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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Reasons no to vote for Hillary "rodham" Clinton

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is quite obvious that Hillary has pickled your mind. Twist and spin everything shown to you, it's entertainment.




posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not end of story. Lots of circumstancial evidence says otherwise and the corruption could go further than even hillary so that's why justice is truly blind here.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is quite obvious that Hillary has pickled your mind. Twist and spin everything shown to you, it's entertainment.


Nope.

The only thing obvious is that when you and others here have been clearly shown to be in error, repeatedly, you resort to childish ad hominem.

Either deal with the facts or please ... stop replying to my posts. There's enough meaningless repetition of garbage here.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
#1 Reason to not vote for Hillary Clinton....

She is a liar who totally disregarded the security of classified information of the United States for personal "convenience"

Period.

Anyone who cares to dispute that, feel free to make a fool of yourself because you are dead wrong.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Slickinfinity
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not end of story. Lots of circumstancial evidence says otherwise and the corruption could go further than even hillary so that's why justice is truly blind here.


Show us some of that evidence then.

Let's deal with facts, not more empty anecdotal truisms.

Show us!



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

None of the information in Clinton's emails was classified at the time they were sent to or from her email.



Again you're either lying or either extremely careless
Hillary vs Comey
m.youtube.com...

Or maybe you're really just an estranged Berney supporter and just being sarcastic and/or trying to cause controversy so that everyone looks up Hillary scandals


... or maybe, you've got your head so far up the rump of the right-wing media you can't see the facts no matter how many times they're shown to you.

/shrug
What facts, you have next to 0. You only dance around the legalities of a situation and/or refer to interpretation gymnastics



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

None of the information in Clinton's emails was classified at the time they were sent to or from her email.



Again you're either lying or either extremely careless
Hillary vs Comey
m.youtube.com...

Or maybe you're really just an estranged Berney supporter and just being sarcastic and/or trying to cause controversy so that everyone looks up Hillary scandals


... or maybe, you've got your head so far up the rump of the right-wing media you can't see the facts no matter how many times they're shown to you.

/shrug
What facts, you have next to 0. You only dance around the legalities of a situation and/or refer to interpretation gymnastics


/sigh

Read your own thread; then get back to me.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

None of the information in Clinton's emails was classified at the time they were sent to or from her email.



Again you're either lying or either extremely careless
Hillary vs Comey
m.youtube.com...

Or maybe you're really just an estranged Berney supporter and just being sarcastic and/or trying to cause controversy so that everyone looks up Hillary scandals


... or maybe, you've got your head so far up the rump of the right-wing media you can't see the facts no matter how many times they're shown to you.

/shrug
It must be much easier to attack my character rather than the substance of my argument.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa




She is a liar who totally disregarded the security of classified information of the United States for personal "convenience"


She's perfect for the job

i'm not being sarcastic

you think Alexander the gay or pudding face churchhill or crafty old abe
didn't think of their own personal "convenience"

i don't dispute what you say at all
just a different perspective on it





posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

None of the information in Clinton's emails was classified at the time they were sent to or from her email.



Again you're either lying or either extremely careless
Hillary vs Comey
m.youtube.com...

Or maybe you're really just an estranged Berney supporter and just being sarcastic and/or trying to cause controversy so that everyone looks up Hillary scandals


... or maybe, you've got your head so far up the rump of the right-wing media you can't see the facts no matter how many times they're shown to you.

/shrug
What facts, you have next to 0. You only dance around the legalities of a situation and/or refer to interpretation gymnastics


/sigh

Read your own thread; then get back to me.
If you would've went through the first couple you wouldn't have been able to reply as quickly as you did.

So obviously you didn't research them, so how would you know?

I'd be more than happy to admit to being wrong. Which one?



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

See comments of Director Comey, above, below, in every thread in which the matter has ever been discussed.

There were no classified emails. Period, end of story.



That is a bald faced LIE. Period.

www.washingtonpost.com...


From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.


SF 312 which Hillary signed in FEB 2009:

www.archives.gov...


1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.


To say that information is not classified unless it is marked, or that it has to be marked is a lie and in direct conflict with the legally binding agreement that Hillary Clinton signed.

Keep spreading your lies... you have absolutely 0 (that is ZERO) credibility when discussing Hillary Clinton and classified information.

