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.

 

If Hillary was inevitable then why/how did she lose?

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: olaru12
Hillary's a sick old woman, she lost! The continuance of this obsession with her is astonishing. Is she even relevant anymore?




I agree with you far more than you know... but here's the thing for me: I don't think Hillary was calling her own shots. I won't call her a puppet, but I will say that she was not her own master. If I'm wrong, then I'll focus my attention elsewhere. But if I'm right, then I want to know who was giving her marching orders, what power they had over her, and I'll go from there...


The people giving her marching orders are the same people since daddy Bush that have always pulled the puppet strings. The neocons!!! They haven't gone anywhere; they don't feel the need to swagger around and perform like a clown for the proletariat. They are aware of their power and they are secure in its application.

Anyone thats ever done any real investigation knows that true power lies with the MIC and the Zionist banking cartel. It's not even political, it's much darker than that. There's the focus for your attention.


edit on 23-1-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog


That way predators could easily flank us....
Got to watch your rear...


Excellent answer!




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

The going theory is that she was overconfident and instead of shoring up her base in states like Wisconsin that she believed were guaranteed blue states she went for the throat and campaigned primarily in red states. This had a double effect of weakening her support in reliably blue states (that would become battleground states) as well as passing off the perception of making her look overconfident and entitled to the Presidency.
In other words, she "assumed" and took everything for granted, because reality TV star.

I actually agree with your post. Good observation.


Word. I rarely agree with him either but that is pretty much on point.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


As to your comment on her not calling her own shots: I would disagree 100%. I think that's exactly why she lost: they allowed her to call her own shots. I think she's so caught up in her own hype she couldn't see the forest for the trees, and there wasn't anybody around to call her to heel.


Maybe... looking at it from one angle, I would definitely agree -- but not the way you mean.

There is a big part of me that still suspects Hillary knew exactly what she was doing: Losing an election. Consciously and deliberately doing all the wrong things. But why would she want to lose the election? That's where my imagination goes a little wild... or maybe not. I don't know.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

Did she just not have the voter support that everyone believed?

Yes, she did not. The presumption of massive support was a foregone conclusion. I think that the Dems and the media played down all of her baggage way too much, trying to trivialize it in the face of thinking Americans. Honestly, I think that her tactics pushed people away.


Did Trump just have greater support than everyone believed?

Again, yes.

Case in point, my wife has a cousin who actually used to work in a local Dem office calling in support of Obama and all of his liberal policies, even going to far as to constantly argue with me on social media concerning everything, whether it made sense or now. This was a result of a type of 'brainwashing' from her husband, who between 2012 and 2016, they were divorced. It allowed her to think for herself more clearly, but was surrounded by uber-liberal friends.

She confided in me that she voted for Trump during the last election because his actual policies and approach just made more sense than Hillary's. Plus, she just did not like Hillary's personality or the Clintons' baggage that they would bring.

She has yet to make this known to her friends, because she's afraid that they would walk away from her. Progressive people are exceptionally intolerant, even in the face of the claims of massive tolerance and love for all.


Did the Democrats not have the election rigged as well as they believed?

There's no way to rig the election well enough to guarantee a victory at the polls--remember, she'd have to somehow rig the electoral college, not the polling places where the popular votes were cast.


Did someone sabotage the best rigging efforts of the Democrats?

Again, see above.


Did the Republicans just rig the elections better than the Democrats?

Again, see above above.


Did the talking heads just say she was inevitable hoping it would lead to more votes?

Yes, I would argue that this is an oft-used tactic by the mouthpieces of America (the MSM). They've been using that tactic over the past year, where more than 90% of their coverage of Trump has been negative--and in my opinion, it's with the hopes that it forces the American people to believe it. It's working, for the most part, but I think that there are still enough Americans who employ critical-thinking skills that can see through it, although it feels like a salmon trying to swim up Horseshoe Falls sometimes. (yes, there are salmon in the Niagara River)


A combination of the above?

Yes, but not just that stuff.


None of the above???

More like 'more than the above.' What many progressives and liberals fail to accept is that Hillary is an unlikable human being. Even with all of Trump's downfalls (and there are plenty), her unlikability (and possible health issues, IMO) played a major roll in her election loss.

