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

I just cried while watching this

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Honestly how did it come to this?

This election is a complete and utter farce.
I really hope this is all bread and circuses and merely a way to keep us all docile and believing we have genuine options when it comes to our leaders and what they represent because the alternative is just terrifying.

If this is a genuine election then we have 2 likely scenarios
1) Hillary wins and best case we have an American civil war. The system is broken and even if she wins legit without rigging, the fact that shes allowed to run for POTUS let alone not been held accountable in any way for what she did will highlight its rotten to the core corrupt system for what it is.
Knowing this Americans will revolt and I cant see that going well for anyone anywhere but America will be torn apart.
I say thats the best option because if she wins and theres no revolution then we have a world war and then everywhere is torn apart.
2) Trump wins and Hillary does get investigated, everything is going to come out and I think it will be EVERYTHING.
If all these little clues and connections from the wikileaks stuff and other sources showing Gov lies and abuses are put together the rabbit hole is gonna go real deep, nothing will ever be the same, we will all basically find out everything was a lie. I think the culture shock will be like suddenly waking up from the world of the Matrix. Alternately the shadow gov realising they're busted and have nothing to lose says FU and goes all out to impose the NWO, that FEMA and foreign troop type stuff. Again not good for anyone anywhere.

If none of these things happen then we know politics is literally a soap opera and the shadow Gov does in fact control us all without question

I came across this clip earlier and it literally brought a tear to my eye



Here was a candidate who in my opinion just couldnt go wrong, I did not once hear him say something controversial or crude, who always conducted himself in a proud and presidential manner, who had the actual voting record to back up what he said and finally I actually believed him when he said he wanted to make things better and would actually try.

I know he was never an option for POTUS so as a hypothetical
How many of you who in the last election would have voted against him if he was a genuine 3rd option, would now knowing what Obamas term was like and knowing your current options would vote for him if given the chance?

edit on 20/10/2016 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/10/2016 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)


Sorry link not working

here it is in Linky
edit on 20/10/2016 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

YT link isn't working.

Your good though, I read your whole post and still needed the vid to fill in the final piece!

Cool, you fixed it. Some things of note. He's talking about drug laws and actual minority problems. Can't have that in todays America from what I can tell. Common sense being applied to the problem. Nope, certainly will not fly with the MSM.

What I would give to see an actual candidate and the chance to place my vote with pride.

Good post, S*F

edit on 20-10-2016 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
the fact that shes allowed to run for POTUS


Why should she be stopped, and by whom? She is eligible to run for POTUS....



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
the fact that shes allowed to run for POTUS


Why should she be stopped, and by whom? She is eligible to run for POTUS....


Under that logic Snowden should be able to run too.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Under that logic Snowden should be able to run too.


There is nothing stopping him.... do you even know what the qualifications are?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Natural born US citizen, age 36 or older, you have to meet state qualifications to be added to their ballets. Depending on write in rules, some states you have to even say you're open to being written in.

Now the legal part I don't know, what could stop you with a record, Snowden is wanted for espionage (I think) or theft of government property, maybe treason (I'm ashamed I don't know exactly).

Anything that disqualifies him should disqualify her.
edit on 20-10-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Now the legal part I don't know, what could stop you with a record,


No, that would not stop you, criminals in jail have run, the constitution states the requirements, being in jail or having people claim you are a criminal does not make you ineligible.


Anything that disqualifies him should disqualify her.


Well, as he is eligible so is Hilary!



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
the fact that shes allowed to run for POTUS


Why should she be stopped, and by whom? She is eligible to run for POTUS....





Why !...because she is a tyrant and tyrants are not for the people....By whom ! ..the people as she does not represent them....yes she may kermet the frog is a better candidate



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Technically you're right. Just fact checked it.

That being said I actually applaud the concise code for eligibility and allowing for true democracy.

That being said I am disappointed in "democracy" for "picking" the two candidates we have.

Thank you for your statements though, it made me think differently. And you were absolutely correct.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
because she is a tyrant


Who decides that?
You?
A Republican?

Or can anyone declare a candidate a "tyrant" and thus they cannot run?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

No, only the term rapist can be applied in such a way.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Than "democracy" has to stop her. Technically she can run, that is our laws.

If you don't like them, vote and pressure representives to change them.

I don't typically agree with hellobruce but he is correct on this.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Again, hellobruce is right on this. And the term rapist (or any other) is not and hasn't stopped the Clinton's (who I hate). That is "up to" us.

I keep using quotes for democracy as we (masses) are spoon fed by corporate media and rarely question anything or demand accountability. Thus democracy being as strong as the citizens, our weaknesses are reflected by quality of government.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
because she is a tyrant


Who decides that?
You?
A Republican?

Or can anyone declare a candidate a "tyrant" and thus they cannot run?




Obviously i do not get to decide that it is my opinion, you may see a positive candidate where as i do not ....



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

He is right in the base principals of what the requirements are to run.

I've stated the tactics used to discredit someone lacking proof such as rapist/tyrant/socialist. These are easy accusations to make to provide slander but lack the burden of proof..in the MSM anyway.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I whole heartedly agree. And as said before the Clinton's brush all those accusations (which actually have proof) off.

Because their pandering works. People will be exposed to these accusations (with proof) then listen to them say it's not true and use fallacy tactics and forget they were mad at the Clinton's in the first place.

In the end, no matter the result, all burden of accountability lies on the citizens in a democracy. More so now than ever with Internet. There is no excuse for not knowing, only laziness.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



I whole heartedly agree. And as said before the Clinton's brush all those accusations (which actually have proof) off.


They have help from the media. Proof is in the same documents that prove her guilt!



Because their pandering works. People will be exposed to these accusations (with proof) then listen to them say it's not true and use fallacy tactics and forget they were mad at the Clinton's in the first place.


Or let others give them help. (MSM, Dir. Comey)




In the end, no matter the result, all burden of accountability lies on the citizens in a democracy. More so now than ever with Internet. There is no excuse for not knowing, only laziness.


I agree. As Americans we are burdened with the task to do our due diligence in educating ourselves. We've come a very long way from that.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

The MSM prospers in a capitalist environment. Capitalism being the economic form of democracy, we vote with dollars. Or in this case (MSM) attention, which allows advertising to fuel the beast.

I'm mad too, but I'm past bitching and on to understanding. This is a result of a spoiled and apathetic populace.

Where we go next is up to us.
edit on 20-10-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Also, keep in mind with Clinton being so disliked, the fact Trump has been struggling is concerning. The schools of thoughts are anyone but him could easily beat her, and he is his own worst enemy.

He's not that good, let's be honest. So do we trust him with the anti-establishment card and risk it not being an option in the future if he quagmires.

Or was he a Perot ruse all along? Seeing as Perot (anti-establishment) was the only thing that got Bill to "beat" Bush Sr. (dynasty friends) in the first place.

Just thoughts.
edit on 20-10-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I can not answer that but I can give you my opinion.

Given his history of political views and whom he donated and who he was cozy to, I could very much believe that he is a plant.

I don't think that the anti establishment card, as you so eloquently put it, is in danger of being used just yet. Hopefully Bernie didn't use up all of it's validity either.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join