TRUMP is the next President of the UNITED STATES! AP Calling Pennsylvania as a Trump Victory

[donk]

More than Trump winning, I'm shocked that people actually believed Hillary was even a viable candidate. In my mind a vote for Hillary means your o.k with their pedophilia behavior(as recently released by Wikileaks), you're o.k. with the progressive movement(aka Agenda 21), you're o.k. with electing a treason-ist who has no problem selling out your country, you're o.k with the Veterans of America repeatedly being treated like crap, you’re o.k. with jobs being shipped out of the country aka NAFTA (NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT) and you're o.k. looking the other way to her being Queen of corruption and criminal behavior. And to think I haven’t even listed the half of it.....I mean there’s so much evidence of unethical behavior it’s incomprehensible that she was even allowed to run in the first place. Compared to Trump, who isn’t perfect, there’s no comparison, I mean seriously....just the pedophilia alone should scare the beh-jesus out of anyone who has kids. And why anyone thinks what I listed above benefits the country or the people in any way, is beyond me. I hope by now people understand this has nothing to do with Blue vs. Red.

I have stayed out of the political debates and haven’t really followed the discussions on here and I’m not interested in getting into any arguments, but gee whiz, if people wonder how Trump could possibly win, above is a good start.

Let’s hope Trump follows through with all he’s promised,.. he has his work cut out for him. I remember Trump saying one of the first things he’s going to do is eliminate the EPA(Environmental Protection Agency). In all fairness, there’s so much that needs to be fixed because of the many years of Alice in Wonderland policies and procedures, he might not get to it as soon as he promised. I will patiently wait with high expectations hoping the stronghold of a tyrannical government has finally lost its death grip.

Cmon!! Peoples' votes only meant whatever their emotional attachment to the information they choose to accept (usually about the most important perspective, TO THEM) tells them it means, not what other people project on to them or their "choice"

The only universal thing any votes share is that they were placed by people who believe in the system. It's approval of the "responsibility" of American voters who believe engaging in that activity somehow effects the American government

[jimmer]

rejoice!
(for bsbray)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYXgzdg95RI

[lcam88]

An interesting report on the view of globalists...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiwAu8J4Ml8

[Myst]

.

[Divine Feminine]

EXACTLY what I was thinking. The trite phrases and the emptiness and hollow ring of the sound.
I doubt her kind of politician has even one ounce of faith that the words could stand for reality.
The upset of the election is really marvelous.

One of the issues brought up on RT last night was that IF Sanders had not been taken out by Clinton's buy out at the Democratic convention, we may have seen a Sander's victory.
People repudiated the Clinton machine.
IMO this election shows that the election just threw some apples onto the ground but we have to pick them up!!!

And sadly people don't understand that Sanders is just as much as a 'progressive' as Hillary, there is no difference! From his wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
"A self-described democratic socialist, Sanders is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality.[2][3] Many scholars consider his views to be more in line with social democracy and New Deal-era American progressivism than democratic socialism.[4][5]"

Bottom line, a vote for a 'progressive' is a vote for Agenda 21. What is Agenda 21? From Rosa Korie's website:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

"UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.----Rosa Koire"

So here's a 'Democrat' who totally 'gets it'. The progressive movement is well embedded into the Democratic Party, but it can also be found within the Republican Party so it's not a red/blue thing.

How is it being implemented in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? EXECUTIVE ORDER 12852, -therefore bypassing Congress.
https://www.archives.gov/files/feder.../pdf/12852.pdf

[Divine Feminine]

Cmon!! Peoples' votes only meant whatever their emotional attachment to the information they choose to accept (usually about the most important perspective, TO THEM) tells them it means, not what other people project on to them or their "choice"

The only universal thing any votes share is that they were placed by people who believe in the system. It's approval of the "responsibility" of American voters who believe engaging in that activity somehow effects the American government

Guess what Phil....I didn't even vote...Why? Cause I don't believe in the system, and I've known for many years that my vote doesn't count, duh...However, if someone can pierce through the tyranny and make this a better world I'll be supportive.

Anyone who's been following the 'Great Experiment' thread knows I believe in reincarnation. And what does the evidence of reincarnation tell you? It tells you that you're living within a fictitious world.

You've made your point, thanks for the contribution, but please do not derail this thread.

[lcam88]

The only universal thing any votes share is that they were placed by people who believe in the system. It's approval of the "responsibility" of American voters who believe engaging in that activity somehow effects the American government

Yes!

