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

Trump VS Clinton battle not finished just yet: Riots petitions and electoral college disputes

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
This is my first post in many years on ATS, and the first time ever as OP, so please go easy on me.

I've been searching the internet but can't really find anyone talking about this other than Michael Rivero from (whatreallyhappened.com).
The elections are over and Trump will be the new president of the US. This certainly seems to be the consensus.
However, I'm not so sure it is as clear cut as everyone seems to think it is. Let me explain.


I've been keeping a close eye on proceedings following Trump's victory and a few things is telling me this is not just over yet.
1) Trump's victory is MAJOR blow to the establishment and its a huge threat to the status quo. There is so much at stake and I'm sure the elite won't go down without a fight
2) The establishment still hold a lot of power and if there was ever a time to play their cards, this is it.
3) The anti-trump riots were most likely instigated by professionals. Who knows what else is coming and what they have up their sleeves? Could be just the beginning. www.rt.com...
4) The rhetoric in MSM is subtly changing from disbelief, to hope. There is one article in particular on Yahoo getting a lot of attention (www.yahoo.com...) where more than 2 million people (at time of writing this) have signed a petition asking the electoral college to choose Clinton instead of Trump on account of Clinton being ahead in the popular vote count
5) Other articles that have me on edge are these that have been posted on Yahoo as well and a few other mainstream websites:
pittsburgh.cbslocal.com...
www.teenvogue.com...
www.complex.com...
6) quote taken from whatreallyhappened.com

As of Thursday, three states remain electoral toss-ups, according to Associated Press projections: New Hampshire, Michigan and Arizona. If Hillary Clinton wins the combined 31 electoral votes from those states, she will still be short of Donald Trump’s 279 votes, more than the 270 needed to win the presidency. However, AP analyst Michael McDonald, who teaches political science at the University of Florida and runs the United States Elections Project, an election statistics website, says he is skeptical that Trump won Wisconsin, as the AP projected. If that state flips for Clinton and she wins the other toss-up states, she and Trump could be in a tie at 269 votes each.

7) from www.naturalnews.com...


George Soros on tape: Trump will win popular vote in 'landslide,' but Hillary Clinton's electoral victory is already 'a done deal'

8) From www.naturalnews.com... A lot of interesting info at this link, here is an excerpt


Yes, Electors can be bought off to vote for anyone they want... democracy be damned!


The list of reasons to be suspicious goes on, but I'll just leave it at that for now.

I realize there are many that will argue that a retraction of the presidency is impossible because it could possibly trigger serious violence on the streets and maybe even a civil war... but I urge you to ask yourself whether these elites would prefer violence and temporary instability over their hold on power (not even to mention the possibility that many of them that will be forced to flee or face prosecution)

Am I being paranoid?
Will be interested to hear others' take on this.

Full disclosure: I'm not American, nor do I live in the US, but I have strong anti-establishment views and I've been following the US elections very closely precisely for this reason.



edit on 11-11-2016 by chiroy because: found additional info:




posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: chiroy


Am I being paranoid?
Will be interested to hear others' take on this.

Full disclosure: I'm not American, nor do I live in the US, but I have strong anti-establishment views and I've been following the US elections very closely precisely for this reason.

Closely watching the TV news about america? I'd question that narrative. Its the same one that had Hilary winning...



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Even if all that held water ( and I'm not saying it does or does not) my question becomes this... Since Hillary has already conceded, does it even matter?



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
The fat lady sang . Its done , over , fini , hillary lost .

Some just refuse to gracefully accept the result of the american electoral process .

Most likely media and soros behind all the trouble . With neither hillary nor obama doing anything to stop the trouble .



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
PJW nails it as usual.

This pretty much sums up my opinion.

Language and Trigger warning.


ETA: The protesters we see post election are the exact same tools that were protesting PRE election.

They are the reason I voted FOR Trump.

I think it is safe to say that for many these useful idiot pawns of Soros and Co. are the exact reason why Trump WON

edit on 11 11 2016 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Once she called Trump to concede it was over with. That call is legally binding. If her team thought she had a chance she would have never made the call. Every person on Trump's staff could sue her personally in a civil court. That's why she waited so long to call. They wanted to make sure with their lawyers and the lawyers told her it was over with.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I had a similar feeling but was thinking along the lines of martial law. what happens if these riots go on for to long and escalate to the point where Obama has to declare martial law? Is that like a war time scenario where he would remain in office? If so for how long? Just my thoughts.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Given the reaction to Trump's win in the streets and the certain rising counter-reaction by his supporters, such a move would tear this country apart.

