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.

 

I just saw a commercial on TV !!! (unbelievable!!!!)

page: 12
78
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: 200Plus

But some of the Founders were slaveowners. And the Founders knew the Constitution wasn't perfect which is why they created a method for us to update it through amendments. What's wrong with celebrities stating facts?


Stating facts or misusing them..




posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: standstrongtogether

Oh cry me a river. His/Her point didn't make sense. Pointing out that the Founders were slaveowners and that the Constitution is outdated has nothing to do with his/her 2nd point, which stated "Now, the tears flow and they call upon those they have shunned for comfort and solace." Who in that post did they shun that they're now calling on for comfort and solace? The Founders who've been dead for centuries? How are they going to comfort anyone?

As for you being peaceful or not: You should probably learn the word "sarcasm". Why would I think you were actually peaceful when you wanted all Americans dead who happen to be liberal? Though while you're looking up the word "sarcasm", you should probably look into the T&C of this site since I'm pretty sure threats are against it.

And for the record, I wasn't dangling anything in front of your face. Ewww.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: everyone

LOL Why am I not surprised that in the "Age of Trump", stating facts is considered a bad thing. How did they "misuse" facts in the hypothetical situation I replied to?

edit on 19-12-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Tardacus
what was it that Hillary said, oh yeah I remember, " when they go high we go low" I guess this is what she meant


No and Hillary is not involved in this unless you have a source.



So, unless Hillary's name is specifically said or listed she's above it all an not involved.

But any random person who supports Trump is immediately in bed with him and even if Trump denounces it they're still in cahoots.

So typical.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

My point, though perhaps not clear, was that the left cannot seem to make up its mind.

Several years ago the founding fathers were evil and their names should be "taken off public buildings" and "they were all bigots" because they owned slaves.

Several years ago the founding documents of the nation were outdated and not fit for modern times.

Today the same people would turn to the words of those founding fathers and original documents to lend credence to their losing cause. "See, we love the country! We quote the founding fathers and you guys like the founding fathers!" It reeks of desperation, and more than that it is appalling in its hypocrisy.

Although, in Hamilton's defense (if such a detestable thought can be conveyed), he was a slave trader not a slave owner. He was a bastard and so unable to inherit his family's property.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Elections over, Hillary conceded.

Fake news media had her victorious and she lost, and they can't stand it so MUCH, they just keep on keeping on their fantasy world result that has her eventually winning somehow.

In their version of events she did win, now all they have to do is keep repeating that until the most of main street america buys it, so that on inauguration day she is standing at the podium and everyone cheers...



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I saw Michael Moore was offering to pay the fines of electors who changed their vote. Kind of sounds like a bribe to me.

But if someone was to try and bribe an elector, who says a better funded foreign actor couldn't outbid your bribe to keep things as is?

Its pretty dicey to wait so long after the elction to cast the ballots, they should be cast as soon as the votes are officially counted. I understand to allow time for vote recount challenges and such, but thats a whole other issue to fix.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So...Where do you stand on abolishing the electoral college then?

The constitution clearly enshrined their option to be "faithless electors"..Federalist #68 explains it well and even encourages it as bulwark against foreign influence and tyranny?

Mind you...I am not advocating for them to be "Faithless Electors"...Nor saying we should abolish the electoral college.

BUT you seem to want it both ways? Celebrate the electoral college for giving Trump a win despite losing by a margin of 3M in the popular vote..BUT also creaming about the possibility that the electoral college will exercise their ability to vote differently than their state?

Pro-electoral college or Anti-electoral college???


edit on 19-12-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: CAPT PROTON
I saw Michael Moore was offering to pay the fines of electors who changed their vote. Kind of sounds like a bribe to me.

But if someone was to try and bribe an elector, who says a better funded foreign actor couldn't outbid your bribe to keep things as is?



Strangely...I remember reading there is actually no law prohibiting paying off electoral college voters..I'd have to look into it, but it was cited as one of the weaknesses in the system during a review a while back.

Also..it is silly to think this unique to Dems...



In 1976, a big push was made to deny Jimmy Carter the win over Gerald Ford and his running mate, Bob Dole.

Carter had won a narrow victory with only about 5,000 votes in Ohio and 3,000 in Hawaii.

Dole later admitted that the Ford-Dole campaign had actually tried to influence Democrat electors by “shopping around” for electors who were willing to change their vote.



heavy.com... as-last-time/



While it’s almost forgotten now, the George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote.

His campaign hoped to spark a national movement to pressure members of the Electoral College in states where the popular vote went for Al Gore to ignore that and instead vote in line with the national popular vote — thus making Bush president.

theintercept.com...

It would seem to me while the Dems attempting to influence the Electoral College is the issue of the moment...That BOTH sides have tried before.

Shall we fix the electoral college somehow?
edit on 19-12-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

interesting point on the "both ways" part.

Where do you stand on President Obama talking about Russia "hacking" the election but not "hacking" the process. His wanting an investigation into the election, but not the voting process because he is sure that was on the "up and up".


Too many votes in 37% of Detroit districts (audit)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Elections over, Hillary conceded.



