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.

 

Presidential debates with Trump would be historic

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
The last non-politician to participate in a presidential debate as a representative of the DNC or RNC was Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952. The first televised presidential debate was in 1960. So, presidential debates with Trump would be historic because he would be the first non-politician to participate as a representative of the DNC or RNC in a televised presidential debate.

And, that's why I think it would be worth watching. I can't recall ever watching a presidential debate before because I thought they were basically meaningless. But, a total outsider can go where the others wouldn't dare. As a good example, we're seeing that with Trump talking about making information about 9/11 publicly available for the first time. I wrote that things like that are the core of Trump's appeal:

Is Donald Trump the embodiment of a "Hail Mary pass"?

Come to think of it, Eisenhower almost sounds like a much more intelligent, refined version of Trump in the following video clip. It couldn't be a coincidence, could it?


www.youtube.com...
edit on 24-2-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ross Perot in some debates? Remember, that private sector guy who helped seal the deal for Bill Clinton?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Profusion

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ross Perot in some debates? Remember, that private sector guy who helped seal the deal for Bill Clinton?


Good call.

I changed the first sentence of the original post to: The last non-politician to participate in a presidential debate as a representative of the DNC or RNC was Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952.


www.youtube.com...
edit on 24-2-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

He started out on the GOP ticket though. The party didn't approve, he was ousted so he ran as independent. Him switching to independent took a lot of Republican votes with him. That being said the Republican vote was torn and unsubstantial to beat the Democrats.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

By the way watch it, the first ten minuets screams Trump. Anyone find it ironic Hillary is up against a similar opponent? Of course not, it's not like Bill told Trump to run before he announced.

Washington Post, Bill and Trump talk politics before Trump campaign announced.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

If it comes down to Trump vs Hillary in the stand-off, it will be epic - with his tact and lack of diplomacy coupled with the dirt he could drag up on her regarding her time as Secretary of State, her husband and all the way back to Watergate - Trump would tear her a new one, she doesn't stand a chance and her legal qualifications and debating prowess are no match for the career CEO who thinks all politicians are scum.

LOL - she'd be screwed, he is ruthless - she would probably end up storming off in a coughing fit claiming it was another vast right-wing conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Said every Perot supporter fourteen years ago.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft
That would be the precise outcome of that one. I can hear Hillary now in the barrage of non-PC battle-hardened statements against her---
"What difference,at this point, does it make?" shouted with that shrill voice into the microphone.






posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Excellent point. She's already buckling with legal accusations, sketchy funding and the investigations by multiple alphabet agencies. Oh wait, no, no she's not. I hate her, anyone but her. But don't let pride skew your perception of what's going on here. I implore everyone to watch that 1992 debate and tell me it feels like fourteen years ago other than the bad hair. Wait, no, that's still in our current debates.

But seriously, watch twenty minutes of it and tell me it's not strangely similar.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Agreed somewhat. My only issue is , will Clinton have enough influential backing to escape all this . She just seems to exude a nonplussed attitude about all. Does she have aces up her sleeve ? Only time will tell.





posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Her aces are that most people get all their information from campaign websites and debates. Just kidding, it's worse, mainstream media. She doesn't need aces, she needs things (apathy) to stay the way they are. Watch twenty minutes of that debate up above from 92. We have only regressed and here we are with a similar situation. If I was a betting man I'd go off the record of the team that wins. Then I would live in depression for being right. I hate Hillary, and while I may articulate many things, I feel that is one I am at a loss for, as I couldn't do so on this topic and sound like an adult.
edit on 24-2-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Gothmog

Her aces are that most people get all their information from campaign websites and debates. Just kidding, it's worse, mainstream media. She doesn't need aces, she needs things (apathy) to stay the way they are. Watch twenty minutes of that debate up above from 92. We have only regressed and here we are with a similar situation.


What I see in that debate (after 20 minutes):

1. That's a real debate that's focused on crucial issues. As opposed to the more infantile stuff I've read about recently.

2. Perot does sound like a more mature, refined Trump.

3. The representation of the world that they're discussing is almost 100% fantasy. I've seen almost all of it debunked on ATS over the years. Many researchers have debunked different aspects of it. The amazing thing is that 99% of the population can't catch on, even the vast majority of the posters here when this very site has factual debunking of almost all of it.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

And you don't think Clinton and the DNC couldn't dig up any dirt on Trump? 😂 Trust me there's plenty of dirt to dig up on him..ranging from rape allegations from his former wife to close ties with NYC mob families...Republicans have been trying their darnest for 20 years to smear Hillary...She'll be alright.


I gotta admit...I'll feel sorry for Trump on a national debate where he won't be able to shout over his opponents and where vague and empty promises won't fly. General election debates tend to focus heavily on specifics.

Also it's going to be real interesting how Trump will try and win over some votes from minorities..including Muslims...cause ya know its a general election..meaning he has to appeal to more than just angry racists wanting their country back..whatever the hell that means...
edit on 24-2-2016 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
It is highly entertaining to see how Mr. Trump works the crowd in America, and how so many people support his campaign.
I don't get however how he manages all of this, without a single policy or view that isn't completely objectionable,
seemingly made up on the spot and that contradicts what he believed in only a few years ago.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Also it's going to be real interesting how Trump will try and win over some votes from minorities..including Muslims...cause ya know its a general election..meaning he has to appeal to more than just angry racists wanting their country back..whatever the hell that means...


The goose can try to win over as many votes as he likes because if voting actually made a difference to the pre-planned outcome, politicians would have outlawed voting a long time ago. Voting for your candidate of choice is merely designed to give the citizen the perception that they have a say in the direction the nation is going.

It's a real eye opener that folks actually believe their vote counts in this most rigged of races - imo, it just goes to show that the propaganda has worked on the unsuspecting majority.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Im taking all bets. We can draw up the paper work. Hill mops the floor with trump. Funny how willfully blind people can be.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Looselungjones
Funny how willfully blind people can be.


I take it that the "people" you are referring to is everyone who does not have an undying devotion to Hillary. It's funny how "blind devotion" works innit.

LOL



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Said every Perot supporter fourteen years ago.


24 years ago...



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Looking at the Trump family legacy, we see his father was a big post WW2 affordable housing developer, buying up tracts of land and building sprawling Levittowns. The younger Trump got a little greedy and over speculated in urban high rise and gaming property. If the 911 event is to be disclosed as a NWO gambit, Donald would be an insider who could do that.

For the people that believe this election is about the role of the US economy in the global recovery Trump stands out as a viable candidate.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Ive said it before (to a laughing reaction from ATS), and ill say it again....

Trump will be next president... mark my words!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join