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

Just when I settled down and thought 'faithless electors' would never overturn this election...

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I think you are right about the country not surviving it, This would bring the other side to the streets. I don't think they would put Hillery in office, it would be another republican like Pence, The GOP won the race. As for as Rome goes yes there are parrales (sp) I have been thinking about that for a long time way before the election.




posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Pursuing this line of thinking leads to much more strife/potential for anarchy/chaos.

The next thing we might want to consider are what would be the outcomes if this is emphasized further. What chaos would erupt if they went this route.

Trump is naming staff and cabinet positions, settling in for transition. Hillary has (seemingly) gone in to hiding.

None of the 3 principles are addressing the violence being stirred up and seem to be ignoring what that violence portends.

Not addressing a problem rarely results in workable solutions.

Maybe the chaos is the desired outcome? But then one must ask who profits?

Answering those questions may allow for a glimpes behind the curtain.

Multiple layers to this onion.
edit on 13-11-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: Typos, hate this tiny keyboard, apologies.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=21523017]MotherMayEye[/pos

My prayers are that they fall back to regroup. I think that they honestly believed what their lackeys in the media were putting out---that Hillary was a sure thing. It would appear that the first inkling they had of a loss was reflected in the cancelation of the fireworks. Not sure where/how they got their info but it put them in panic mode enough to cancel the big show.

My hope is that they were so sure of a victory that they've actually not got a workable plan for a defeat.

They are now bereft of leadership. There is going to be one big cat-scratching, yowling, screeching fight for the leadership position after such a stunning defeat on all fronts. It's not a matter of them rolling over, more like they've been knocked over onto their keester and are now struggling just to right themselves. Just to add a bit more misery, they're pretty much broke as I understand it. Of course, I know that fundraising is easy but I'm not sure how ready people will be to hand over more money until there is a definitive change in leadership. The exposure of the extent of the corruption within the highest ranks of the party is bound to have some pretty substantial effects on their fund-raising abilities.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
None of the 3 principles are addressing the violence being stirred up and seem to be ignoring what that violence portends.

Not addressing a problem rarely results in workable solutions.

Maybe the chaos is the desired outcome? But then one must ask who profits?

Answering those questions may allow for a glimpes behind the curtain.

Multiple layers to this onion.



Hillary is not addressing it and she is the only one they would listen to, right now. That makes me believe that she/'they' want civil unrest.

I read the protesting is scheduled to go on up until the inauguration. RED FLIPPING FLAG. It's not over until the oath has been adminstered.

Thus far, Hillary is not speaking about the need for unity, tough as it may be. And *cough* she is the only one the protestors would listen to....or the man organizing this unrest through his front 'progressive' organizers.

Also, I think both parties profit (in money & power) from the divide and from obstructionism blamed on the two party divide. We get 'shown' a lovely piece of legislation for the good of the people -- that's what gets presented -- then the obstructionist side tears it apart and packs it with pork...in the end we get the worst legislation imaginable. Doesn't matter who controls Congress, as long as there is a divide it's useful in so many ways.

Plus, that divide insures that when one party does something truly awful, half the country will completely overlook it and let them get away with it.

I think that's what's essentially going on behind the curtain, anyway.


edit on 13-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I've been trying to figure out who would benefit from all the nonsense by the crybabies. And why on earth would the leadership NOT try to stop it. It is happening in primarily Democrat-controlled cities as far as I can tell. Why would they want their fellow Dems to suffer? Is it just giving the children a chance to blow off steam? If it weren't for the violent tone of the protests, I would think it might be just letting them have their tantrums. But when they start smashing people's cars with baseball bats and blocking traffic, it's gone beyond peaceful protesting. The absence of leadership is actually pretty startling and seems to indicate that they have been completely thrown off their game due to the fact that they believed the trash their hired help in the msm and on social media put out there.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Problem-reaction-solution? It surely seems someone has an agenda when those in power are not condemning these actions publicly.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Thoren
Well, it wouldn't be the first time that model was attempted. Somehow, I suspect that the mayors of the cities being affected won't be pleased to be part of that model.
If the "plan" is to bring about martial law in some areas---as I've heard expressed in media---these poor, ignorant protestors won't have a chance. They have no idea.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that the media is actually encouraging it. They need blood and sex to lead their stories and when the blood isn't flowing and the sex scandals have died down....a bunch of angry, crying children will do. Especially when they can play on the "fear" being expressed by the losing side. Oh, the tragedy of being on the losing side after two elections where the low-information voters won. Can't you feel their pain?
I suspect that a lot of the "fear" is that Trump will get the economy rolling again and the parents of those basement dwellers are going to expect the snowflakes to get out and get one of the millions of jobs he has promised.
Hey, I'm disappointed that my guy didn't win too. But I didn't curl up in a ball and cry nor did I take to the streets to protest the results. Nope, I went out and doubled the size of my strawberry patch. While they're being all fearful and tearful, I'm planning for sweet, succulent strawberries in the spring.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


