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

Bernie Sanders backs Trump protests, questions Electoral College

page: 3
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Sanders is a collectivist.

So of course he hates States Rights.

But I bet he wants a more than an "equal" share from his book sales !!!!





posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kuroodo
a reply to: Kukri

Regardless, the same point is being made!


I concur! It shows that at least half the population are smart enough to avoid the partisan Bull$&* and choose not to be part of your political circus.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kukri


Hahahaha you break me up! You go to section two which lists multiple scenarios and claim that paragraph proves your point.


It does, in fact, prove my point.

Each of those 3 characteristics have to be met, it just so happens that the 2nd characteristic is broken down into three separate, but similar, sub-characteristics.

The key word you seem not to be comprehending is, "or," in the section describing one of the three necessary characteristics needed to meet the qualifications for domestic terrorism.

Once more for your edification:

[1]

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;


[2]

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;


[3]

and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


Pleas pay attention to the fact the [2] is further subdivided into (i), (ii), OR, (iii).

You do understand what this means, don't you?

The three characteristics are:

[1]

[2] (i), (ii), OR, (iii)

AND

[3]

Here's a primer to help you grasp at what I am trying to assist you in understanding:


** As always when reading laws you will find the word "and" and the word "or" used. When the law lists the elements that must be broken to be in violation and uses the term -
* - "and" it means all elements must be broken to be in violation.
* - "or" it means each individual element stands on its own and a violation of an individual section is enough to be in violation of the law. **


Read the section above about, "or," a few times if you need and then refer back to section [2] of the three characteristics.

 


If we're going to play these games, then I have to point out yet another error on your part:


...I should of stuck with my original far less polite reply.


The proper way to phrase that would be, "I should have stuck with my original far less polite reply."

This is a commonly made error and one I usually don't point out, but since you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of, "or," I can see how you confuse the contraction "should've," with the homophone (this means words that have the same pronunciation but different spellings or meanings) of "should of."

And I did not add anything or subtract anything.

Keep trying, the light may eventually come on, but I bet it'll be quite dim.
edit on 15-11-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What can't you comprehend!! it requires all three conditions are met regardless of what those three conditions subsets may be.

This isn't rocket science.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kukri
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What can't you comprehend!! it requires all three conditions are met regardless of what those three conditions subsets may be.

This isn't rocket science.


Yes, and those conditions are:

[1]

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;


I would say that overturning cars, obstructing freeway traffic, lighting fires, breaking windows, and general mayhem are dangerous to human life AND break federal or state law.

Next condition to meet:

[2]

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;


The violent 'protests' (because there are people who are protesting peacefully, and so would not qualify under this characterizations) are indeed meant to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (of Trump voters).

They could ALSO be viewed as an attempt to, "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," due to the fact that they are trying to get electors to not grant their votes to Trump during the meeting of electors which is in December.

AND they could be an attempt, "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination," by, again, trying to change the actions of the electors.

HOWEVER, section [2] ONLY requires one of the 3 sub-characteristics in order to qualify as having met the criteria for this particular section.

[3]

and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


I think this one is obvious and even someone as dense as you can grasp this portion of the 3 characteristics that need to be met in order to qualify as domestic terrorism.

You know, I usually tell people to stop digging if they find themselves in a hole, but this is too much fun.
edit on 15-11-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: one too many, "of's" added commas too



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeywoodFloyd
a reply to: Profusion

Bernie Sanders is PATHETIC.

He even publicly endorsed crooked Hillary,
even after Wikileaks revealed the dirty tricks that Hillary Clinton and the DNC played against him during the primaries.

The question is:
"Does Bernie Sanders even have a backbone?"

in my opinion NO, he doesn't.


Sure he does, approved and brought to you by the Clinton campaign/Foundation.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

OMFG! Not only are you blatantly wrong and offensively dismissive as well as being a grammar nazi you have to double down with your ad hominem insults.

You are not worth the effort nor particularly intelligent as clearly proven by your inability to comprehend the very information you are posting to "educate me".

Maybe someone with a higher tolerance level can explain this to you. I'll just write it off as .. I don't know! Trumpmania maybe?

Here have a participation award for trying



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kukri
Maybe someone with a higher tolerance level can explain this to you. I'll just write it off as .. I don't know! Trumpmania maybe?



