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: 5
78
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Nyiah

Well, you could have fooled me. I voted for Johnson, too, but "all you see are conservatives who are butthurt."

Tunnel, partisan vision for someone who claims to be beyond that.

Gross.

Not funny, "hilarious," or cute. I am tired of your garbage. You may have voted for Johnson, but you are still a rabid party-hater.

Fab. You're a real GD peach.

Yeah, you're right, I DO dislike the Big Two immensely! That's what I'm Third Party in the first place, duh.


Save your "duh." You swept me up in your blind party hate for Republicans.

If you were actually an independent, you would know that neither of the two parties are better and no genuine independent should be laughed at because you want to laugh at Republicans and call everyone who is not you or doesn't feel like you a 'conservative.'

Bleh.

Phony independent.

Lol, wut? Why are you calling me Indie? You're one of "those" third party voters, aren't you? Doing so out of spite with little research?

You don't actually know what the difference between Independent and Libertarian is, do you?




posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I'm a registered UNAFFILIATED voter.

Get a grip.

I see exactly who you are, politically, laughing at disenfranchised voters...claiming they are all conservatives.

I can tell when someone is so narrow-minded to the point that they don't respect other voters for no good reason.

ETA: Yuk yuk "Wut?" Get a vocabulary.
edit on 17-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

He gets a net gain since he took all of his campaign funds and spent them on his businesses and Eric's businesses. Of course there will be a net gain.


I'm sure you have spent a good amount of time on where Hillary has spent her funds, for that matter where she spent her charity funds on...hint wedding... and so on....



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Not to worry folks...frankly the score is 305 to 232 right now, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it go to 325 to 212 before this is all over.

The democrats have gone SO low, just so unimaginably low, they've likely even swung some of their OWN electors over to red. The SHAME they've exposed knows no end.

The "disenfranchised" voters? Yeah, they're the ones who've worked their whole lives for this day. They're TIRED of the "establishment" elite who profess to help the needy, when only helping themselves and their masters. THEY are the ones asking for the electors votes...they're DESPERATE, their way of life DEPENDS on it! Without the middle class's money...they are NOTHING! It is the last bastion of wealth they can STEAL, and it is a vast amount of wealth too (and they know it).

America has spoken, socialist liberals...America has spoken. You are wrong and misguided. It's time to take the country back from the brink, and we will!!


edit on 12/17/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
DP




edit on 12/17/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra




Why? The EC can vote for who they want. Someone makes an ad for it. Why is this wrong?



Not in all states.

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote.


yet


Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state’s popular vote, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.


So if they chose to be a faithless elector they can do so and possibly pay a fine or get charged with a misdemeanor.

The commercial encouraged electors to break ranks. Did it also warn that if they abide in any of these states and DC:


Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2) Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090) California (Election Code §6906) Colorado (CRS §1-4-304) Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176) Delaware (15 Del C §4303) District of Columbia (§1-1312(g)) Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1)) Hawaii (HRS §14-28) Maine (21-A MRS §805) Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505) Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8) Michigan (MCL §168.47) Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785) Montana (MCA §13-25-104) Nebraska (§32-714) Nevada (NRS §298.050) New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9) North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212) Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40) Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102) Oregon (ORS §248.355) South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80) Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c)) Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304) Vermont (17 VSA §2732) Virginia (§24.2-203) Washington (RCW §29.71.020) Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75) Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)


They would be subject to a fine or misdemeanor charge?

archive.fairvote.org...

edit on 12/17/2016 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Good for you, go get 'em, tiger.

Now, about that hypocrisy. I will laugh at Repubs/right wingers when they shove their feet in their mouth (like right now, this ad was a result of their efforts to relax restrictions)
I will also laugh at Dems/left wingers when they pull the same crybaby crap.
I will laugh at both ends of the spectrum when they made utter asses of themselves trying to outdo each other on the High & Mighty scale. It's like watching a circus show, only with more cringing.

Whatever you are so butthurt over specifically, you need to check yourself. I, and likely many others here, am highly amused over the crybabying over exactly what the Right wanted & got -- significantly more freedom to put whatever content they wanted in a political ad within the law. Call it what you want, but no one broke any laws with this ad. It's legal. In this context, no one cares about anyone's delicate sensibilities and definitions, because they did nothing legally wrong with it.

I suggest either dealing with it, or maybe a heavy push to roll back to the older restrictions and not having so much ad content freedom.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah




Call it what you want, but no one broke any laws with this ad.


