Project veritas part 1 Rigging the election

a reply to: UKTruth

When a future President says that particular sites don't have the right to exist, it's not hyperbole to say that they may be shut down.

Yes, it is hyperbole. She was expressing her opinion of the site.

When everyone you need is in your pocket, you can do anything you want.

If so, why did she say that " we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again"? If she could do anything she wanted, why would she have to fight them?

That does not sound like she is going to shut them down. It sounds like she is going to try and counter their propaganda. Which is a good thing, considering they are Right Wing propaganda sites.

a reply to: introvert

Beating them decisively means winning the election and gaining the house. Once that is done and she has placed her pick in the Supreme Court, she'll be able to do what she wants. That's the reality facing America. A totally corrupt politician in total control.

She will close down and silence anyone who gets in her way - she's done it her whole life, with less power than she will wield in 3 months time.

When you use language like 'they don't have the right to exist' then you know she will not hesitate to use whatever power she has to ensure they don't exist. The people around her who haev been willing to speak have told the same story. She is unstable and treats people with utter contempt.

We'll be able to revisit this in not so long from now and I won't even be saying I told you so, because I will have too much genuine sympathy for those that fell for her lies and are in a bad spot.

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
Dbl post..

Yeah - this is some good evidence from the cross referencing between the video and wikileaks.
I don;t think the video and the intent it portrayed is really in doubt.

a reply to: UKTruth

Beating them decisively means winning the election and gaining the house. Once that is done and she has placed her pick in the Supreme Court, she'll be able to do what she wants. That's the reality facing America. A totally corrupt politician in total control.

How can she gain total control? Any action she takes can be countered by the checks and balances in place.

She will close down and silence anyone who gets in her way - she's done it her whole life, with less power than she will wield in 3 months time.

Example?

When you use language like 'they don't have the right to exist' then you know she will not hesitate to use whatever power she has to ensure they don't exist. The people around her who haev been willing to speak have told the same story. She is unstable and treats people with utter contempt.

So you're offended at the language?

We'll be able to revisit this in not so long from now and I won't even be saying I told you so, because I will have too much genuine sympathy for those that fell for her lies and are in a bad spot.

Indeed. When we revisit the claims you made it is much more likely that you will have to say you were wrong, instead of I told ya so.

Your claims are ridiculous.

a reply to: introvert

Why does Clinton talk in hyperbole in your eyes but not Trump?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

Why does Clinton talk in hyperbole in your eyes but not Trump?

Where have I claimed Trump does not also use hyperbole?

a reply to: introvert

What checks and balances will be in place if the Democrats have a majority in the house and the Supreme Court is loaded with yes men/women? Who's going to say no to her? The checks and balances only work if people are honest and with Corporate cronyism ruling Washington, you just need to have enough of your people in place. Then the system is dead. There is no governmental system on earth that can fully protect itself from becoming an Oligarchy or fascism.

Offended by language? No, it's not offensive, it's very chilling though. She could have used many words to say she disagreed with the views of certain websites. She could even have criticized them and asked people to turn away from them. But no - her words were that they don't have the right to exist. Under what circumstances would any rational and sane person use those words?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

Why does Clinton talk in hyperbole in your eyes but not Trump?

Where have I claimed Trump does not also use hyperbole?

You have been one of the first to analyse Trump's words and conclude he meant something sinister from what he said. The 'second amendment people' comment as an example. You didn't criticise anyone for fear mongering or excuse Trump's words as hyperbole.

a reply to: UKTruth

What checks and balances will be in place if the Democrats have a majority in the house and the Supreme Court is loaded with yes men/women?

Votes. They are not dictators and the people can remove them from office.

Offended by language. No, it's not offensive, it's very chilling though. She could have used many words to say she disagreed with the views of certain websites. She could even have criticized them and asked people to turn away from them. But no - her words were that they don't have the right to exist. Under what circumstances would any rational and sane person use those words?

That a matter of opinion. I took her words as hyperbole. What I find irrational is the idea that you think she would actually use her power as a president to go after Right Wing nuts, and would use the US congress and the SCOTUS to do it.

a reply to: UKTruth

You have been one of the first to analyse Trump's words and conclude he meant something sinister from what he said. The 'second amendment people' comment as an example. You didn't criticise anyone for fear mongering or excuse Trump's words as hyperbole.

Yes, that is a great example.

Hillary using hyperbole to magnify her personal opinion and feelings about Right Wing media is not the same as a presidential candidate making a statement to his supporters that there was nothing those people could do about her actions, except for those that exercise the right to arm themselves.