The thing that people cant seem to realise that the enemy isn't the Trump or Clinton supporters. But whoever it is that has divided them. Then ask what has changed, since people have voted, the answer is a big fat zero. Except the medias suggestions in your mind. Trump cant change a thing until he is President, then very little after that. So the rage of the average person, has been directed at the neighbour instead of the real enemy.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

My guy didn't win either ( twice no less) and I just carried on, such is life. You still have responsibilities regardless of who is running the government. I'll never understand the far left or the far right, they both seem to want to rule each other instead of meeting in the middle. I was raised with the mindset that the scariest words you'll ever hear are "I'm the government and i'm here to help". I watch the activity of our government with extreme scrutiny and minimal to no trust. Who knows what their up to this time but things are looking mighty fishy to me at the moment. As far as the media goes, they in my opinion are the most vile disgusting underhanded creatures there are. They thrive on controversy,sex, violence death and chaos in general and will do what they can to perpetuate and promote it without implicating themselves directly in the act of it.All in the name of ratings and profits. They also have political agendas and align themselves with whichever party is most likely to perpetuate their success while also delivering propaganda in favor of said political party.

Martial law? I don't think they are shooting for that one just yet, but there is definitely a goal with what's being allowed to go on. Scaring the people into giving away more rights for safety seems to be the current goal from my point of view.

In conclusion the whole damn thing is a mess that I want no part of and will continue to be a neutral observer and analyze all of it with a non biased state of mind. I'm more than happy to stay out in the country armed to the teeth and watch everyone duke it out. Society itself becomes a somewhat disturbing and scary circus when you finally step out of it and become an outside observer. It really makes me think "Have they all gone mad?".



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

At the moment, Trump doesn't have the power to address the situation. He really has no authority. This should be the problem of the current president and the governors of the states and the mayors of those cities to address.

If Donald tries to say anything, it will only make this situation worse, and I think it's what the system frankly wants -- for him to stick his nose in at the moment.

Now, after he officially takes office, THEN all bets are off and we'll see how things get handled.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Not my neighbors. We're still sharing the very last of the harvests of our gardens, raking leaves for the elderly and waiting to see who got a deer on opening day. None of us want to tell others how to behave, we all voted for the one we thought would be the best leader. Some of us cast votes for losers, some of us cast votes for winners. Most of us were outdoors enjoying the lovely autumn, getting the yard/gardens ready for winter. Nobody in my neck of the woods is marching on city hall or impeding traffic because their candidate lost.
I know the pain of losing. My guy didn't win either. He barely got 3% of the vote in my state, a big disappointment to me. But it's not the first time I've been disappointed and I suspect it won't be the last. When the returns were finally in and the winner was declared I poured a slug of Jack Black and toasted the Donald and wished him well. I'm not afraid of him, I just thought Johnson was a better candidate whose views aligned with mine more than Trump's.
Would my neighborhood be in an uproar had Hillary won? I sincerely doubt it even though, in this heavily Dem county, she got less than 30% of the vote.
A quick look at the county-by-county election results shows that the majority of the country didn't want Hillary as their leader. Those little blue patches are in urban areas where government benefits are the means of support for the majority. It would have been surprising indeed had they not turned out to support the hands feeding them and providing housing and promises of all sorts of free stuff.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You know, considering the way her campaign pushed and pushed that it was all but a done deal among her followers, with the media egging them all along, I'm not too surprised to see violent outbursts aimed at her opponent. She certainly did nothing to assuage the pent up emotions everyone (of her supporters) felt that night when she did not even make an appearance and sent Podesta out to mumble some vague platitude about the fight not being over or somesuch and then directing them all to go home.

