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.

 

Clinton declares Victory

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Oh, the context is spot on, I'm surprised you haven't seen the interview. Here, I'll let her tell you why she reacted that way...

(spoiler - she deflects and refuses to answer the question about whether she regrets reacting that way)



edit on 2-2-2016 by Sublimecraft because: wrong vid




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
nvm. watching now.

edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Oh, I don't really support O'Malley. He'd be preferable to Clinton, but the Bern is vastly superior. I do feel like he should have gotten more attention than he did though, similar to Rand Paul.


O'malley never really said anything that got attention. He had a poor team, is my guess.


His ideas ranged from decent to good. He even put out something like a "Worker's Bill of Rights". He just got the Bernie treatment from the DNC & media. But grassroots efforts and word-on-mouth promotion are what got Bernie's campaign to overcome the DNC & media. O'Malley simply couldn't inspire a "viral" push that Bernie & socialism did.


I actually think O'Malley is a good candidate. He could be a valuable Cabinet member for Bernie. I'm not sure if I'd trust him to be his VP though. Bernie needs someone even further to the left as a VP, so insiders will be scared to bring him down. Though O'Malley would probably help calm the fears of many insiders and moderates.
edit on 2-2-2016 by enlightenedservant because: clarified the 1st sentence



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Oh, the context is spot on, I'm surprised you haven't seen the interview. Here, I'll let her tell you why she reacted that way...

(spoiler - she deflects and refuses to answer the question about whether she regrets reacting that way)




Umm...the interview itself was fine. The outtake was a little weird, but I don;t see evil there. Not that I don't suspect evil things in her past.
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


If you are a politician, that is a good answer. She could have said "maybe my off the cuff answer in an outtake was wrong", but she has people telling her what to say. Don't act like you don;t know that.
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: seagull

NIce Seagull! I could not possibly agree more!

The evil monster is quite evil indeed, however I do believe that the Sanders campaign is just beginning and we will not see the likes of old hilldog in office come November!

As they say an idea can not be stopped when its time has come!


Right it ain't over yet. this is just the caucus.
In Zaire they paint your nails red after you vote.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Oh, I don't really support O'Malley. He'd be preferable to Clinton, but the Bern is vastly superior. I do feel like he should have gotten more attention than he did though, similar to Rand Paul.


O'malley never really said anything that got attention. He had a poor team, is my guess.


His ideas ranged from decent to good. He even put out something like a "Worker's Bill of Rights". He just got the Bernie treatment from the DNC & media. But grassroots efforts and word-on-mouth promotion are what got Bernie's campaign to overcome the DNC & media. O'Malley simply couldn't inspire a "viral" push that Bernie & socialism did.


I actually think O'Malley is a good candidate. He could be a valuable Cabinet member for Bernie. I'm not sure if I'd trust him to be his VP though. Bernie needs someone even further to the left as a VP, so insiders will be scared to bring him down. Though O'Malley would probably help calm the fears of many insiders and moderates.


You're right. I never saw what he had to say. He didn't have a grassroots following. Whoever was running this for him did not get his message out.

I am sure O'Malley could be a good cabinet member. 1) He got that far-farther than any of us will ever get. 2) You said he could be. I value your opinion. 3) He never said anything nutty.
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I'll take dumb over evil any day. Palin would at least have good intentions. Clinton will just do whatever gains her the most money and power.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: crazyewok

I'll take dumb over evil any day. Palin would at least have good intentions. Clinton will just do whatever gains her the most money and power.


Palin is just the same and dumb. That would be worse. People seem to forget how Palin is just like Clinton in that way.

Or have I walked into a parallel universe where Palin didn't break laws in Alaska and gets any attention she can possibly scrounge up? Or have a pay TV channel where she just rambled on? or troopergate?
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


Is this a Mandela Effect? Should I alert Reddit?
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


The bridge to nowhere she wanted and then lied about? There is more, I just can;t think of it at the moment.
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra


It comes down to cheating on both sides. Hillary is a cagey veteran insider. Ted Cruz cheated by telling voters Ben Carson dropped out and his voters should vote for Cruz. Politics as usual. As Stalin said, to paraphrase, it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes. This year Microsoft counted the votes. Microsoft gave tens of thousands of $ to the Clinton campaign. Conflict of interest much?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: reldra


It comes down to cheating on both sides. Hillary is a cagey veteran insider. Ted Cruz cheated by telling voters Ben Carson dropped out and his voters should vote for Cruz. Politics as usual. As Stalin said, to paraphrase, it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes. This year Microsoft counted the votes. Microsoft gave tens of thousands of $ to the Clinton campaign. Conflict of interest much?



Microsoft has less of a stranglehold than Apple, but both are cagey. I was just surprised a couple people thought Sarah Palin 'has good intentions' LOL



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
I'm very suspicious about Bill Clinton's health and why there are few if any photo ops with them together recently.


Think about it what would pull in votes more than the brave widow who is striving to fulfill the dream of her and her late husband of her becoming the first female president? People would eat that up like free candy.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: reldra


It comes down to cheating on both sides. Hillary is a cagey veteran insider. Ted Cruz cheated by telling voters Ben Carson dropped out and his voters should vote for Cruz. Politics as usual. As Stalin said, to paraphrase, it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes. This year Microsoft counted the votes. Microsoft gave tens of thousands of $ to the Clinton campaign. Conflict of interest much?



Microsoft has less of a stranglehold than Apple, but both are cagey. I was just surprised a couple people thought Sarah Palin 'has good intentions' LOL


Trump lost Iowa due to two major mistakes: 1) skipping the last debate and 2) having Sarah Palin stumping fot him.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Fox news 'sort of' calls Clinton winner, Their internet on front page says that, but have to watch live to see what they mean. NY Times has Clinton at 49.9, Sanders at 49.5

NY TIMES

Reuters is only quoting Clinton's Staff.

AP still says Sanders/Sanders in tie.
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Query.

How can a candidate declare victory? They should be awarded victory by the people counting the votes, and only once every vote has been counted.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: musicismagic
I'm very suspicious about Bill Clinton's health and why there are few if any photo ops with them together recently.


Think about it what would pull in votes more than the brave widow who is striving to fulfill the dream of her and her late husband of her becoming the first female president? People would eat that up like free candy.


You are being extremely creepy, but you are right nonetheless.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: reldra

Query.

How can a candidate declare victory? They should be awarded victory by the people counting the votes, and only once every vote has been counted.


That is 1) The title of the article 2) What seems to be the case being so close, especially now. 3) She did indeed declare it, true or not.

One normally titles the thread by the article they are quoting.
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


Or they tell a spokesman to go out and declare it?
edit on 2-2-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Now that is the sort of underhanded, shady, manipulative, evil plot, that I expect from American politics.

Now, how might he go? Poison? Car wreck? Inexplicable encounter with an automatic lawn mower?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Sorry, allow me to be more specific.

What I mean is, how can Hilary or her staff, be declaring anything at all, before the votes have all been counted, in an election this close? It could literally come down to a single ballot paper! What's the point in making announcements on her part? Why not allow those counting the votes, to announce the winner?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Lol she won by like 5 points and it's a LOOOONG primary season left. In this specific case, I'd say victory is something that can easily be called prematurely.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: buster2010

Now that is the sort of underhanded, shady, manipulative, evil plot, that I expect from American politics.

Now, how might he go? Poison? Car wreck? Inexplicable encounter with an automatic lawn mower?


How are people so macabre so early in the morning? wait...truebrit is probably about 1:30pm, just a guess. Buster, I don't know. It is 7:40am for me. lol




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join