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

MONOPOLY: Should Hillary learn how to play?(Why kick the sleeping dog)

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
A Fox News Opinion article stated what I was thinking in an interesting way. Trump has stated that he was going to "Lock Her Up" and then after being elected decided to be the better person and announce(to his detriment) that he didn't want to pursue charges. Many of his supporters were up in arms about this action but he held fast to his decision.


After spending months promising his supporters that he would see to it that Clinton is prosecuted over her email server and, perhaps, the Clinton Foundation, Trump reversed himself.


Now she is attacking him again. Doesn't she know how to cut her losses?

Hillary Clinton’s decision to embrace a challenge to Trump’s election is both confounding and inexplicable. Why would she chance angering the very individual who holds her fate in his hands? It’s like an inmate taunting a jailer. You’d have to be obtuse to do it.


Did Hillary Clinton just squander her "get out of jail free" card?

Another link to support a bad move
edit on 11/29/2016 by brutus61 because: added a link and extended the title




posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
I guess she is in the right age to learn Bingo...



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61

I think it is very probable that the situation as it stands has facets that we are not being shown. That being said, we already know that Hillary is involved with a great deal of power brokering and money moving, from less than auspicious sources and with less than morally perfect intent.

It could be that certain structures and powers are relying on this last ditch effort, to prevent any further erosion of their power. I hate Trump, what he has bought about, the normalisation of racism that is not his direct responsibility, but none the less was no where near what it is today before he made decorum a dirty word. But one thing I do like about what has happened in America, is that some very powerful, shady figures have had their noses put firmly askew, and potentially had their dealings made much harder.

Hillary and Co. will find funding the next terror wave much more difficult, a riskier prospect, if they cannot hide any longer behind the veil of national security, while about it.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
How has Trump brought about a normalisation of racism?
At the very worst I think hes guilty of generalisation but thats it.

Racists were racist long before Trump so Im curious what you think has changed?

I may not always agree with what you post but I do find you to be intelligent and informed so Im sincerely curious what has brought you to your conclusion



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

It is true that racists have existed for many years before Trumps presidency, but if you are having trouble understanding why Trump and his delivery, his manner, or lack of manners more particularly, have opened the door for vocal, overt racism, then allow me to explain.

Generalisation is part and parcel of phobic behaviour. When you generalise about a huge number of people without examining their specific motivations, what you essentially create is a circumstance where entire demographics are blanketed with a description which only ever applies to a percentage, not to the whole. This is dangerous because people, by and large, have a tendency to simplify concepts into easily conceptualised packages, especially when they, themselves, do not necessarily have a vast reserve of patience, or wit with which to make accurate assessments about information provided to them.

So, if you make a blanket statement, which is by its very nature, easy to understand, not at all granular or well researched, it will sound like fantastic good sense, straight talk, all very above board. But what it actually does is create a false narrative, as you know.

This, on its own, is not the most terrible thing that ever happened. Lord knows there have been worse things in the history of mankind. However, when you make those comments from a position such as that of Trump, the President Elect of the most powerful nation on Earth (give or take China or Russia's influences), that generalisation becomes somewhat normal, part of the regular parlance. However, racists use generalisation to legitimise their attitudes to themselves, and promote them to others. Under the normal circumstances, those being that someone seeking presidential office would be decorous, polite, wise, understanding, and so on, that persons utterances would be measured, ordinarily lack over emphasis on generalisation, ordinarily be well thought out, logical, if not moral.

However, when a powerful person changes the rules of polite conversation, decides that he may abandon decorum and manners in favour of generalisation, rudeness, and outright hostility, this gives those who rely generalisation as the foundation of their hate speech, an empowerment they would not have had previously. It blurs the thinning line between actual political speech and racist dogma, and that line in this century should always be thick and unyielding, not the sort of thing one can dance either side of without getting ones kneecaps shot out from under one.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well since this post was about a dumb move made on the part of Hillary Clinton(and yes I believe it was a very dumb move)and you seem to have taken it in an entirely different direction I congratulate on successfully stealing the post.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61

I was asked to account for my position on matters, and I have.

I am not attempting to hijack your thread, but I was asked a question and provided an answer, which is within my remit to do as a member and participant in discussion. I am sorry if you feel that my answer was out of order, or off topic. May I suggest that you click the little green man, under my avatar, and select "Alert Post", which will contact a moderator who can come along to remove the post from the thread if they feel it necessary. You will note, however, that my first post was absolutely on topic, and made some points about Hillary and her dealings, indicating my dislike of her and her activities.

Perhaps you should have a word with the member who asked me for clarification too, since their request initiated the segment of my response you seem to take issue with.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: brutus61
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well since this post was about a dumb move made on the part of Hillary Clinton(and yes I believe it was a very dumb move)and you seem to have taken it in an entirely different direction I congratulate on successfully stealing the post.


