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.

 

Donald Trump Threatens Independent Run ... Again

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
You are the one trying to church it up to make trump sound bad.


I'm not "churching up" anything. Whatever that means. Trump said the words, not me.


And it is not against the constitution, it is perfectly legal to bar people's from any nation for any length of time by the President, in fact it has been done many times throughout American history.


The First Amendment says something about not inhibiting someone's right to practice whatever religion they want. So no, we cannot ban all muslims from the country, even if it IS for a temporary length of time.


And I know you know this, as I have seen this fact stated and sourced for you many times in many threads, yet you continue to spout off with this rhetoric.


I've never supported banning people from the country...


Just give it a rest would you, we get it, you don't like trump.

But if he is so bad, then you don't have to exaggerate and lie to condemn him, the truth will come out.


Where have I exaggerated and lied? I'm referencing the 1st Amendment which says the government isn't allowed to inhibit the freedom of religion. Banning a religion is the textbook definition of violating someone's right to practice freedom of religion.


You sound like " reefer madness " movie from the 50s, all it does is make people roll their eyes and ignore you.


Maybe the people who don't respect the 1st Amendment.




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So when a Christian had to bake a cake for a gay wedding would they not have had the same protection as these Muslims based on your logic?

The 1st amendment also protects you when you are here, legally, and eventually become a citizen. If you are in the country 'illegally' you should have no protection. You are breaking the law. I know that things are hard all over the world but we have to clean up our own country first!

He also never threatened an independent run. He simply threatened the GOP and their actions. The whole thread is based on an opinion and not a fact.


edit on 02am29amf0000002016-02-17T08:08:55-06:000855 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So when a Christian had to bake a cake for a gay wedding would they not have had the same protection as these Muslims based on your logic?


What does that have to do with banning a religion?


The 1st amendment also protects you when you are here, legally, and eventually become a citizen. If you are in the country 'illegally' you should have no protection. You are breaking the law. I know that things are hard all over the world but we have to clean up our own country first!


This is about Muslims not illegal immigrants. The illegal immigration thing of Trump's is a whole different can of worms.


He also never threatened an independent run. He simply threatened the GOP and their actions. The whole thread is based on an opinion and not a fact.



I never said he was going to do it, in fact if you'd actually read the OP you'd see I encouraged him to carry through with the threat. This should tell you that I was already aware of this, so you telling me this has no baring on the thread.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The First Amendment says something about not inhibiting someone's right to practice whatever religion they want


You inhibit someones right to practice when you tell them how to worship.

It was a pause on Muslim immigration. Why not? There was not never again...ever. You are sensationalizing again.

Also, how is someone who is not even IN our country protected by our constitution? I can think about immigrating and I am suddenly protected? This seems a bit silly....



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
You inhibit someones right to practice when you tell them how to worship.


Irrelevant to what we are talking about here.


It was a pause on Muslim immigration. Why not? There was not never again...ever. You are sensationalizing again.


No, that is STILL against the first amendment.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump never signed a binding pledge and both he and the RNC know that.

Trump backdated his copy of the pledge

I expect he will break from the party at some point. All by design.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: matafuchs
You inhibit someones right to practice when you tell them how to worship.


Irrelevant to what we are talking about here.


It was a pause on Muslim immigration. Why not? There was not never again...ever. You are sensationalizing again.


No, that is STILL against the first amendment.


You are totally wrong and you are either saying the things you say out of ignorance or are still pushing your agenda hoping that others are ignorant to the truth.

Trump never at any time said he was banning a religion. Period.

Foreigners attempting to come into the USA are not covered by the US Constitution. They have to be in the US before that applies. At no point did Trump say he was sending people out of the USA because of religion (I think you know that).
Therefore your 1st ammendment argument is just plain wrong.

By the way, I heard that many Americans are not even covered by large sections of the constitution any more (regardless of religion). About 66% of the population. This is because the constituion does not fully apply within 100 miles of a border or the ocean. Quite how you think someone in Syria has US constitutional rights is beyond me.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I always enjoy the argument from people who want to endorse their bigotry through Constitutional means when they start saying that non-Americans aren't entitled to rights even though the Constitution specifically points out that it protects rights, it doesn't give them out.

