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.

 

Massive Clinton voter fraud in NY?

page: 15
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

In for an ounce, in for a pound.

You can not defend her by cherry picking the facts, and it's lame to think you can!




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

I don't support Clinton. I don't support any candidate whatsoever. I do defend her from the foaming-mouth loons that spit nonsense and hatred.



I've yet to say I'm voting for anyone.

All I've done is list what I feel qualifies Hillary as the best candidate.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So why do you defend someone who laughs about putting a pervert back into society to abuse more victims? ~$heopleNation



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SheopleNation

See now we have no morals. You can insult but I can't.
How is this fair to you?
Oh wait you don't want to be fair you just want to be right.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: SheopleNation

Everyone wants to vote for a candidate that is under investigation by the FBI and a has a history that of being evasive, a danger to world peace, and has no problems defending a paedophile.

Just ask Annee!

But that's freedom for you!




show where the FBI has said, that she is specifically "under investigation"......i'm voting for Hillary...why?....because the foaming at the mouth from the right has been going on for decades...they have accused her of murder, drug running, graft, corruption, etc. for so long and guess what?.....nada, nothing.....nothing anybody on the right says about Hillary is credible at this point....it's just more of the same....GO HILLARY!!



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Annee

In for an ounce, in for a pound.

You can not defend her by cherry picking the facts, and it's lame to think you can!



LOL

But, you can defend your guy?

Sorry, but there's 2 sides (at least)


edit on 20-4-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

You implied that I'd say that. Just stop. You're not kidding anyone.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Don't fabricate lies in order to justify your personal attacks, I questioned your support for Hillary, and you could not handle it.

So then you came unhinged, Because what you said was clearly personal. You just need to learn to stick to the topic is all. ~$heopleNation



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No, obviously I would never put myself in a position to HAVE to defend her, I am not for her!

Hard to defend the likes of something with as long of history of corruption as the HRC machine has!



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If there has been intentional election rigging, the people doing it must know they won't be caught or brought to justice. Why? Well, it seems like it would be pretty easy to discover if an HONEST audit and investigation was done.

Clearly, if folks were rigging the system they know they won't get caught -- otherwise they wouldn't do it. It's just plain logic.

The same kind of logic applies to Hillary. She wouldn't continue to campaign if there was even a remote possibility she would be indicted or have charges brought against her for the email thing. She would not dare waste so much campaign donation funding if she was going to be held accountable in court.

I've been reluctant in admitting it, but I've known for a long time now that not only are the Democrats going to win (due to the electoral collage) -- but Hillary is going to be their candidate. She was promised it back in '08, but Obama was chosen last minute. She probably threw a temper tantrum, and she's been 100% assured and promised to have the White House this time.

She's always wanted the White House, even when Bill was POTUS, it was Hillary who called the shots. She wants to step out of the shadow of Bill and be recognized as the POTUS she was, and will be.

Has anyone noticed how smug, how confident she appears? She knows she's going to be POTUS.

And sorry folks, there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Are any of you guys richer than the people rigging and running the "system"? No?

Then good luck. Marching, picketing, protesting, and signing petitions will do little to nothing. TPTB know that over time people's emotions settle down and all they have to do is distract you all long enough for it to blow over.

The only possible alternative timeline I can see happening is that the Democrats split and a 3rd party emerges to support Bernie. This is highly unlikely, but the talk is happening. Logos are being drawn up. It's very risky because it practically guarantees a GOP win....UNLESS the GOP also fractures and Trump runs on his own as well.

If both Bernie AND Trump run as independents...we might just be able to NOT have Hillary in the White House. Otherwise? Get used to saying "Madam President" folks.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Annee

No, obviously I would never put myself in a position to HAVE to defend her, I am not for her!

Hard to defend the likes of something with as long of history of corruption as the HRC machine has!


Updated post.

LOL

But, you can defend your guy?

Sorry, but there's 2 sides (at least)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I don't want to be right, I am. And yes I consider Hillary's giggling over such a tragic case to be deeply disturbing, yet you do not. ~$heopleNation



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

See you later.

I'm not seeing anything pertinent right now to comment on.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

I voted for one Clinton, no sense repeating that mistake. Clintons are not liberals, they are for enriching themselves above all else.

Do you like ME wars?

that is what an HRC vote represents!

I guess you have no kids that may get drafted to war?

#NeverHillary



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

You implied that I'd say that. Just stop. You're not kidding anyone.




I didn't imply anything , I directly quoted you and asked you a question.

Your clearly use sex as a determining attribute for a president, as you stated her being a women is a bonus.

Well than what about height,weight, hair ,race and color? Or are you seeing the silliness and sexist tone of your argument to use sex as a determing bonus for electing a president.

Hence, why you try to switch the argument and not answer the question.


edit on 58430America/ChicagoWed, 20 Apr 2016 13:58:49 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well with the way the RINOs are sandbagging Trump, what you said very well may be the end result. ~$heopleNation



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I have thought on this for awhile now, here is a simple answer:

Unless she thinks they would not indict the Dem candidate for president.

Now where would she get an idea like that; maybe from Whitewater and the fact the thought the first lady was so popular, which made it unlikely to find a jury to convict her.




edit on 20-4-2016 by AlaskanDad because: punctuation and grammar



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Annee

No, obviously I would never put myself in a position to HAVE to defend her, I am not for her!

Hard to defend the likes of something with as long of history of corruption as the HRC machine has!


Updated post.

LOL

But, you can defend your guy?

Sorry, but there's 2 sides (at least)


It is your responsibility to choose a morally responsible candidate, otherwise you will have to defend their lack of morality.

Unlike HRC, Sen Sanders did not defend a pedo, nor did he vote for war in Libya, nor did he vote for trade policies that enriched the 1% and destroyed the job market in the US of A.

You chose a morally corrupt candidate, so you're stuck defending her!



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

It is your responsibility to choose a morally responsible candidate, otherwise you will have to defend their lack of morality.


It is your opinion that Hillary is not morally responsible.

You know what they say about opinions.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


The fact is you have had to defend HRC's morality to others in this thread and have continuously done so on this site, so who's opinion stinks?



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join