True...but from what I have read about the "Hamilton Electors" movement...their goal was to propose a Republican alternative to GOP electors...or otherwise kick to congress understanding they would choose a GOP POTUS and hope it is not Trump.

This isn't about Hillary..



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

The Electoral College was put into place just for situations like this, to over-throw a President elect that is not fit or a danger to the US.

Trump lovers will completely blame this on the dems, blaming them for the split of the US. Dems should accept racism and deny equality...Dems should just accept a fascist president, Dems should just shut up and let the idiots run this country and "make it better".


You did cite other instances and facts of republicans trying to over-throw a democratic president via electoral college, however, out of site out of mind. That was years ago and pesky facts like that do not coincide with their Trumptopia.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Indigo5

interesting point on the "both ways" part.

Where do you stand on President Obama talking about Russia "hacking" the election but not "hacking" the process. His wanting an investigation into the election, but not the voting process because he is sure that was on the "up and up".



To your question...

I think the Russians definitely hacked the DNC and did so cuz Putin had a very serious grudge against Clinton from his own controversial election win in 2011...Massive protests broke out in Russia...and Clinton as SOS chimed in calling the election results questionable...It really POed Putin...and this was payback...plus it had multiple benefits..

Flash-back Putin's re-election in 2011 and he has 100k+ protestors in multiple cities:
Vladimir Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of encouraging Russian protests


CLINTON:Human rights is part of who we are," she said, after Putin's comments emerged. "And we expressed concerns that we thought were well founded about the conduct of the elections.

PUTIN:
"[Opposition leaders] heard the signal and with the support of the US state department began active work," Putin said

..
PUTIN:
""We will have to think about strengthening the law and holding more responsible those who carry out the task of a foreign government to influence internal political processes."

www.theguardian.com...

Of the 3 main organizers of those protests...2 ended up in Siberian work camps and one was killed on the Kremlin Bridge KGB style (the video was on ATS).

He couldn't kill Clinton...but he sure wanted payback for her publicly calling his 2011 election BS during protests.

Notice that line of Putin's in 2011 aimed at Clinton? Holding those responsible?.." a foreign government to influence internal political processes."

He was furious and thought it out of bounds for Clinton as SOS of the USA to publicly call out his election as a likely fraud. PAYBACK in his mind.

As far as Pres. Obama's comments...I agree, it is up to Pundits and statisticians et al to hypothesize and decide if the hack+leaks effected the outcome...but that can't be proven with certainty. There were a lot of reasons Clinton failed to do better and a lot of it was Dems and her own fault. Russian's "trying" to effect the outcome?... That's a fact.

And we need to distinguish between propaganda and outright hacking of voting devices...No evidence that SW or HW systems were hacked in voting devices (though we should be examining them anyways post election and making sure they are super-secure for the future)

edit on 19-12-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Indigo5

The Electoral College was put into place just for situations like this, to over-throw a President elect that is not fit or a danger to the US.



Absolutely...The fact that the Electoral College was created with the intent as a safe-guard isn't debatably IMO.

They sure didn't include it to just make things more complicated.

And attempts to bind electoral voters to how their state voted has been knocked down in courts and by conservatives in the past.

If the GOP want to change the electoral college to remove that risk?...Sure...let's get rid of it and use the Popular vote...if they want to maintain it...sure..but don't bitch if people encourage the electoral college to exercise their right to be "faithless"..

But you can't have it both ways depending on if it is "your guy or gal" is president elect.
edit on 19-12-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


This isn't about Hillary..

Not anymore.

Status quo is still there though, more to the point.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

a reply to: Indigo5

The Electoral College was put into place just for situations like this, to over-throw a President elect that is not fit or a danger to the US.


I seriously hope you aren't suggesting that Hillary is less of a danger to the US than Trump. That would just be silly and highly inaccurate, based on her history.
edit on 19-12-2016 by X88B88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: X88B88



Im sure you believe she is a baby killer, rapist protector and the actual demon herself.

sorry you are duped by fake news



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I think that my mate Trump (I feel like i know him now) should go all out attack on that pesky Clinton clan now. Or maybe they are throwing everything in, in order for DT to not reach the WH, cause the Trumpster is gonna take them all down. Who needs TV when you have foreign affairs.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
BUT you seem to want it both ways? Celebrate the electoral college for giving Trump a win despite losing by a margin of 3M in the popular vote..BUT also creaming about the possibility that the electoral college will exercise their ability to vote differently than their state?

Pro-electoral college or Anti-electoral college???



It was actually 2 million and California doesn't represent the rest of the states.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Ok, you stated your point much better here so it makes more sense. But there's no hypocrisy in using the rules that are literally in the Constitution. And we can quote something good from a person without liking the person, just as we can point out a flaw in someone that we generally like. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

I think the point in using the Founders' words is that conservatives always say they're pro-Constitution, love the Founding Fathers, are strict constitutionalists, etc. So it's reminding them of the things they supposedly believe in. It's kind of like the atheist who reminds a believer "Thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife, right?", even though the atheist might not believe it.

Either way, I get your point now.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join