I think encouraging people to break a state law is a crime. See my post above yours.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

will you also laugh when, as a result of such irresponsible and downright moronic action from the democrats, Hillary wins, and you'll get a civil war before christmas? because that's what will happen if they'll swing the electoral vote.

c'mon, you're not that stupid.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Right, electors from 29 can see the ad, but due to state laws are likely to let it go in one ear and out the other. Out of the remaining 21, it's a coin toss as to who does the same, and that's being generous. Keeping that in mind, I'm of the opinion that this was directed at the 21 with no state laws, as a last ditch effort.

I doubt it's going to sway any elector at this point. Or ever. Money or back room deals might, but a political ad? Odds are no.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
PHHT.......and I keep asking myself if the DNC can be anymore sad and pathetic than what they've shown to be. I just turned off SNL a minute ago, they had a skit addressed to the electors, "don't vote Trump" same as the ad but in a skit. They seriously get worse every day, the desperation is hard to watch.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
a reply to: Nyiah

will you also laugh when, as a result of such irresponsible and downright moronic action from the democrats, Hillary wins, and you'll get a civil war before christmas? because that's what will happen if they'll swing the electoral vote.

c'mon, you're not that stupid.

You're not that stupid, either. This ad isn't going to change electors' minds any. Their minds have been made up for a while now.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

BUT...the "electors" in each state are 'hard core" party partisans. While they might be swayed to jump ship to another candidate, they will NEVER jump ship to the "other" party.

This is just silliness. It truly is, and Monday we will see just this.

Side note...I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see blue electors wind up voting red though, I really wouldn't. The dems have shamed anything more intelligent than the common tree slug into submission.

Wow...just amazing...the DESPERATION!



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Vom. All you said was that you saw conservatives who were butthurt. You have no regard for anyone else in the U.S. who might be disgusted by your two sided pissing contest.

Wu..wu...wut?

No, I don't have to deal with any of it under the limited, retarded circumstances you present. I am beyond disenfranchised. I just won't vote in a national election again..and I haven't voted for a 'winner' since 1996. I am fed up with the BS. And I won't be forced to take one side because you are dumb enough to.


edit on 17-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
If you don't like it you should vote for the abandonment of the electoral college - winning takes all



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I didn't see the ad, but the intent of it was to encourage voters to change there ballot. Like you, I don't think it will make a difference, but we are on a slippery slope when we run ads that encourage possible criminal activity. I seriously doubt they care whether bound or unbound electors switch. They would be a happy to have both.

This is a last ditch effort to overthrow an election. When Hillary conceded her party should have accepted it. It really wasn't fair for either party to have to endure these desperate attempts to change the outcome.

Kind Regards



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
And still we continue to fight amongst ourselves
I see TPTB are succeeding.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There is no two-party pissing contest. What part of "third party for a reason" did you miss? I think you need to log offline and cool down.

And seriously think twice about not voting. Dammit, it's not a trophy contest, it's making your choice known whether or not you win. Johnson didn't win, but it's not stopping me from voting again. FFS, the only useless vote is one not cast. Don't do that.



posted on Dec, 17 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
There is no two-party pissing contest.


Oh good god. If you can't even admit that, you are hopeless.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
It's SAD to me, to think that there are those who would rather see the destruction of this entire nation before they would like to see the loss of their candidate.

Here's a thought....

Hillary landed under "sniper fire" in Bosnia, right? (hang on, before you go crazy)....

Well, we all know this wasn't true, but there's more....

Something ELSE happened there!!!

One of the greatest SECRET programs ever created by the US Government was also lost there. It wasn't Hillary's fault, but it happened. The F-117 Stealth technology was lost to the Russians. OOOOOHHHhhhhhh, maybe y'all forgot that one.

After that day, the F-117 was no longer a viable technology against the Russians (which is what it was designed for, for the 20 years before that day). Yeah, sure, we got a few more missions out of it in Iraq, but they had nothing.

So, while Hillary landed under "sniper fire" which is laughable now...in the same moment, we lost BILLIONS of dollars of top secret technology to the Russians from a simple ground launched hand-held missle. No, it wasn't Hillary, and it wasn't "sniper fire", but it was BILL.

Thanks, Bill!!

So...how does that "sniper fire" sound now?????????????????



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join