Plus, I think that America was saturated with the way that Obama ran the country, on uber-progressive approaches to everything and throwing out executive orders (many, illegally so) like he was Oprah. America just wanted a change, and I think that Trump's no-nonsense way of speaking and approaching things tickled a fancy in Americans that they may not have known that they had. Americans WANT America to be the focus again, and over the past few presidencies, we have gone away from that. America has definitely declined in its greatness, even if we're still a great nation, and I think that enough Americans wanted a person with a plan to return back to a more internal focus on governing, versus someone more worried about making the world like us superficially.

My two cents...maybe that was a nickle's worth.

And for what else it's worth, I voted for neither one.

What's your best educated guess?






posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Again, I probably agree with you far more than you know... even as I poke and prod at this question, I know where it will take me in the final analysis.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't give her that much credit. I think she genuinely believed it was in the bag and it was impossible for her to lose and, bluntly, it didn't particularly matter what she did, she was still going to win.

Her narcissism and sense of entitlement overwhelmed everything else. Her behavior over the last several years has shown that she was in the game for herself first, and the family second.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
My theory was she was working with European banks like DB and UBS to digitize US property and mineral rights to be included in a universal SDR database, wiping out the historic titles so said property could be stolen by European banks while she was serving as secretary of state. This was part of the pay to play network.

Some people found out by leaks of her private server emails and coordinated with members of the electoral college who are primarily land owners and they voted her out.
______________________________

Series 2009: Secret of Her State

Interlocking device
Reference No.: 666
Entry number :4.4.1.22
Registration date :2002-09-01
Status :Active



Large size: imgur.com...


edit on 23-1-2018 by SkeptiSchism because: added link



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Boadicea

Its a big stage show. Hillary wasn't (S)elected, Trump was.


What's your best educated guess?

"Educated" people are conditioned to say the "Establishment" is fair and impartial , that elections are honest and results honored.

If I was to guess, I'd say that no matter who sits in the oval office, overall the track this runaway train of a country is on isn't changed one bit by elections, in a lonnnng time.



I feel that I need to link an old thread of mine. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Honestly, to this day, I'm not quite sure. Trump is definitely good at controlled opposition



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Boadicea

Its a big stage show. Hillary wasn't (S)elected, Trump was.


What's your best educated guess?

"Educated" people are conditioned to say the "Establishment" is fair and impartial , that elections are honest and results honored.

If I was to guess, I'd say that no matter who sits in the oval office, overall the track this runaway train of a country is on isn't changed one bit by elections, in a lonnnng time.



I feel that I need to link an old thread of mine. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Honestly, to this day, I'm not quite sure. Trump is definitely good at controlled opposition


Now we're talkin....

Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, Rosy Crosses, Blood sacrificial ritual, and those guys that ride around on tiny motor scooters....



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Honestly, you're not in a position to judge me on that. You've been a partisan hack for a long time on this site so don't play smart guy with me because I was thinking clearly for a brief moment....



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I've thought for years that the biggest lie in U.S. politics is that Hillary ever wanted to be president. I thought she helped drag Obama across the finish line, in 2008, when she left her name on the Michigan ballot while Obama took his off. Then when DNC party leaders gifted Obama with such a large amount of 'Undecided' Michigan votes and even some Hillary votes -- she vowed to take it to the Convention...but she didn't. She rolled over while party leaders literally took votes cast for her (won delegates) and converted them to Obama votes.

So, when her 2016 campaign got started, I figured she was in it to help her competition, again. Except I thought that was Bernie.

And I considered Trump's friendship with the Clintons to be highly suspicious...especially after the Washington Post ran an article about Trump and Bill Clinton having a conversation where he reportedly encouraged Trump to run.

Therefore, I thought Trump was running to help Bernie, too.

I figured Bernie would let the federal government spend the most money and grab more power, so he was surely the Chosen One.

Once I realized I was wrong about Bernie...I figured I may just be wrong about Hillary. I honestly never imagined that the those who pull the strings would have much use for Trump as president.

But, I still remain on the fence about it all. Maybe Trump was the Chosen One, all along? He is a powder keg and perhaps that's useful. Escalations with NK make that theory all the more disturbing to consider.

