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

Holy Nightmare - Hillary Might Be Our Next President. A 3-state Recount is Possible.

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
The recount can be manipulated just as it might have been initially. Or not. I'm guessing they're looking for or are going to plant their own brand of weaponized fraud in order to make his win look less genuine and I'll gotten.

We'll see...




posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Can't see Clinton challenging.
It's cause too many problems if she actually succeeded.
Problems she won't want to deal with as President.


Like, I dunno, insurrection.

Trump has practically picked his administration.


As ante said, maybe in the first week...

But the dust has settled now.
President Trump is the future. Whatever that holds.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu




If your state is a broke as a joke and costs us an election due to crappy computer security...


Its great eh....just point the finger and blame....that should fix everything right ?

Here is an idea the voting system should be funded by the fed, you know where the money is....have you ever stopped to consider that "the joke that is broke" has been engineered that way for this specific purpose...and by that i mean you are being fooled ...so blatantly it hurts...wake up already



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?


I'd imagine only if Clinton gave the go ahead would they do that.

But I'm not sure on the rules.


+22 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?


Wow that comes off as so desperate.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?


Wow that comes off as so desperate.


You spend 30 years preparing to be President. You come SOOOO close. Your life expectancy is coming to its statistical end... WHAT THE HELL DO YA HAVE TO LOSE?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I'm the last person who wanted Donald Trump to win the election (though I did not vote for Clinton,) and I remain profoundly disturbed by much of what surrounds it, and him.

That said... I think this would be the worst thing that could happen right now for the country's polity (yes, even considering how divisive his victory & appointments have been so far,) and I also think it would be a huge mistake for the DNC to pursue or support this, at a time when they should - imo - instead be focusing on drastically transforming their leadership and platform, and doing away with establishment, lobbyist-friendly, corporatism-centric candidates.

Her winning wouldn't simply thwart Trump, it would also stop real progress that needs to be made by the DNC, and simply give us another Clinton and/or Bush and/or Obama administration (all of whom did things which, as a liberal, and contrary to popular belief by those who have preconceived notions about liberals and their automatic presumed support for the Democratic party, I had and have enormous ethical and ideological qualms with, resulting in my not supporting them at all whatsoever.)

So, I have to oppose this. Unless, and this is a big if, there is overwhelming, unequivocal, physical (e.g. not statistically derivative or inferred) persuasive proof of some sort of legitimate monkey business.

Peace.
edit on 11/23/2016 by AceWombat04 because: Gammar



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Amerika has spoken. They all said Trump.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


Exactly the Clintons wont go quietly, they have to much to loose.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
If Clinton doesn't do anything, and if there's any actual computer forensic evidence ... the people of America deserve to know about it.

What I fear is that this will go quietly into the night, as without support from Clinton the people presenting this information might not feel like they have enough support to try and get it noticed.


+5 more 
posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
What would be interesting is an investigation into how many illegals voted in the elections. Imagine California turning red!



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?


Wow that comes off as so desperate.


What?

It's a logical question.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?


Wow that comes off as so desperate.


What?

It's a logical question.





About as logical as asking your cheating ex to take you back



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Amerika has spoken. They all said Trump.


No, they didn't.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: carewemust


Exactly the Clintons wont go quietly, they have to much to loose.


Even though I agree with AceWombat04's post, it's been pretty obvious that Hillary/BIll/DNC operate pretty much like the Father, Son, Holy Spirt Trinity. If Hillary requests the recount, and meets the requirements, it's a done deal. I wonder how long the recount would take? The Supreme Court might need to get involved.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?


Wow that comes off as so desperate.


What?

It's a logical question.





About as logical as asking your cheating ex to take you back


You seem to have a problem understanding logic.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

To answer your question, yes it would be ironic.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: goou111

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Can't see Clinton challenging.


Could someone else challenge?

Can the Democratic party challenge?


Wow that comes off as so desperate.


What?

It's a logical question.





About as logical as asking your cheating ex to take you back


You seem to have a problem understanding logic.




Applying your kind of logic i am not surprised you would have that stance

edit on 23-11-2016 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: carewemust

all total between the is 46
Michigan 16
Pennsylvania 20
Wisconsin 10
she has 232, trump 290
if she got them that would be 276, tromp 244
ohh nooz please god don't let that happen.




No.

She has 232, Trump has 290, and there are 16 outstanding electorals in the Great (?) State of Michigan. If she "got them," the total would be 278 to 260, not 276 to 244. Your math regards only the combination of 232 and 290 without taking into account the outstanding electorals.

Ohh nooz, indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join