And I think you're spot on as far as why division and obstructionism still are such critical components to political theater.

a reply to: diggindirt

I've seen someone (hell, it may have been you) in another thread mention that part of the reason this outburst is that the dems had absolutely 0 parts of a game plan for if they did not win. They bought their own hype and believed the scheming and finagling they did behind the scenes would grant them their magic carpet ride to the whitehouse.

They are at a complete and total loss and are acting out in the only way they know how. I think it is a mix of organic angst and paid protestors added to the mix to make the upset seem more widespread than it is. The online hand wringing is not helping matters any nor are all the celebs saying stupid #.

a reply to: ketsuko

You know, you're right in that none of these 'protestors' would listen to a damn thing Trump would say on the matter and in fact it would probably only inflame them more if he were to attempt to address them.

But Hillary and Obama definitely should be stepping up to the plate to thank those who worked toward the goal of electing her, but she should also inform them that it just didn't happen for them this time and that there are better ways to express themselves.

That they are not says enough to know that how they really feel is that these violent malcontents are acting in an approved of manner.
edit on 13-11-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting sidenote:

In 2000, when the land-line polls still worked...Both Bush and Gore knew it was going to be tight.

They both put together plans to convince "Faithless Electors" to switch their votes.

Bush won the electoral college, but not the popular vote, so he didn't need to follow through and Gore opted not to execute on that strategy...but interesting as they both considered it fair game.




Bush-Cheney plan

In 2000, expecting a popular vote win and an Electoral College loss, the Bush-Cheney team drafted plans to demand a public outcry if such an occasion were to occur. "Democrats for Democracy" was one slogan that was suggested if such a campaign were to emerge. Such an insurrection was wholly aimed at persuading Democrat electors to change their votes if Bush had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College vote.

www.cnn.com...

The whole article above is an interesting read given the current scenario.

You might not like my answer to your question of "why doesn't Trump settle the lawsuit?"...a RICO suit bTW..but the answer is (1) Ego...he thinks the judge will go his way now he is POTUS-elect (2) Money...He doesn't have cash on hand to settle the verdict...He would have to sell a bunch of buildings, it would be complicated.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
(2) Money...He doesn't have cash on hand to settle the verdict...He would have to sell a bunch of buildings, it would be complicated.




I am sure Trump has liability insurance and lots of it.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Indigo5
(2) Money...He doesn't have cash on hand to settle the verdict...He would have to sell a bunch of buildings, it would be complicated.




I am sure Trump has liability insurance and lots of it.


Not for the University RICO suit...Liability insurance is void under conditions of fraud.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Indigo5
(2) Money...He doesn't have cash on hand to settle the verdict...He would have to sell a bunch of buildings, it would be complicated.




I am sure Trump has liability insurance and lots of it.


Not for the University RICO suit...Liability insurance is void under conditions of fraud.


Oh, wow...great point. I did not realize that. Makes sense why fraud wouldn't be covered.


edit on 14-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Indigo5
(2) Money...He doesn't have cash on hand to settle the verdict...He would have to sell a bunch of buildings, it would be complicated.




I am sure Trump has liability insurance and lots of it.


Not for the University RICO suit...Liability insurance is void under conditions of fraud.


Makes me wonder more than ever if Trump was a carefully planned planted candidate meant to help Hillary win, all along. And that this lawsuit is simply the plan they prepared for, in the event Hillary did not win.

If a court finds Trump liable for fraud, and that becomes the impetus to cause faithless electors to switch their votes -- I don't think an objection to those votes would stand in Congress when they count and certify the votes.

ETA: I still think Trump could put together the money to settle this. The Judge urged both sides to settle. It would be worth it to settle it, complicated as it may be to cover the costs.

Also, I do not dislike your answer. You raised good points. I just don't trust anything about this election and take nothing at face value.
edit on 14-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
By the way.....



New York State jurors are selected at random from the following sources:

Voter Registration Records
Department of Motor Vehicles Records
State Tax Return Filings
Public Assistance and Department of Labor Records


The more I check out weaknesses in the system that might be exploited...the more I worry they will be exploited.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

hahahahahaha
RICO for trump u but no rico for cf?

nice



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Wouldn't be hard at all to stack a jury, lawyers been doing that for a long time as is, but this does add to the possibility.



new topics




 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join