer published the statement with "actual malice." Actual malice means that the defamer published the statement with either knowledge of its falsity, or in reckless disregard for the truth.

alllaw.com

I'm not a lawyer, so...but I think if someone can call Obama a Muslim, gay, or any of the other horrible things conservatives constantly have been accusing him of being (or doing) over the last 7 years...I'm pretty sure someone can take Ivanna's words and reasonably form the opinion stated above. And, opinion isn't fact.


Opinion shoud be stated as opinion - that is not what happened here.
Outright calling trump a rapist when he has never even been charged or convicted of such is very dangerous ground in my opinion. What people choose to say about Obama has nothing to do with it. In your first example, what was said would ceratinly fall into the category of defamation in my view.

lmao at somebody comparing "call him a muslim or gay" to "call him a rapist". And not understanding that opinion should be prefaced by "I believe..." or "I think..."

Egad I worry about the future of humanity.


Yep, it seems that some people think its ok to sit behind a keyboard and screen and make outrageuous claims against others will full impunity.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The problem with this poll is that it is completely biased, Drudge report appeals to those that want to seek out a broad spectrum of news and are very much skewed towards anti establishment. This is a poll of drudgereport visitors.

It's a similar effect to the one we saw in 2012 with Ron Paul - he won a lot of online polls but got nowhere near the presidency.

In all polls like this anti establishment always wins big.

In my view the president will come from one of Clinton, Bush, Rubio.



No real different then any other poll. Most of them are stacked so far left that the Dems would lead running a corpse.

And if you thing Bush has a chance your carzy. Not even above 10% in most polls.

It will be Trump or Cruz.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: muse7




All of these accusations So little proof No inditements False narrative maybe?


Yea. The email breaches didn't happen. The evil conservatives just made it all up.


To charge a former Secretary of State with a felony requires a fair amount of proof. Proof that obviously does not exist.

I think what the Conservatives are doing to Clinton is called "Swiftboating".


Proof that doesn't exist?

You, me or almost anybody else would be in jail if they thought we had a Top Secret document on a personnel e-mail server. They convected Gen Petraeus with far less then they have on Clinton already.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sublimecraft

You can vote multiple times in that poll. Every time the page refreshes, vote again. So I wouldn't give it much credence. I lost track of how many times I voted.



Isn't that the standard Liberal voting method? Vote as may times as you like no ID required?

Even remember it happens quite a bit during the last Presidential election.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: havok

Rand Paul is a joke, just like his father before him.



Yes I have read their plans, and even agree with many of them in spirit. The problem is they are as much of a dream as Sanders has on the liberal side. The only advantage that Sanders has is that Liberals vote based on feelings. Conservatives vote on facts and ideals.

I'm probably more Libertarian than any thing, but I live in the real world. Paul would have a better chance turning Dem and using the "feeling" then he has at winning as a GOP.





edit on 25-1-2016 by dismanrc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Oh my. Haven't you ever heard that any eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?
Tell you what, if I'm one day in Trump's exact situation, I'll consider it.

So Obama can be called treasonous, a terrorist. You can say he should be executed. You might not be in favor of that, I'd hope so, but I doubt most of the Don's base is so... Conscientious?
But the line is drawn at Trump?

Was I not PC enough? I mean, Trump himself has said/implied that all Muslims and Mexicans are rapists, I was just following his example. Should I have been more specific? Should I have said "Accused of rape?" Should I have should "Accused of rape and not found Guilty?" Well, both of these are warping things. The correct thing to say was "His wife said rape, but didn't really mean it."

I guess I should be all truthful and accurate and careful with my words, when it comes to the Don, but anything goes for Sanders. He's just a rape-fantasizing dirty Communist, right? Talk about a double standard.

Or is it a lack of standard?


So it OK to twist Trump's quotes out of contexted and use them, but not ones from the left?

Any one actually reading what Trumps said knows what he was talking about. He NEVER claimed ALL where that way.
And yes their are double standards. The MSM will let MANY things slide on the left that they will nail people to the wall on the right. I don't see this Sanders rape thing on the news at all. I would have never seen it at all execpt it was posted here. You saw the Trump statement all the time on the news, but you had to look to see the full quote, not just the part taken out of context.


Standard play from the left. Straight out of the "Rules for Radicals" playbook.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Here is the latest from a Drudge poll , for the GOP candidate only



Again, it will be skewed because of the audience, but still, the lead is huge and Drudge gets a lot of traffic, so this is representativ eof a large group of poilitically motivated people (likely voters?)




top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join