I find it funny that people such as yourself whine about rights being stripped from us by the government and here you are trying to argue about how rights don't apply to certain people. Gotta love the hypocrisy from the haters...


Trump never at any time said he was banning a religion. Period.


Actually he did. He said he would stop any Muslims from entering the country for a period of time. That is a ban. After it was pointed out that that proclamation included American Muslims, he had to walk the statement back and say that it didn't apply to American Muslims. Though I'm pretty sure it's still unconstitutional to do that because it is the government persecuting a religion.
edit on 17-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I always enjoy the argument from people who want to endorse their bigotry through Constitutional means when they start saying that non-Americans aren't entitled to rights even though the Constitution specifically points out that it protects rights, it doesn't give them out.

I find it funny that people such as yourself whine about rights being stripped from us by the government and here you are trying to argue about how rights don't apply to certain people. Gotta love the hypocrisy from the haters...


Trump never at any time said he was banning a religion. Period.


Actually he did. He said he would stop any Muslims from entering the country for a period of time. That is a ban. After it was pointed out that that proclamation included American Muslims, he had to walk the statement back and say that it didn't apply to American Muslims. Though I'm pretty sure it's still unconstitutional to do that because it is the government persecuting a religion.


You really are not getting it are you. How can the constitution protect the rights of people not on US soil? Are you actually saying that it the US's responsibility through the constitution to protect the rights of every citizen in the world? I hope not, because you would once again be wrong.

I am going to correct you again. Donald Trump never said, at any time, that he was banning a religion. He said he would not let Muslims into the country for a period of time. He said NOTHING about expelling all Muslims from the USA. Therefore he was talking about stopping new immigration of Muslims, which is perfectly constitutional (and clearly so - it's not even a hard to interpret section). The 1st ammedment argument is a misunderstanding on your part.

You can continue your warped interpretation of facts all you want. You seem to hate Trump so much you are losing sight.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
You really are not getting it are you. How can the constitution protect the rights of people not on US soil? Are you actually saying that it the US's responsibility through the constitution to protect the rights of every citizen in the world? I hope not, because you would once again be wrong.


Declaration of Independence


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...



I am going to correct you again. Donald Trump never said, at any time, that he was banning a religion. He said he would not let Muslims into the country for a period of time. He said NOTHING about expelling all Muslims from the USA. Therefore he was talking about stopping new immigration of Muslims, which is perfectly constitutional (and clearly so - it's not even a hard to interpret section). The 1st ammedment argument is a misunderstanding on your part.


Yes, that is banning a religion. Just because he isn't kicking all the existing Muslims out of the country doesn't make this not a ban.


You can continue your warped interpretation of facts all you want. You seem to hate Trump so much you are losing sight.


I see your love affair with Trump allows you not to see any wrong doing or problems with his rhetoric since your argument about banning is really just a semantics argument.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
There's always going to be people who don't agree or like a candidate. There are all those who didn't like a black, liberal, community organizer as Commander-in-Chief for eight years, and they had to suck it up. If, by chance, which is slim to none, Trump is the next POTUS, the people on the other side of the field will have to suck it up. That's why the past few elections have been so close. We're a severely divided country. Even the JFK election was really close, and for all those that mourned his death, there were those who were glad. Point is, the US will have to deal with whoever wins.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
You really are not getting it are you. How can the constitution protect the rights of people not on US soil? Are you actually saying that it the US's responsibility through the constitution to protect the rights of every citizen in the world? I hope not, because you would once again be wrong.


Declaration of Independence


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...



I am going to correct you again. Donald Trump never said, at any time, that he was banning a religion. He said he would not let Muslims into the country for a period of time. He said NOTHING about expelling all Muslims from the USA. Therefore he was talking about stopping new immigration of Muslims, which is perfectly constitutional (and clearly so - it's not even a hard to interpret section). The 1st ammedment argument is a misunderstanding on your part.


Yes, that is banning a religion. Just because he isn't kicking all the existing Muslims out of the country doesn't make this not a ban.


You can continue your warped interpretation of facts all you want. You seem to hate Trump so much you are losing sight.