I've never been able to trust that Trump is who we are supposed to believe he is and I doubt I ever will. I don't allow myself to enjoy the 'Q' theories, like others, because of that. But I also don't want to poop up those discussions with my doubts. I still follow along with interest.

Also, I have this theory that the 2000 election debacle was a machinated catalyst for voter/election reforms that have made our election systems vulnerable to tampering and fraud -- without raising red flags.

I could go on...but you get the gist.

If Hillary was *supposed* to win, I really believe she would have been *made* to win.



edit on 1/23/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: olaru12

Honestly, you're not in a position to judge me on that. You've been a partisan hack for a long time on this site so don't play smart guy with me because I was thinking clearly for a brief moment....


I wasn't judging you! Actually I think there are forces that influence culture, society, politics, everything, hidden in plain sight. Anyone that has read "The Gods of Eden" and "Morning of the Magicians" has an idea of the big picture.



edit on 23-1-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

My best educated guess is that a combination of factors worked against her, some compounding each other. I have no doubt there is always some degree of voter fraud which normally would have worked in Hillary's favor, but it wasn't enough to compensate for the number of legitimate Dem voters who stayed home, nor for the many Trump supporters that decided to vote for the first time in a long time -- much less the many many Republican voters who rejected the status quo candidates for Trump. And I think both sides grossly underestimated the amount of voter anger and rebellion out there... and/or their ability to spin it and to "manage" it.

And when I put my tinfoil hat on I also believe that what clinched it all is that Hillary did not want to win. So she went through the motions and pretended to campaign. But she knew exactly what not to do to win and made sure she did that as well. I don't think it was arrogance on her part. Well, at least not arrogance in the sense that she believed her win was a sure thing. She knew better. But I do think her pride and arrogance had something to do with her not wanting to win. And my best bet is that she knew she was being set up as a fall guy (or fall gal if you prefer), she was pissed about being betrayed and sacrificed and otherwise screwed over by her party, and she refused to play.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm in Wisconsin, this is what we heard from Hillary,

We care about you, we care about your problems, we want to be your president.
Then they never show up, not even once. How does a potential presidential candidate not show up once. I'll never understand the genius behind that one! (unless it was really on purpose)

I knew she would not win Wisconsin. Even people that didn't like Trump heard on the news how many times he was here. They say actions speak louder than words, and for this election that was very true in Wisconsin.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
And when I put my tinfoil hat on I also believe that what clinched it all is that Hillary did not want to win.



Hillary's image that 'she would do anything to be president' is much like GWB's 'Compassionate Conservative,' Obama's 'Lightbringer of Hope & Change' and Trump's ''Honest, an Outsider & un-PC,' for me -- if these are the images they want us to believe in, I'm inclined to wonder if the exact opposite is the truth.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


I think she genuinely believed it was in the bag and it was impossible for her to lose and, bluntly, it didn't particularly matter what she did, she was still going to win.


I think that was the '08 Hillary... and then she found out different the last long eight years... the hard way.

Methinks that maybe you're not giving Team Obama enough credit -- ahem! -- for want of a better word. And that neither did Hillary.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SkeptiSchism

That was quite curious that Hillary's clearance was never cancelled...

And you may be right about the digitizing. I've been intrigued by this since the first time I saw you mention it and I asked for more! If so, I strongly suspect that those efforts didn't end when Hillary left the State Dept, and that we'll be hearing more about that.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
The people giving her marching orders are the same people since daddy Bush that have always pulled the puppet strings. The neocons!!! They haven't gone anywhere; they don't feel the need to swagger around and perform like a clown for the proletariat. They are aware of their power and they are secure in its application.

Anyone thats ever done any real investigation knows that true power lies with the MIC and the Zionist banking cartel. It's not even political, it's much darker than that. There's the focus for your attention.



Yes...to all you wrote. However, I would change the label 'neo-cons' to 'Fabians.'

A 'Fabian' will pretend to be any political flavor to help advance the agenda...even neo-cons....even Democrats, Republicans, progressives, libertarians....etc.


ETA:

SNIP from the link above:


Roger Baldwin (Harvard 1905) during this same period outlined a Fabian device of capturing power by stealth and deception.(13) In an advisory letter to a socialist agitator he wrote in part:

Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise . . . We want also to look patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.


Blerg...sound familiar?


edit on 1/23/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join