PS: Your so called proof.... a conversation about whether someone would recognize classified information if it wasn't marked, in no way, shape,form or fashion can be construed to state that if information is not marked, it is not classified until it is marked. That is totally 100% false.
edit on R542016-09-01T11:54:46-05:00k549Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

Your list is very small, it could be much bigger. I was thinking of putting a thread together of all the reasons, but I do not have time to write 20 Game of Thrones sized novels.

Haiti is a big one for me. Stealing millions and millions of dollars in donation money from Haitians after the 2010 earthquake for personal game is absolutely DISGUSTING.

The Clinton's MUST be stopped.

The Clinton's have been governing Haiti since the 80's from behind the scenes. They even used 20k American troops to overthrow the democratically elected government in 1994. If she is elected, the gloves are off and we will be caught in many more wars for profit, and we will see tons of deals made for the benefit of the banks and corporations, and to the detriment of the world population.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Few hundred more reasons as of yesterday..



FBI Records -- Hillary R. Clinton



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Winstonian

Haiti scandal disgusting. I included that in a 2nd list of atrocities a couple post down from the original OP.

Yes I agree it could've been larger, Giving her the benefit of doubt I was trying my best to stray away from allegations or things that haven't been proven.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: chissler
a reply to: RickinVa

I'd imagine each polling company has various criteria for what they consider educated. I haven't read up on each to know the specifics. I'd guess along with you that it probably refers to a university degree. And for what it's worth, I agree with you that this is a terrible barometer of educated and uneducated.

But also, and as I mentioned before, these are not definitions I'm coming up with or throwing around. They are widely used and cited by all sides of MSM.


The point about the definition of 'educated' is a valid one. Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning without the overwhelming support she currently has with low-income voters, for example, people on welfare and students yet to find a job. There are actually lots of 'educated' people in that group but they are not so good at actually making their way in life.

For the record, though, both candidates are getting support from all groups, with one exception - Trump has very poor numbers with Black voters.

According to the data linked below:

36% of those with degrees are supporting Trump
47% of those with 'some' college education are voting Trump (well ahead of Clinton)
Trump leads with higher income voters
40% of women support Trump (not that far behind Clintons 49% - 9% ahead is surprising when you consider how terrible the MSM paints Trump with women)

cesrusc.org...

So characterising Trumps support as from 'uneducated white men' is just parroting a generalisation made by the media to belittle his achievement to date. It just happens to be his biggest voting block. By the same token, you could generalise Clinton's support as coming from low-income black women. Of course, neither is a true reflection.
edit on 3/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Sadly 36. Is the reason she'll get off Scott free. On the other hand it might have an impact on the election



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Seeing as allegations are now "straight white heterosexual male alternative right wing conspiracy theories"



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



The point about the definition of 'educated' is a valid one. Hillary Clinton has no chance of winning without the overwhelming support she currently has with low-income voters, for example, people on welfare and students yet to find a job. There are actually lots of 'educated' people in that group but they are not so good at actually making their way in life.

So characterising Trumps support as from 'uneducated white men' is just parroting a generalisation made by the media to belittle his achievement to date. It just happens to be his biggest voting block. By the same token, you could generalise Clinton's support as coming from low-income black women. Of course, neither is a true reflection.

which is why the republicans should be hitting home on their policies, now.
going to mexico and banging on about the wall tells americans what exactly about a stimulus for jobs, while buggering about next day in detroit was always gonna be about getting the minorities onside, again, rather than talk about say economic growth.
you have to wonder what his team is planning.

okay he said some shocking things, he apologized move on, get to the policies!
the democrats are just as bad but, the republicans should force their hand though, take initiative.

could you imagine if trump was going from platform to platform, pointing out his health reforms, tax cuts for the wealthy (he is republican), plans for job growth, education, environment, foreign policy you know, the stuff that affects people daily.
instead everywhere he goes its immigration, crime and terrorism, preying upon people's fears may have worked for reagan using russia and very real nuclear weapons, but its 2016 now.

people say, and rightly so that clinton isn't doing anything, if the labour leader sat at home watching box sets rather than be out campaigning i'd be p!ssed however, there is no need for her to get off her fat caboose, the next series of deadwood is cued up or she can counter trumps trip to mexico.
mexico ffs, it should be american votes he's after.

note to trump's advisors, keep stating mexico are gonna pay for the wall means, mexico's gonna build the wall so mexico will get the jobs, you know, building it, also, someone might twig that yes building a wall keeps people out, but also pens people in.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

No doubt, I appreciate the post and will support any level of information and effort against this violent evil woman. Did not mean to detract from your efforts. Keep up the good work.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join