If you had read the threads 3 posts you would have seen Truebrits post was a response to my direct question.
He may not like Trump but his posts lack any malice and are always well constructed.

You (like me) may not agree with him but hes always polite and expresses his views in an easy to understand way.

Attack his posts info not him himself



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
**ATTENTION**

Back to the topic folks. Conversations evolve naturally over the course of thread when people outside of just the OP, engage in conversation. This isn't a T&C violation.

However, discussing each other and the merits of each other's post in this thread, is most a T&C violation.

Carry on, about the topic and each other's respective ideas/comments.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Not if Obama pardons her in the last hour..



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: starfoxxx
Not if Obama pardons her in the last hour..


It is true that he could do that but with all of the controversy surrounding her would he dare if he has any hopes of continuing in politics in the future? Not only that but there seems to be so much to pardon could he give some kind of blanket pardon?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Ive never considered myself as either right or left leaning but I have noticed recently that my posts on here and convos in RL have turned slightly right leaning.

I think myself and many like me are genuinely centreists and our current right lean is due to what we see as an extreme left lean in just about any piece of MSM you care to look at.

Ive been called racist many times while expressing my views and I know for a fact I am not, I treat everyone I meet ad a person but still have what I feel are genuine concerns about the future of Western culture.

Do you feel that people like myself are deluded or do we have some genuine grievances?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61

On the subject of a pardon for Hillary, unless I miss my mark, that would be a very complicated procedure, not least because the pardon, if it were to be honoured by future presidents, would have to detail all the things she is being pardoned for.

If that list were made in fulsome enough terms to be effective, it would bring many things from the realms of speculation, into the light, where all, no matter their political affiliations or their particular interest in politics, could know of it.

And the trouble with a blanket pardon, is that one could attack such a thing on a legal basis from so many quarters as to make it worth less than the paper it would be composed on. No... I do not think it is a likely prospect. I think it would be far too risky to pull nowadays.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I read most of your post and find them informative if not always agreeable. I apologize for the way I stated my disagreement. I can see that it was not intentional but your response drifted the discussion away from the intention of my original post which was to question why someone with so much to lose would continue to not only push a claim that has been highly regarded as false but to do so at the risk of setting off the one person who has pardoned(so to speak) her for her crimes. Is she so consumed by her own agenda as not to see how dangerous this could be?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: brutus61

On the subject of a pardon for Hillary, unless I miss my mark, that would be a very complicated procedure, not least because the pardon, if it were to be honoured by future presidents, would have to detail all the things she is being pardoned for.

If that list were made in fulsome enough terms to be effective, it would bring many things from the realms of speculation, into the light, where all, no matter their political affiliations or their particular interest in politics, could know of it.

And the trouble with a blanket pardon, is that one could attack such a thing on a legal basis from so many quarters as to make it worth less than the paper it would be composed on. No... I do not think it is a likely prospect. I think it would be far too risky to pull nowadays.


lol Maybe I should be wishing that she does get the pardon then. If they have to list ALL the things she is being pardonded for she would be covered(and ruined politically) but it would then open the door for investigations into her cronies. Maybe that is what she is striving for. Sacrifice the many to save herself.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

You have some genuine grievances of course, IkNOwSTuff. You are not delusional by character.

However, where we seem to be at divergence, is how we perceive problems, and what our preferred solutions are to those issues.

It is also worth pointing out, that your country is not now, nor has it ever been, in danger of sliding out to the extreme left of ANYTHING! Do you think that Unisex bathrooms and acceptance of LGBT rights is a swing to the left? Look at the corporatocracy that is your government, look at who it does business with, how it does that business, look at its war. How can you fear a left wing shift, when the government you have been living under the whole time I have been a member here, has been at war with Arab and North African nations? How can you fear a left wing shift, when the policies which informed the War on Terror under Bush, are EXACTLY the same as the ones which inform the War on Terror now? How can you fear a left wing shift, when corporations have been given the same power as individuals?

These are not things that a heavily left wing government would EVER consider! The trouble is that America has been propagandised at by the right for years, such that Hillary, a stormtrooping death worshiper if I ever heard of one, is considered left wing... SHE IS NOT! She is in love with the corporate world, but leftists hate the hell out of it, she panders to their needs like a child to the word of its mother, but a lefty would rather set themselves on fire than listen to any word but the word of the people.

Now, Bernie Sanders on the other hand... what a guy. Sure, he had to fold to pressure in the end, and who knows what prompted that. But the fact is that his policies were and always have been left leaning, which is why they are so damned GOOD! He wanted to educate the young without costing them their lifes work in fees, he wanted everyone who has a job to be paid a living wage! He wanted the people producing the goods and services people buy, to be given a greater share of the proceeds from those products, and for companies to absorb the cost of those raises, not the consumer (which as we all know leads to inflation). HE is a left leaning political figure. He respects the needs and aspirations of the voiceless, the working poor, and would have represented them to the hilt.

