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

The 11th Hour Grand Political Conspiracy and Obama's 3rd term

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Use the search function.

This isn't the 1st time this topic has come up.




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I have heard such talk basically since the beginning of Obamas presidency.

As much as I enjoy a good conspiracy that one never even seemed worth the time entertaining.
" Why would he do that? " I would ask myself.

"Just because some discovery channel show portrayed the Devil with a guy that looks just like him doesn't mean he actually is the devil " I said.

"That dude in the 80s rap video isn't really him !" I proclaimed !!

And then suddenly, about 3 months ago it seemed more plausible than ever , and for reasons stated above by posters smarter than me , I think it's a real possibility.

But whatever . What's a doge to do?

Cool thread. S&F

a reply to: Bloodydagger


edit on 28-10-2016 by SteamyJeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Oops
edit on 28-10-2016 by SteamyJeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Exactly.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
You all do realize that Hillary and Trump aren't the only ones running right? If they were to be disqualified then we would end up with a president who isn't a Republican or a Democrat. Likely either Johnson or Stein.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mus8472

True. But the popularity factors there would be below the floor toward the basement. I bet 7 out of every 10 American's don't even know who Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: watchitburn

Unprecedented circumstances need unprecedented actions? What if (as I said in my OP) something "came out" showing this entire election being rigged or a farce on both sides of the fence? At the very least, wouldn't a delay take place? Obama stays in office as the interim?


Several people have already told you this. There is no provision to "delay" the election. It;s in the Constitution. The only way to do it would e to declare Martial Law, and that would require the acquiescence of the military, which is unprecedented, and they don't like him. Obama does not have such power, and he will not be allowed to grab such power either.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn


a reply to: Cygnis

No.

I can't provide insight into the Army, Navy and Chairforce. But The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dunford is a Hard Core Constitutionalist and Gen Neller, the USMC Commandant is a solid honest dude.

Additionally, one of the main reasons there is such a large military presence during the inauguration is to ensure a peaceful transition of power. Most non-military folks don't notice or realize the implications or seriousness of it. But rest assured, we take it very seriously.


Anecdotally, in 2013 Obama's inauguration team was pissed when they learned that the Marines were going to march in the parade with functioning M1s (keep in mind they weren't loaded and everyone was searched for ammo before hand). We had to actually threaten to leak it to the press that Obama didn't trust the Marines with his security before they relented.


That is at the transition, good Sir, as under normal day to day you are all scattered across the country and globe.

There are some within the military who will follow his orders without question, and of course others who will not.

There is a clause, and I forget which document it is in, but should there be a "several state uprising" or a "immediate threat to the country" things can be suspended. I will search for this information to provide it.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Agreed but if that's their only options on election day they'll pick one. How many small local or state election positions do people vote on without knowing who the people are, or sometimes even what the position is.
edit on 28-10-2016 by mus8472 because: autocorrect



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Should the threat of Russia rear it's ugly head, he would have precedent to do so.

That is what is scary here, as there are issues with Russia presently for this to happen.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Cygnis

Yup, add in the ongoing Russian factors boiling over to a head and a 3rd term is possible.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Baba Vanga Approves!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cygnis
a reply to: schuyler

Should the threat of Russia rear it's ugly head, he would have precedent to do so.

That is what is scary here, as there are issues with Russia presently for this to happen.


No, he would not have a "precedent." A "precedent" means it has happened before. Your suggesting that would be an "excuse," but the "precedent" there is WW II when we had an election in the middle of it. Once again, there is no provision for delaying a national election. None.

Precedent, noun

1. An earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances:


originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Cygnis

Yup, add in the ongoing Russian factors boiling over to a head and a 3rd term is possible.


No, it is not. The 22nd amendment says,

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"


edit on 10/28/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

edit on 28-10-2016 by mus8472 because: double post



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Also remember there was an election in the middle of the Civil War. Lincoln won his second term.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: mus8472
a reply to: schuyler

Also remember there was an election in the middle of the Civil War. Lincoln won his second term.


Good point. Another precedent.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Cygnis
a reply to: schuyler

Should the threat of Russia rear it's ugly head, he would have precedent to do so.

That is what is scary here, as there are issues with Russia presently for this to happen.


No, he would not have a "precedent." A "precedent" means it has happened before. Your suggesting that would be an "excuse," but the "precedent" there is WW II when we had an election in the middle of it. Once again, there is no provision for delaying a national election. None.

Precedent, noun

1. An earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances:


originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Cygnis

Yup, add in the ongoing Russian factors boiling over to a head and a 3rd term is possible.


No, it is not. The 22nd amendment says,

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"



Yes, you are correct, by Section 1, "no persona shall be Elected to the office of the President more then twice"

What we are talking about is a suspension of the normal rules, by any means.

Major World War?

Civil uprising ('cuz Trump wins and people loose their mind and mass rioting all over the country).

There are, at least one or two cases where there is a legal setting for him to do this, but we would all be in such chaos, that we probably wouldn't care.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
That is a great conspiracy. Wear you tin foil hat with pride! I LIKE IT!



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
You guys are playing fast and loose with terminology. You are making up definitions for words like precedence. You are forgetting our own Constitution's express requirements. You are suggestion scenarios that would provide for "legally" postponing elections without citing any sources at all. Your suggesting a "war" would change everything when it never has in the past.

That's not "denying ignorance" folks; it's promoting it. You are letting your imaginations run away with you. There is NOT going to be an Obama third term. The elections are NOT going to be delayed. Your fantasies to the contrary. Really, folks. Get over it. You don't have a case.
edit on 10/28/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Why do you say he wants a third term? He in fact has said Michelle would divorce him. I think he will not walk, but run away at the end of his term.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join