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.

 

republicans got their ass handed to them

page: 22
43
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You know if there was voter fraud I believe there is something one can do. Oh yes, an investigation.

Which there was

And it yielded, wait for it, nothing! So much nothing that Trump disbanded it.

Documents disprove White House voter fraud claims, says ex-member of Trump commission

Report: Trump commission did not find widespread voter fraud




posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: Thejaybird




The fact that you are still allowed to be a Moderator on this site is proof positive of how far ATS has devolved.

Wasn't there a time in recent history where Moderators had to divulge that they were posting as members, and their viewpoints were not reflective of the site? That no longer exists, and the "powers that be" of this website have long been gone and absent from any discussion. God forbid that anyone posts a question about 9/11, but, by all means, let the vocal majority run wild.

ATS used to be a really cool site where there was dialogue, discourse, and alternative ideas entertained and bandied about. My goodness, Jim Marrs wrote a book based on his interactions here.

It is no longer that site.

It has been overrun by the alt-right, and has devolved into an echo chamber for those who desperately hold on to the outdated, simplistic, and small minded views held by our President.

Again, burdman30ott6, the fact that you still have Moderation privileges only proves those points, as you are one of the greatest perpetrators of all that I have said. "The blind leading the blind" comes to mind...

And, before you attempt to fire on me, know this: I don't agree with either side. Left Wing, Right Wing, same bird. And it is not tolerable.

It is too bad, ATS. We hardly knew ye.


First off, you're wrong, ATS never used to be about politics outside of the random thread here and there. You are right that mods would have to disclose that their opinion was separate from ATS and they were posting as a member which they are free to do and all that means is that they recuse themselves of moderating in that thread, seems fine.

What you have to understand is that we are in the middle of a full out public coup right now. Make no mistake, that is what this is. It is a very volatile and dangerous time for this country and those that try to discuss it rationally should go the extra mile to try and see the other side no matter how much they vehametally disagree with it and make not only good but GREAT arguments against it.


Do you have reading comprehension issues?

I clearly stated that ATS used to never be about politics. That was my point. The fact that it has devolved to such a state is the problem.

There is no coup. Stop it.

I called the Trump election long before he was even nominated (much to the delight of all of the people I said it to; they assumed I was a comedian). I am the person who is now saying he will be re-elected. Unless the economy completely fails between now and the election, he will continue to hold his position.

My point was that ATS used to be about alternative ideas, and that it has now devolved into an echo chamber for the alt Right (who does not like to be called that, even though that's who they are). To say any differently is to ignore the mountains of postings of its members. My point was also to call out a member of the Moderation team that clearly posts in favor of a political viewpoint, which used to be disallowed by the Terms and Services of this very site.

You obviously did not read what I wrote.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog




Oh you mean Hillary Clinton? You know, the candidate who received 3 million more votes than Trump? That majority?


Who won the election? Would you really want that murdering
crook in office Clinton?
Trump one and people like you were willing to tear the country
apart nineteen minutes after he was inaugurated. Never even
gave him a chance.

That's just completely whacked! Ignorant stupid!


edit on 21-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Historians will look quite humorously at this in a few centuries


Not if they write the history. And they just might with the takeover of the education system. That’s why we’ve got to push back and push hard .

I hope you’re right .🤞



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Arnie123




Do youself a favor and stop watching liberal media, cool? Kthxbye 👋


Pretty simple really all the democratic people have to do is
finally after three years follow the political tradition of the
past two and fifty years.

Accept who the majority put in office.



Oh you mean Hillary Clinton? You know, the candidate who received 3 million more votes than Trump? That majority?


No he means the electoral college. The SAME majority that put Obama,and CLinton in office.

Only the Right didn't in a three year long fit of rage try to impeach them by fabricating evidence.

Lewinskys stained blue dress is sitting in the Smithsonian.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 05:25 AM
link   
If there was voter fraud?

Explain to me how more people voted for Clinton than Obama in California?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: tinner07

You were so not watching the same hearing I was or you're just into your 'willful ignorance' mode.

All in all - it was a GREAT day - for those who have cognitive skills that is.

Agree
Nothing from sondland that is evidence of a crime.


Except that he said there was crime, not in as many words.

No, he explicitly stated there was not a crime. He said in his mind he created a crime that did not exist, not in as many words.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence




He/She doesn't need to.


Actually he does.

In ALL matters of jurisprudence they go straight to the source of the complaint.

IE the one that made it.

The FBI wants to interview him, which they've the RIGHT to do.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
And much to the chagrin to Trump haters.

The Senate runs their own show, and are not handcuff to the House.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
Everything has been corroborated by others.

Please quote the first hand witnesses corroborating the WB complaint. It's as if we are in crazy land. Every single witness has said the WB is wrong. Every last one.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus
You cant possibly be serious. They have ABSOLUTELY been getting their asses handed to them. You cant be in this much denial, can you?

The only possible way you can be serious, is if you only watched the dems questioning, and didn't watch/listen to any of the republicans questioning.