Also, your point about people on the right being seen as racists...

That is part of the problem, the division between people, which makes it easier to control the whole. It is legitimate to be right leaning, as long as that means things like an understanding of personal responsibility (which does not mean what many people think it means), a desire to see the second amendment upheld (which is absolutely legitimate and I applaud intensely), a wish for the government to stop spending money it does not have (on things like war, intelligence infrastructure, privatisation of institutions which ought to be the sole purview of governments as an extension of the will of the people), a wish for smaller government (meaning cheaper government), and to keep out of the affairs of people, and so on. However, there are people on the right, many people on the right whose wrong think causes the entire mess to be seen wrongly by people. Whether we are talking about Christian Conservatives (oxymoronic moniker if there ever was one), or Nazis dressed as patriots, but talking like traitors to the very constitution which informed the creation of and the current format of America, THESE people have the loudest voices.

Another troublesome thing, is that despite the propensity of right leaning persons to suggest that failure to denounce the actions of certain people, equals complicity in acts perpetrated by those people, you never EVER hear of a right wing militia being raised to kick the snot out of dyed in the wool members of the Aryan Brotherhood, or the KKK, or any other clearly fascist group. You also rarely hear anyone complain about that state of affairs.

Hypocrisy is everywhere, all sides contain it. The problem is that no one seems to want to deal with that, on any side. We all seem perfectly happy to allow our bias to affect the way we interrelate, the way we view things. Personally speaking, I am capable of entertaining a notion without accepting it. While I entertain the notion when it is offered up, that right leaning people are all this, and all that, I know they are not, and I try where I can to ensure that my rational mind speaks more often than my frustration, my reason more than my passion, because in reason is where common ground can be found with other reasonable people, of all walks of life.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61

Here is the thing.

If she is pardoned effectively by Obama, it will be bad for her and her friends. If she does not get the pardon, then Trump could go back on his statement at any time on the matter, and investigate. Only by throwing the election into question and potentially backdooring her way into the White House, can she guarantee the safety and operational security of whatever group of maladjusted liars she is in bed with.

And no, that is not a reference to Mr Bill Clinton, although it might as well be.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: brutus61

She could have George Soros pissed off at her after giving her all that money,maybe it's his way of throwing her under the bus,Soros is a notorious poor loser



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I think she should just keep kicking the dog until he wakes up and bites her in the a$$.

Just my opinion.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I appreciate your in depth reply.
You hit the nail on the head as far as Im concerned except for assuming Im a Yank, Im an Aussie mate


To be fair most of what you wrote can be applied to the OZ gov as well as most others.
I agree that in reality Govs are becoming somewhat more right and fascist but the agenda they are pushing to the plebs is very leftist.

Your example of Unisex bathrooms and the LGBT agenda I do believe is a jump to the "left",
No normal healthy non religious person gives a crap about anyone being gay and most wouldnt have an issue with trans folks either.
I met quite a few Trans people (ladyboys actually) when I lived in Laos, a couple of them were feminine enough that you couldnt tell they were blokes but with most it was obvious. While they were all batshyte crazy anytime I ever spoke to one I always as a courtesy called her a her. Now this was done purely as a social grace, no one was under any illusions she was anything other than a bloke.
When we have situations where the Gov starts dictating to us that men can be women or women can be men its just seems to me like its a bit to close to 2+2=5.
Im sure in the past many genuine Trans people got away with using the womans or mens room without any issue and if they did get caught out Im sure most cases would have ended in amusement rather than anger.
The Gov telling us that men are now entitled to use the womens room basically if they feel like it opens a whole can of worms for nothing, its put justified fears in peoples minds that werent there before and now people are pushing back.
Sadly it comes across like trans people are the ones peoples anger is aimed at yet in fact its the nonsense 2+2=5 laws that people are lashing out against.
Its pushing agendas and social policies that werent large scale issues previously and forcing people like myself who dont care about the actual issue to jump up and say "BULLSHYTE"

I hate getting on this site and saying "A mans a man and a womans a woman no matter what they wear or what surgical procedure they have". I look like an intolerant homophobe but its a pure simple fact that cant be changed only distorted (For the sake of simplicity lets be horribly unPC and forget the .05% of us out there who are hermaphrodite).

I had another 3 paragraphs written and more to follow but Ive just realised how far weve strayed from the OP and feel maybe its best I leave it here.
To be continued


Just to make sure a mod doesnt delete the post for being off topic
Yes I do think she should learn how to play monopoly



new topics




 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join