Nobody can claim terms set by an elected representative does not apply to them. An election ties each member of society into the terms and conditions the representative may agree to, even if the agreement is shoddy!

But that is only a point of argument. The main point is that the population have a chance, however small, to influence their country's future. Many people view the election of Trump as the realization of such a chance. That is the point of all the excitement here.

...And what does the evidence of reincarnation tell you? It tells you that you're living within a fictitious world.

I don't believe in reincarnation. I don't mean to make any claim about the evidence backing your belief at all. Rather I choose... ... a different interpretation of the same. By your logic, that should be telling me the world is real.

But, it's more fitting to leave it simply as "we choose" the way we interpret our reality. Perhaps that is a reason to say that each vote counts.

[Maggie]

You've made your point, thanks for the contribution, but please do not derail this thread.

Just wondering how he was derailing the thread?

[Divine Feminine]

I understand your concern, both about Trump and about U.S.A., Inc., but I'd like to think this state of affairs can be corrected. Legislative Acts do not "trump" the Constitution. The President takes an oath to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," not any subsequent laws passed by legislature. Likewise, all military personal take an oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

There are many things going on in the U.S.A. that are arguably unconstitutional, such as income tax and the fiat money system. Let's hope all these things are corrected in time.

Well, the Legislative Act is the reason why there's no more Constitution. You have a 'corporate' CONSTITUTION and an 'organic' Constitution. Common Law would follow under the 'organic' Constitution. Hence likely why there is so much confusion...hell I'm confused at times.

Trump has made his billions on being a corporation and corporations favor 'color of law'. So I can't see him reversing this any time soon. Sure he can make little changes here and there, but I think he has no intention of reverting to 'common law' as that would be cutting off the hand that made him who he is.

[Divine Feminine]

Just wondering how he was derailing the thread?

I asked him to please not derail this thread. He's made this point before in another thread and went on and on about it. I think everybody 'gets' he doesn't believe in the system. So if he feels so strongly about his belief, I'm wondering why he's even bothering commenting in this thread? The topic is about Trump and him winning the election.

[Maggie]

I didn't spend too much attention on the election as I too don't really "believe in the system".
Actually lately I found myself really irritated by HRC's energy.
Trump seemed more neutral.
My feeling of aversion to HRC grew.

I spent all night (like others) watching the returns. I was watching RT.
The commentators seemed very intelligent.
The results seemed to be shocking all sides.

My question is about the aversion towards her.
It is not just me apparently.
Is this a reasonable response?
NO. Reason seems to be about ideas like "I choose her because I value having a woman as president".
SOMETHING unreasonable has been in play ....just gut level rejection (for me).

That is fascinating to me.
Certainly i think she is bad news and I dislike her policies.
Did something in the collective just "awaken"?

[lcam88]

Common Law is a topic for another thread. I agree Divine Feminine, Trump won't be bringing that back.

Such a move would really change the interpretations of statutes since the 1800's.

The main commonality the current system has with common law is "judge defined law" as established by precedence. I think the main value of a common law system is the idea of what constitutes a crime: actual damage to another human being.

Corporations encroach on that by way of the term "person". Most of us think of human beings when the term person is used, however the law extends that term to include artificial entities.

That encroachment creates a dilemma when considering what a crime actually is? How can a crime exist when nobody has actually been hurt?

This modernization, a type of declension from the original meaning of "person" to include the artificial must lend itself to new ideas of what "damage" may include. These steps away from notion of Common Law is evidenced in the trend to criminalize administrative oversights. Criminalization of acts that have nothing to do with one human being damaging another.

This trend may be characterized as liberalism of sorts in that it ushered in new interpretations for juris prudence as well as statute whereby the original intention is but an inflection that remains rather ambiguously hidden behind arcane language.

[donk]

My comment was about projecting on to others "what their vote means", in that particular case what voting for the hil-dog means about the people who chose to go that route

Carry on with it, great thread

[Fred Steeves]

Very interesting thus far, now let's see how Trump surrounds himself with Cabinet picks. So far I'm seeing the likes of Bush allies, neocons, and Goldman Sachs executives.

In the mean time, a shout out to bsbray. Hey man, you loving life today?

[enjoy being]

Amazed at how many part time watchers of the world think Trump is the saviour.
But then, plenty got all flushed over Obama back in the day.
Trump is promising to "rebuild the temple".