Huge difference.

a reply to: introvert

You do not have to claim it. You overreact to all of his statements....

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

You do not have to claim it. You overreact to all of his statements....

Overreact to all of his statements? That's hyperbole in and of itself. I've even defended Trump on some things because of the context in which he said it.

So your accusation is absurd and an overreaction because you were caught making a false claim.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

You have been one of the first to analyse Trump's words and conclude he meant something sinister from what he said. The 'second amendment people' comment as an example. You didn't criticise anyone for fear mongering or excuse Trump's words as hyperbole.

Yes, that is a great example.

Hillary using hyperbole to magnify her personal opinion and feelings about Right Wing media is not the same as a presidential candidate making a statement to his supporters that there was nothing those people could do about her actions, except for those that exercise the right to arm themselves.

Huge difference.

Yep - you just emphasised exactly what Metafuchs was talking about.
Complete bias. Trump... second amendment people can stop Hillary - assasination. Clinton, opposing views don't have the right to exist - hyperbole.
It's why you can't be taken seriously.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

What checks and balances will be in place if the Democrats have a majority in the house and the Supreme Court is loaded with yes men/women?

Votes. They are not dictators and the people can remove them from office.

Offended by language. No, it's not offensive, it's very chilling though. She could have used many words to say she disagreed with the views of certain websites. She could even have criticized them and asked people to turn away from them. But no - her words were that they don't have the right to exist. Under what circumstances would any rational and sane person use those words?

That a matter of opinion. I took her words as hyperbole. What I find irrational is the idea that you think she would actually use her power as a president to go after Right Wing nuts, and would use the US congress and the SCOTUS to do it.

Votes? Do me a favour. When the entire political machine and media is willing to lie, votes can be easily managed, as we are seeing in front of our eyes.

a reply to: UKTruth

I think Trump discussed a group of people that would provide checks and balances in such case...

a reply to: UKTruth

Yep - you just emphasised exactly what Metafuchs was talking about. Complete bias. Trump... second amendment people can stop Hillary - assasination. Clinton, opposing views don't have the right to exist - hyperbole.

What we have learned here is that you lack the ability to understand the differences in what was said and the implications of it. Perhaps that is lack in logic, or your own bias.

It's why you can't be taken seriously.

Your childish, petty pot-shots are for not, because you assume that I care.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

What checks and balances will be in place if the Democrats have a majority in the house and the Supreme Court is loaded with yes men/women?

Votes. They are not dictators and the people can remove them from office.

Offended by language. No, it's not offensive, it's very chilling though. She could have used many words to say she disagreed with the views of certain websites. She could even have criticized them and asked people to turn away from them. But no - her words were that they don't have the right to exist. Under what circumstances would any rational and sane person use those words?

That a matter of opinion. I took her words as hyperbole. What I find irrational is the idea that you think she would actually use her power as a president to go after Right Wing nuts, and would use the US congress and the SCOTUS to do it.

Votes? Do me a favour. When the entire political machine and media is willing to lie, votes can be easily managed, as we are seeing in front of our eyes.

Ok. That's your opinion.

So what was the favor you needed?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

What checks and balances will be in place if the Democrats have a majority in the house and the Supreme Court is loaded with yes men/women?

Votes. They are not dictators and the people can remove them from office.

Offended by language. No, it's not offensive, it's very chilling though. She could have used many words to say she disagreed with the views of certain websites. She could even have criticized them and asked people to turn away from them. But no - her words were that they don't have the right to exist. Under what circumstances would any rational and sane person use those words?

That a matter of opinion. I took her words as hyperbole. What I find irrational is the idea that you think she would actually use her power as a president to go after Right Wing nuts, and would use the US congress and the SCOTUS to do it.

Votes? Do me a favour. When the entire political machine and media is willing to lie, votes can be easily managed, as we are seeing in front of our eyes.

Ok. That's your opinion.

So what was the favor you needed?

It's a Brit saying - in 'American' it means GTFOH. We're just more polite over here

a reply to: UKTruth

It's a Brit saying - it American it means GTFOH.

My bad.

We're just more polite over here

Considering our past conversations and your conduct, I can see why you laugh about that statement.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No I didn't watch the video.

Well in just 2 days it racked up 4.5 million views has 175 flags from ATS plus 111 stars.
Really any ATS member that refuses to watch this video, must be worried about challenging their worldview at this point.

"Deny Ignorance", and this election season that includes watching this video to see what enemies of American Democracy have been up too. Two people have already lost their jobs over this, the MSM can try to discredit it all they want, if people are losing jobs it's moves beyond the conspiracy realm.