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.

 

Sanders on Trump: 'This guy is a fraud'

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

after Hillary, the DNC ,and the media colluded to prevent him from getting the nomination, he no longer had any obligation to uphold his vow, that contract became void at that point.

I pretty sure there is an unspoken and unwritten vow that collusion to cheat your opponent out of the nomination is unethical.

we now know that neither one of them ( Hillary and Bernie) was presidential material, America dodged a bullet when they both lost.


edit on 5-2-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Sander's is the one who sold out, its not the first time either.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
So I guess sticking to your guns and holding himself to his own words didnt do it for you? I am going to guess that none of the posters are going to remember him promising to stick to the the party he joined and vow to uphold the vote and support the nominee in his party make him not a "sell out". The fast that some of Americans out there believe this non factual shiz isnt flabergasting is astounding blows my mind. reply to: Mike.Ockizard



The stakes were high. The DNC cheated him, he knew it. In letting them get away with it he cheated the people who supported him. I'm pretty sure the vast majority wouldnt want their hard earned money to go to getting Hillary elected, especially after her compadres cheated them. The right thing to do IMO would be to go independent. He didnt. He left us the option of Trump or two other mindless idiots. All bets are off when theres cheating. Ever play poker?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
I keep thinking about how Bernie--after being horribly and maliciously screwed--hopped back on board the gang-bang train of corruption that pwned him. I liked him before that. Can't see him as anything but a cuckold now.

Bernie is just sour and angry that he doesn't have a heavy pair like President Trump.


sadly he was a fraud from the start from what was exposed in the email leaks. he had an arrangement with clinton which explains his actions and his willingness to get screwed by them , yet continue to support them.

also explains his first debate bs about nobody caring about her email scandal.

what a scumbag, completely pissed on his movement by endorsing the poster child of corruption.

edit on 47228America/ChicagoSun, 05 Feb 2017 22:47:59 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
So I guess sticking to your guns and holding himself to his own words didnt do it for you? I am going to guess that none of the posters are going to remember him promising to stick to the the party he joined and vow to uphold the vote and support the nominee in his party make him not a "sell out". The fast that some of Americans out there believe this non factual shiz isnt flabergasting is astounding blows my mind. reply to: Mike.Ockizard



His loyalty to the party was greater than to his supporters. The excuse that he received guarantees/concessions/promises from Hillary is just plain naive when you consider her track record as a serial liar.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Of course Trump is a fraud, just don't expect the idiots on Team Win to realise it until they've been completely screwed, the honeymoon period is going to last a long time for some. Then again, Sanders isn't exactly trustworthy either.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
There is sooo much wrong with your post, where to start... at the beginning I suppose.


originally posted by: uncommittedYou've conveniently not answered the actual question at all. Many republicans on ATS use an analogy very similar to yours to state why they believe America is a republic not a democracy. The argument being that in a republic, it's the needs of the many that over rule the needs of the few. You have now stated that as being the cornerstone of communism.

I have no idea where you got the idea that the former was or ever has been the meaning of a republic.

However, the devil is in the details. A 'republic' can mean anything - ie, 'The People's Republic of China'.

Our country is (or is supposed to be) a Constitutional Republic. This simply means that the governing law is The Constitution itself - so whatever is in it defines our system of government.

Since it is not easy to change/amend (thankfully), it is vert stable, as long as activist judges aren't allowed to pervert its meaning.


You've also stated individual rights over 'collective' rights. The latter is republican in nature, the former is democratic in nature - I'm not talking of how American politicians want to bend it, that's the nature of the actual words themselves.

Um, no, it isn't.

A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. In our Constitutional Republic (Proper Case), the wolves are limited in what they can actually propose as options to vote on, and ganging up to eat the sheep is not a lawful option.


If it was really down to individual rights as opposed to collective, Clinton would have won the election as more individuals voted for her, hence her winning the popular vote.

That is still debatable, but is irrelevant nonetheless.

How our President is elected doesn't define our system of government as a democracy or republic (lowercase). It simply is how our President is elected. His powers, just as Congress' powers, are still limited by said Constitution.


As the electoral college practices collective rights, she didn't.......................... strange logic being used to present facts by some people on here.


