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.

 

the 2016 election should have been suspended

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So just more of because you want to?
Perhaps I missed where you posted an actual reason? Perhaps I missed where you sited any current law?
No I didn't because you posted none.
More of the bs you occasionally spout.




posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
No foreign power, especially an adversary, should influence an election in another country. Considering the IC believes the Russian government hacked the DNC in June 2016 to help Trump win the election, this would be an unprecedented move by the Russian government since this would be the first time the Russian government did something like this ever. Whether the IC is correct or not, I believe this assessment would have warranted the suspension of the 2016 election until, in Trump's words, we figure out what the hell is going on.


This is one of many reasons I feel this election should have been brought to a screeching halt, both candidates removed and disqualified, new candidates selected, but I guess that was too much to hope for.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I have made myself clear. If you have a specific question, please feel free to ask me.

Otherwise, please read my posts of today for more, I'm too far past those thoughts to retread them now...but thanks for tuning in, seriously!

If after you've read them you're still not sure you get my point, then we can do a Q&A thing.



edit on 3/28/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

You going to site any justification for this other than "I feel"?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I did ask.
Please site any law to justify your "do over".



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Treason, perjury, fraud, collusion, slander, and racketeering all come to mind. But, I'm not a lawyer. Not a cop, either.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

You going to site any justification for this other than "I feel"?


Are you so devoid of point that you failed to realize what forum we are in?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Please feel free at you leisure to post any proof of any of the accusations you hurled.

www.nbcnews.com...



In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says that there wasn't evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump earlier this year.

I will leave this here just for you.
The former DNI tells the world you live in a fantasy land.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Is this forum a safe space for those who have no proof?
Do they pass out puppies in here?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Roles of Ivanka, Don Jr, Eric

read the article for more links to actual facts.


edit on 3/28/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ok
So please point out to me the evidence of any crime. The article you posted did not.


Did you not watch the video from nbc i posted for you?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Did you read all of my posts and their linked evidence/sources?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Paul Manafort, former Trump chairman, under investigation for money laundering


a massive check from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a top Putin lieutenant, to Manafort’s own firm, PEM. It was Deripaska who actually came to Manafort for the plan to help Putin affect Western politics.

He paid PEM $18.9 million to buy a television and media network in Ukraine, according to the Cayman Island court documents. But the deal fell through and the money was never accounted for, the documents say.
In other words, it certainly appears that Manafort pocketed $18.9 million for … other purposes.


Manafort was paid to help Russia meddle with the election. The whole thing is bogus. Do over.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Manafort was paid to help Russia meddle with the election. The whole thing is bogus. Do over.


James Clapper DNI for the former POTUS and 16 intelligence agencies disagree with your assessment.

Unless you know better than 16 intel agencies......


Still waiting for your legal justification and process for your "do over".



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I don't know why you are being so hostile about it. The man is clearly unfit. By the time 90 days go by, he will have proven that every single week.

Nepotism, marketing his own properties while he's POTUS, stating falsehoods, making outrageous claims, and not living up to ANYTHING he said may not be enough for you, but it's plenty for me.

Perhaps you are supportive of him and Bannon, in their zeal to install Christian Theocrats in cabinet positions with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of dismantling our entire government. Okay, let's talk about that. He wants to privatize everything and dissolve the federal government entirely (Bannon does, I don't think Trump really has any objectives except to be in the news every damn day, make his properties worth even more because he advertises them by frequenting them, and having his kids do the work that enriches him).

So imagine he succeeds. No more government. What then for the people who work for the government? Out of a job. Would you say that is "great-againing" our country?

Please explain to me how you think that would work. In practical terms. How do you envision things if you had your wish today, at noon? What would the country's leadership look like? How would things work?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Oh, and also -- a vote of "no confidence" - a recall, due to simply ineptitude (if not insanity) of the person in charge, does not require anything but people saying "we have no confidence."

Wiki def:

A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a statement or vote that a person or persons in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position: perhaps because they are inadequate in some respect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.


If Congress is supposed to represent the people, and the people overwhelmingly press on them to make a motion of no confidence, then they can do it. There's your process, and your reason.

If that's not sufficient, then you tell me, brody - you tell me why he's so great. Please.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Also, why do you have so much trust in the Intel Community now? Aren't you one of the conspiracy theorists who think they are all corrupt?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Yet the FBI did not examine the DNC server and would never know the truth. Smells like a Russian red herring to cover up the Democrats cheating like getting answers for the debates.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Any hostility is merely misinterpretation on your part.
All I asked for was any law or process to base your "do over" on. You either have none or choose not to post it. You post lots of allegations then when confronted with the results of the investigation by 16 intel agencies you punt.

I missed the whole "no more government" promise. Please post that and I will be happy to respond. Is that why you want a "do over"? This "no more government" promise?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: shooterbrody

Oh, and also -- a vote of "no confidence" - a recall, due to simply ineptitude (if not insanity) of the person in charge, does not require anything but people saying "we have no confidence."

Wiki def:

A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a statement or vote that a person or persons in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position: perhaps because they are inadequate in some respect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.


If Congress is supposed to represent the people, and the people overwhelmingly press on them to make a motion of no confidence, then they can do it. There's your process, and your reason.

If that's not sufficient, then you tell me, brody - you tell me why he's so great. Please.


I am not familiar with a "vote of no confidence" in our constitution. Please point that out for me.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join