Witness after witness has implicated Trump. Those witnesses include Republicans, people appointed directly by Trump, career diplomats who have served the country for decades under both Dem and GOP presidents,

Wrong. They verbalized their own personal opinions/outrages about Trumps policies and cutting many of them out of the loop, and also gave opinions about a lot of second/third and even fourth hand hearsay.


and army veterans who have served the country for decades.

Yeah, Vindman was destroyed yesterday under Nunes questioning, where it was revealed that not only did he lie when he said he didn't know who the whistle-leaker is, but that he was actually the source for the whistle-leaker.

Shifty had to intervene to keep everyone from learning that the illustrious Lt Col is the leaker, he lied under oath, and deserves the same fate as Lt Gen Flynn - who, in fact was set up and caught in a perjury trap, while Lt Col Vindman likely conspired with Ciaramella and Shifty to cook up this whole plot.

Sorry to burst your incredibly stupid bubble.
edit on 21-11-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

But Obama and Clinton both won the popular vote too.

Not turmp. He lost the popular vote. His great victory was due to 70 thousand people across three vital states.
Luck was what got him elected. Not skill. Not his platform because he had none. Oh wait he had build the wall mexico is going to pay for it. Ha ha. but I digress.
the difference between a victory where you know americans want you and a fluke where americans got stuck with you.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

The popular vote didn't make Obama president. The EC did.

And CLinton didn't even win the nomination to begin with. IT was handed to her on a silver platter.



The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts.


Clinton DID NOT win the popular vote because she wasn't even a LEGITIMATE nominee.

Trump on the other hand.

Won both the nomination and the electoral vote FAIR AND SQUARE. Like it's supposed to be done as the will of the people and the will of the majority of STATES.
edit on 21-11-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96

But Obama and Clinton both won the popular vote too.

Not turmp. He lost the popular vote. His great victory was due to 70 thousand people across three vital states.
Luck was what got him elected. Not skill. Not his platform because he had none. Oh wait he had build the wall mexico is going to pay for it. Ha ha. but I digress.
the difference between a victory where you know americans want you and a fluke where americans got stuck with you.

Who give s a # who won the popular vote silly? Please name the last prez that won an election by winning the popular vote but lost the EC? This is an ignorant argument for ignorant people. NO PREZ HAS EVER WON BY POPULAR VOTE ALONE. This is not how America elects a president and it’s not going to change in the near distant future, no matter how bad the Dems would like it to. It’s a moot and senseless point and it doesn’t matter FFS. Why keep beating this poor dead horse, it’s a complete waste of time and energy.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder






NO PREZ HAS EVER WON BY POPULAR VOTE ALONE. This is not how America elects a president


All Presidents were elected by popular vote until 1804, when the EC was ratified. We need to go back to "one man one vote" so some taxpaying citizens aren't infact disenfranchised. The way our founding fathers designed the electoral process.

history.house.gov...




edit on 21-11-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
I know the majority of this site are trump supporters, like he can do no wrong supporters. Typical republicans.

Today I watched the hearings and the republicans got their ass handed too them.

For the most part they just did a rant and rave, jim jordan, but what questions the counsel asked did not get the answer he wanted.

Just my take on the hearings...

Nunes is an idiot... and a liar.

You guys cry about the witness was not there, but that was the majority of the questions.,,republicans were grasping at straws that were not even there.

They made a fool of themselves,

Somehow you seem happy? like this will affect your life in a positive way.

So what is it that affects your life so poorly that you revel in somebody elses life?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: mtnshredder






NO PREZ HAS EVER WON BY POPULAR VOTE ALONE. This is not how America elects a president


All Presidents were elected by popular vote until 1804, when the EC was ratified. We need to go back to "one man one vote" so some taxpaying citizens aren't infact disenfranchised. The way our founding fathers designed the electoral process.





Oh ok so 3 presidents? Yeah really only California and New York should be able to decide in presidential elections



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: mtnshredder






NO PREZ HAS EVER WON BY POPULAR VOTE ALONE. This is not how America elects a president


All Presidents were elected by popular vote until 1804, when the EC was ratified. We need to go back to "one man one vote" so some taxpaying citizens aren't infact disenfranchised. The way our founding fathers designed the electoral process.





Oh ok so 3 presidents? Yeah really only California and New York should be able to decide in presidential elections


Why should where you live determine whether your vote counts or not?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

So you are saying early on they made a change when they found a problem ... and you want to go back to the problematic way? Talk about voter disenfranchise, every President would cater to ONLY big cities and ONLY a few states and every other state would necessarily need to be disenfranchised and screwed. Even with the EC we are headed that way with the megacities having so much sway.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: mtnshredder






NO PREZ HAS EVER WON BY POPULAR VOTE ALONE. This is not how America elects a president


All Presidents were elected by popular vote until 1804, when the EC was ratified. We need to go back to "one man one vote" so some taxpaying citizens aren't infact disenfranchised. The way our founding fathers designed the electoral process.





Oh ok so 3 presidents? Yeah really only California and New York should be able to decide in presidential elections


Why should where you live determine whether your vote counts or not?


It shouldn't, but the system you want is the worst example of your vote only counting if you live in one of a few places.




top topics



 
43
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join