Strange logic? On your part, yes, I agree.

The Electoral College is simply the ingenious system our Founding Fathers created for choosing our President. It was never intended to do anything other than prevent a few large population cities/states from having an overwhelming voice in the Presidential Election in opposition to the rest of the country.

While HRC possibly received more (not a majority, it was still less than 50%) of the popular vote than Trump, the fact is, Trump won the popular vote in many more of the States (hence he won the Electors for those States) than HRC.

In the case of this election, it prevented the mostly socialist/communist populations of NYC, Chicago, SF, LA etc from imposing their will on the rest of the country... thank God.

The Electoral College is the great Equalizer with respect to States Rights vs the mob.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I have received the definition of why America is classed as a republic rather than a democracy off multiple posters on ATS and trust me, they said what I have entered - although I may have paraphrased, the meaning they put forward was as I responded.

It's not debatable, it's a fact that Clinton won the popular vote with numbers in excess of 2 million.

But, your second to last paragraph seems to suggest your own opinion over who shouldn't have won, so I can't really class your response as unbiased - sorry.

With respect to your last paragraph, Trump was against the electoral college, calling it a 'disaster', yet when it made him president it was 'genius' - the person judged the winner it seems always writes the history. Strange you think the mob didn't win though.

www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 6-2-2017 by uncommitted because: Because I know I'll get asked for a link......



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: tanstaafl

I have received the definition of why America is classed as a republic rather than a democracy off multiple posters on ATS and trust me, they said what I have entered - although I may have paraphrased, the meaning they put forward was as I responded.

You most likely just misunderstood. No way to tell without you providing at least a few examples...


It's not debatable, it's a fact that Clinton won the popular vote with numbers in excess of 2 million.

It is debatable to those who actually know that election fraud is very real and is especially prone to happen in areas with high concentrations of illegal immigrants (and guess which way they are likely to vote?).

Are you saying it isn't true that you don't need an ID to vote in California, and most liberal states? Or that that isn't an invitation to voter fraud?

I also think it is interesting that the few vote recounts that were initiated by Jill Stein showed voter fraud, but it was Trump that gained votes, which is why they shut it down.

And that was not in a place where voter fraud was much less likely to be a problem.

I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on insode the democratic party at the thought of a serious investigation into voter fraud in the big cities (NYC, SF, LA, etc).


But, your second to last paragraph seems to suggest your own opinion over who shouldn't have won, so I can't really class your response as unbiased - sorry.

What difference does it make if it is biased or not? Shouldn't the question only be is it true or not?

Or are you the kind of person who judges someone by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character?


With respect to your last paragraph, Trump was against the electoral college, calling it a 'disaster', yet when it made him president it was 'genius' - the person judged the winner it seems always writes the history.

When he made his first comment about it being a disaster, he clearly didn't understand the nature of it. Many people do not, and once they 'get it', change their mind about it. But, many refuse to accept the legitimacy of the reason for it - meaning, they believe it is OK for the socialists in NYC to impose their will on the farmers in Kansas and Nebraska.


Strange you think the mob didn't win though.

They didn't - seeing as 'the mob' is, by definition, a simple majority.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Sorry, all of that response was acting as an apologist and PR for Trump. It hardly dignifies a response, but...

You still won't accept who won the popular vote - you really think fraud occurred to such a grand scale that Clinton would show a majority of over two million through fraud only. Strange when there has never been a proven case of election fraud (beside the people being conned on their choice of who to vote for) in the US in any kind of significant numbers. Please do not provide a link to a conspiracy theory saying otherwise, that is not a proven case. I guess you also believe the numbers attending the inauguration were also the the largest ever don't you?

But then you contradict yourself. You say...


The Electoral College is the great Equalizer with respect to States Rights vs the mob.


But then say the mob is the majority? Majority = popular vote - so now you are agreeing Clinton won the popular vote?

Why would I care about the colour of someone's skin? You talked about socialist/communist populations of various states - as far as I can tell none of the DNCs policies are akin to either, although arguably there are elements of social democracy in some aspects - as though you actually think you understand what either means. I guess you are trying to project your version of 'the enemy' as holding such political views to make them in your eyes less palatable to other Americans. Sad.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join