I see your love affair with Trump allows you not to see any wrong doing or problems with his rhetoric since your argument about banning is really just a semantics argument.


Ok so at least we now know your interpretation of the US Constitution is that it applies to the whole world and you dont think it was written for the people of the USA. Strange interpretation, but at least it explains your views. I am assuming you therefore also believe that all foreign laws also apply to US Citizens on US soil. Right? Otherwise, which law takes precedent, which country trumps another?

I think we are almost there now on the 'ban'. We seem to be on the same page that Trump did not call for a complete ban on any religion, only that new immigration into the US from Muslims was to be halted for a time. We seem to be agreeing at least that he never banned a religion or the practice of a religion on US soil by US citizens. As I said, according to the US constituion, halting the influx of people based on religion is perfectly acceptable.

Unlike yourself my views have indeed been balanced. I have stated on more than one occassion that he cant win the nomination and also that some of his behaviour is unacceptable and will hurt him. What I won't do is concoct some strange rationale for why absolutely everything he does is wrong or evil in some way. That is what you are doing and its pretty plain to see for anyone looking at your posting history. You are not objective and therefore don't have a valid opinion on this subject.

edit on 17/2/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I would too if the GOP was intentionally sabotaging me.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump never signed a binding pledge and both he and the RNC know that.

Trump backdated his copy of the pledge

I expect he will break from the party at some point. All by design.


April 11, 2016

Since Donald Trump is attracting Republican, Democrat and Independent voters, I think he'd have a good chance at winning, if created an "America's Party" party. He certainly has enough cash to fund his own convention.

But, if Donald Trump were to get more votes in the general election, and win the Presidency, what authority certifies him as the winner and President elect? I hope it's not the same low-life's who are in charge of the Democratic and Republican parties. Who or What has the final word on certifying that ________will be President of the United States of America on January 1, 2017???
-cwm



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

For a forum this busy, I didn't think getting an answer would be so difficult. Oh well... I guess everyone is too busy to discuss politics!





posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: carewemust

For a forum this busy, I didn't think getting an answer would be so difficult. Oh well... I guess everyone is too busy to discuss politics!




I think that Trump running independent is a long shot to make happen. In Texas , for example, he has to be confirmed on the ballot in about 5 weeks time. He's have to do it before the convention.
It's possible, but messy
Can Trump without the GOP



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: carewemust

For a forum this busy, I didn't think getting an answer would be so difficult. Oh well... I guess everyone is too busy to discuss politics!




I think that Trump running independent is a long shot to make happen. In Texas , for example, he has to be confirmed on the ballot in about 5 weeks time. He's have to do it before the convention.
It's possible, but messy
Can Trump without the GOP


He has until August to declare his intent to be a write-in candidate in the states that allow it. I believe he has far more time, than five weeks, to get the signatures for the seven states that don't allow write-ins. And only seven. That's not many.

I think he would dare to run a write-in campaign. His supporters would definitely write his name in. It would sabotage republicans. That's why I think he would do it.


edit on 12-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: carewemust

For a forum this busy, I didn't think getting an answer would be so difficult. Oh well... I guess everyone is too busy to discuss politics!




I think that Trump running independent is a long shot to make happen. In Texas , for example, he has to be confirmed on the ballot in about 5 weeks time. He's have to do it before the convention.
It's possible, but messy
Can Trump without the GOP


He has until August to declare his intent to be a write-in candidate in the states that allow it. I believe he has far more time to get the signatures for the seven states that don't allow write-ins. And only seven. That's not many.

I think he would dare to run a write-in campaign. His supporters would definitely write his name in. It would sabotage republicans. That's why I think he would do it.


I hadn't really considered he would run as a write in candidate... I wonder if it would actually make it harder for the automated machines to flip votes!



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Flipping votes isn't necessary. Trump and Cruz would fracture the conservative vote so badly that democrats will win with a mandate. And Congress will get to stealing...err...spending, right away, with a mandate.






edit on 12-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Good point.
If he is not on the ballot, they can't just switch him to another ballot choice too easily.
A write-in flip would be more obvious.

I would write Trump in if the RNC does what they are going to do.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join