America would never be the same again.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
Once she called Trump to concede it was over with. That call is legally binding. If her team thought she had a chance she would have never made the call. Every person on Trump's staff could sue her personally in a civil court. That's why she waited so long to call. They wanted to make sure with their lawyers and the lawyers told her it was over with.



If you can give me some proof of this, would certainly put me at ease



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Here is how Obama saw it:

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

Washington Post



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61


From what I can tell, the vast majority of people in a tizzy are gun grab supporters- if they escalate to full blown riots, they'll all go home as soon as someone gets shot.... Imo.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Here is what I found:


It is exceedingly rare for a concession, once issued, to be retracted; such an event occurred in the United States 2000 presidential election, when Democratic candidate Al Gore, Jr. telephoned Republican George W. Bush to concede the contest. Gore was apparently unaware of the close vote count in the state of Florida, and when he realized it, he proceeded to cancel his concession address.

Wikipedia

They better think long and hard before making a decision like that. They think they have protest now! Go ahead and go against the will of the people and see how that works out for ya.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Outstanding post OP.

Every avenue will be exploited by the Left.
People need to understand just exactly what is taking place.
Thread after thread of opinions are irrelevant.
The events taking place in the legal arena will decide the outcome.
Corruption and criminal activity are playing a major part in these events.
It is not over by any means.

Buck

edit on 11-11-2016 by flatbush71 because: Too damned old to get it right the first time



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

Perhaps one could conclude that conceding does not carry as much weight as LifeMode claims it does?

I know it'll be a hell of a thing. I'm not saying it'll be an easy decision to make, but desperate times............
edit on 11-11-2016 by chiroy because: just better use of language



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The American people need to understand WHY the electoral college was put into place. They need to think VERY hard before they pick up this can of worms.

If you start playing with our electoral college then they can cause serious repercussions.




How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.

Note that 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 55 of California’s Electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But, it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.




posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: chiroy
a reply to: Martin75

That means conceding does not carry as much weight as LifeMode claims it does.

I know it'll be a hell of a thing. I'm not saying it'll be an easy decision to make, but desperate times............


The College worked exactly as designed.

If we went by popular vote New York and California would decide everything.

You lost, you tried but you got beat. This is a fight for this Nation.

Pick a different candidate cause.this one was a criminal.
edit on 11-11-2016 by whyamIhere because: I was legally burning vegetable type greenery...



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
Here is what I found:


It is exceedingly rare for a concession, once issued, to be retracted; such an event occurred in the United States 2000 presidential election, when Democratic candidate Al Gore, Jr. telephoned Republican George W. Bush to concede the contest. Gore was apparently unaware of the close vote count in the state of Florida, and when he realized it, he proceeded to cancel his concession address.

Wikipedia

They better think long and hard before making a decision like that. They think they have protest now! Go ahead and go against the will of the people and see how that works out for ya.

A concession speech isn't legally binding, but unofficially it does carry a lot of weight: you're admitting that you lost the election. I believe that the Republican senator from New Hampshire still hasn't conceded his defeat. The vote difference was only a fraction of a percent (something like 1200 votes), and it's still possible a recount might change the result.

Oh, and with all due respect to the analyst quoted by the OP: he's an moron. Trump won Wisconsin & Arizona. The margins were not large, but they're well outside anything that might be changed by a recount. Even if his far-fetched scenario did occur, the election would end up being decided by the House of Representatives, which still has a Republican majority. Plenty of establishment Republicans don't like Trump, but if that guy thinks they'd choose Hillary over him, then we've moved past "moron" toward "retarded."
edit on 11-11-2016 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan



Sadly, we created the reactions that are taking place. We have bowed down for so long that everyone things all they have to do is pitch a fit and their world will be set back the way they want.
If we continue to give everyone a participation trophy, tell the kids they can’t lose, create “safe spaces”, then our nation will continue to get more and more wussified.

Grow up America! You aren’t three!!!! You aren’t a toddler who’s mom said no. How are these people going to function in the real world? Oh they aren’t, they have melt downs!



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Pick a different candidate cause.this one was a criminal.

This is what most Democrats don't understand: Hillary was literally the worst candidate they could possibly have chosen. A more likable Dem would have won the election easily. Heck, I might have voted for a Democrat this year if they'd picked someone better. I wasn't sold on Trump until after it became clear that the choice was between him & Hillary.

It's like in 2000. The Democrats had a popular president leaving, and they thought they could pick anyone they wanted to follow him. And they ended up picking the least popular choice available.



posted on Nov, 11 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   
just found this at www.usatoday.com...


In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.


Unlikely but not impossible for Electoral College to change their vote. I'm not saying the Clinton camp is going to succeed, but I bet they are gonna try. Not a done deal just yet, IMO.







 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join