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. What he stands for. To me.

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Its time to wake people up.
Since 9/11. The governments have taken more and more.
Its time to take it back.




posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

That is worrying.
He maybe more suited to POTUS than i thought.
Remember Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria? Oh, lets not forget the UK in Libya.
Have any of them any respect? And they're responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent people.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

It's one thing to want change, it's another thing altogether to elect someone who can easily create major conflicts in the world. It may be hard to believe, but I agree with the feelings of most Trump supporters. However, Trump in my opinion is not the non-establishment candidate that truly can relate to the average struggling American. Do you really think these personal traits will bring the world together and strengthen America?

-Rudeness
-Name Calling
-Can't control his Temperament
-Divisiveness
-Narcissistic
-Degrading of Women
-No detailed plans on how to remedy Issues
-Part of the same 1% corporate elite we've all complained about
-He got where he is today with the help of his father
-He's had questionable business practices
-Donated money in the past to gain favors from politicians
-Denies saying things than flip-flops on issues

If the majority of us met anyone with those traits, we would walk away calling him an @sshole under our breaths. This is the type of non-establishment candidate we think will improve America, avoid conflicts, and improve world relations? I don't think so. Be careful what you wish for.

I still think the perfect non-establishment candidate would be Dylan Ratigan. He's smart, mad as hell and has clear plans on how to resolve issues. He's not a one liner blow hard that thinks just because he's worth billions, he doesn't have to account for anything he says.




posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Trump is just playing the spoiler to deflect votes from others who would be more qualified for the job.

I actually think he may be working for the Clinton's against Sanders.

I just think he's completely full of it and not serious about winning the election at all.

We will see.

Why would he change things to make it harder for himself and people like himself to do what they have done, and do, to become wealthy?.

Something stinks.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

As i have said. I might not like the guy or agree with what he says.
And. I had not heard of Ratigan.
And like my reply before. Maybe he is POTUS material with all his faults.
And, I do understand he's rich as hell too. But he has created jobs in his businesses.
I would personally like to see wealth caps and earnings caps and share the wealth back to the people.
But. The other candidates are certainly not going to change anything for the better.
I'll look more into Ratigan.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

As flawed as he is which is flawed he's still miles better than Hilary. She is a total piece of garbage who has had a laundry list of scandals and accepts money from foreign heads of state. That's a lot worse than being an arrogant loudmouth.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Maybe you have a point.
I hope he is for real.
He might make it harder to for other people to become wealthy. But. He's already there and has no worries.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Freedom of speech protects you from the state, not from someone calling you an asshole.
It is funny that people think he stands for free speech when he had said if he becomes POTUS he is going to expand the libel and slander laws to go after the people that have talked negatively about him...
www.politico.com...
So he wants to use his power as the head of state to go after press he doesn't like.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

So you would prefer msm to lie and make up bs.
I would rather they told the truth.
Independent and investigative journalism would be a welcome change to msm.
If msm refuse to report properly. Then yes. Sue them. It's about time they changed too.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

I am against using the state to levy said 'truth'. What Donald calls lies are just pieces that have negative things to say about him. Just because you don't agree with what is being said doesn't mean it is a lie.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
For me. He represents freedom of speech. Something that is being stripped from us more every day.

How, when he has people thrown out of his rallies for what they say?

It is a private venue so he has every right but to think he represents freedom of speech is a stretch.
edit on 18-5-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

The msm do bs and are inaccurate. They push their agenda's and agenda's by the highest bidder, and all piss in the same pot.
They're not independent.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Those people weren't exercising freedom of speech.
They were there purely to disrupt the event.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
Those people weren't exercising freedom of speech.
They were there purely to disrupt the event.

That is actually what free speech is. If you have to save it for certain times and places then it isn't free.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

The best part is...he's not a politician!



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Thanks for your input.
I still have to disagree with you. It was a premeditated act to disrupt the rally.
Of course they also have their right to free speech. But not to hijack, disrupt and try stop the rally.
They can also use their freedom of speech by not supporting/voting for him.
They can come on here and vent their anger.
But, to plan and organize to disrupt something and then say that's free speech isn't quite the same thing to me.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Staroth

He's involving himself in politics. He's as near as damn it a politician.
I said he's not one of them. He wouldn't have everyone worried if he were.
I know He's a businessman.


edit on 18-5-2016 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
It was a premeditated act to disrupt the rally.

Of course it was.

You are missing the point. Someone who really stands behind free speech might disagree with you but will fight for your right to express yourself. Do Trumps actions reflect that?

I don't think so.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

OK. I understand your point.
Maybe they genuinely hate Trump and want everyone to know it, and why. Maybe it was free speech they displayed
But their actions were not right either.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join