Huh?

There's no debate as to whether these two criteria have been met, that much is evident:


• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.


It's these three criteria that are enumerated as (i), (ii), and (iii), at issue....and only one of them need be met:


• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping;


And it's arguable all three have been met.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kukri
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

OMFG! Not only are you blatantly wrong and offensively dismissive as well as being a grammar nazi you have to double down with your ad hominem insults.

You are not worth the effort nor particularly intelligent as clearly proven by your inability to comprehend the very information you are posting to "educate me".

Maybe someone with a higher tolerance level can explain this to you. I'll just write it off as .. I don't know! Trumpmania maybe?

Here have a participation award for trying


Insults: Check
Lack of counter argument: Check
Credibility: Gone



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kukri

I'll see your ad hom and raise you a strawman:


I'll just write it off as .. I don't know! Trumpmania maybe?


Considering the fact I have not mentioned Trump at all and have focused the domestic terrorism characteristics, even that is a huge fail.

You may want to get a whetstone for the blades in your avatar pic.

Look, it's obvious you've dug in your heels on this and further attempts on my part are as likely to produce results similar to trying to convince an obstinate mule to move, so I'll let you keep your nice little participation award.

This is the mudpit after all. If you can't handle a few barbs, you might want to consider exiting forthwith.
edit on 15-11-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: Fixed tag



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

Sen. Bernie Sanders called for “rethinking” the Electoral College and warned President-elect Donald Trump that he should expect more street protests if he pursues divisive policies. USA TODAY
SOURCE


It's looking to me like Trump was the least of a bully between himself, Clinton, and Sanders. It's frightening to think that Sanders was probably a Hillary Clinton heartbeat away from being POTUS.

Isn't Sanders egging on violent protesters by saying that Trump should expect more street protests if he pursues divisive policies? I thought Sanders was supposed to be the classy one of the group?

Incidentally, what policies can a president pursue that aren't divisive in some way? Is that even possible?

At what point do we start calling a spade a spade? This is terrorism. Sanders is supporting terrorism in my view.
Protest is valid if a president says prejudiced things, or instigates discriminatory policies. Those groups affected have every right and potentially a pressing need to fight it.
edit on 15-11-2016 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
people need to get over it..

trump won

the only reason people are up in arms is b/c their favorite lost

babies



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
HAHAHA! Protest away....but be prepared to get arrested...it will happen!


Protesting is not illegal or terroristic in any way unless people become violent.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perjury

the only reason people are up in arms is b/c their favorite lost

babies


NO

It's about what's come directly out of Trump's mouth and the division he's created.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
When ACA was passed I sure did want to riot in the streets. Then I remembered I wasn't an animal, and could handle disappointment in a more positive manner.

I am wholly, completely turned off by all of this. The DNC, Sanders, Hillary, petulent children....you can bet your ass Ill never vote for or support one of them.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Perjury

the only reason people are up in arms is b/c their favorite lost

babies


NO

It's about what's come directly out of Trump's mouth and the division he's created.


What comes out of his mouth that is worth rioting over?

What about the fact that what he said resonates with half the country...is there no respect for them and their political desires? Is this what we can expect when the DNC loses future elections? If so, you can bet I won't likely be too fond of the political movement at all.

Its bullying. Plain and simple. "DO as we say or we will tear up your town". Its bullying of the worst kind.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Generation Me, of course, thinks the president is supposed to represent them, individually. He's not. He is supposed to represent your community. Bigger communities get more say, but all communities get a voice. In this view, the elector college is brilliant. It is ironic that Bernie the socialist has become the champion of the narcissistic youth, and now has to sing the songs they want to hear.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Perjury

the only reason people are up in arms is b/c their favorite lost

babies


NO

It's about what's come directly out of Trump's mouth and the division he's created.


Really? Because the only way he could win is by a lack of division.
So maybe you feel he's dividing you away from everyone else, but you are not on the right side of history.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

What about the fact that what he said resonates with half the country....is there no respect for them and their political desires?


Apparently about as much as the other half + a few.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle.



edit on 15-11-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: angeldoll

Only 1/5th of the population voted for Hillary.



If she is winning the popular vote that means that less than 1/5th voted for Trump...... interesting isn't it.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join