It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Pyrrho
I can respect that you've actually put thought into your decision even if we have differences of opinion. I do agree that those are some pretty bad choices. In fact, I don't see Hillary and Trump being radically different in many regards not least of which are their shady business dealings, penchants for lying, wanton flip flopping and the fact that they both seem to want to be President just to be President and will literally say anything they think will get them elected.
They're both rather lacking in scruples when it comes to getting what they want.
At the end of the day, I think Trump is probably the worse of the two but I acknowledge there is ample room for argument and it basically comes down to a matter of opinion. There are key differences that are important to me such as who they are likely to nominate for SCOTUS appointments and how they'll conduct foreign policy but all that said, there is one overreaching difference that I keep coming back to in my mind, particularly when he Trump says some s# like this and that is how they're trying to get elected.
Trump is in my opinion, running as a strongman authoritarian. How much of that is real is anyone's guess but understanding their appeal I think says something about what we can expect from a potential presidency from either.
In other words, they'll both have a tendency to act based on the personas they're marketing and I find Trump's to be the far more dangerous of the two.
originally posted by: 191stMIDET
a reply to: theantediluvian
I don't like Trump and would never defend him but I would like to point out that the word "Snowflake" in reference to a White person is REALLY $&%#&% RACIST. Would you compare an African American to a piece of Coal? No? Why because you're not Racist? Stop using SNOWFLAKE it's ignorant and hateful.
Can you explain what it is about his "persona" that makes him more dangerous than someone that has literally said they want to provoke attacks on America so we can engage in more wars, not to mention the actual record of her affairs in Libya, Honduras, and other conflicts both abroad and domestic?
And then, frankly, there are those who are saying, “The best thing that could happen to us is be attacked by somebody.
“We’re not going to give anything up. And in fact we’re going to provoke an attack because then we will be in power for as long as anyone can imagine.”
SECRETARY CLINTON: In fact, I mean, what Jim is saying is a really important point, because we know that there is a vigorous debate going on within the leadership decision-making group in Iran. There are those who say look, these sanctions are really biting, we’re not making the kind of economic progress we should be making, we don’t give up that much by saying we’re not going to do a nuclear weapon and having a verifiable regime to demonstrate that. And then frankly, there are those who are saying the best thing that could happen to us is be attacked by somebody, just bring it on, because that would unify us, it would legitimize the regime. You feel sometimes when you hear analysts and knowledgeable people talking about Iran that they fear so much about the survival of the regime, because deep down it’s not a legitimate regime, it doesn’t represent the will of the people, it’s kind of morphed into kind of a military theocracy. And therefore an argument is made constantly on the hardline side of the Iranian Government that we’re not going to give anything up, and in fact we’re going to provoke an attack because then we will be in power for as long as anyone can imagine.
actual record of her affairs in Libya, Honduras, and other conflicts both abroad and domestic?
His current gun plan details a national right to concealed carry and criticizes “opponents of gun rights” for using so-called "scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons,’ ‘military-style weapons,’ and ‘high capacity magazines.'"
But in his book, "The America We Deserve," published in 2000, Trump supported the ban on assault weapons and criticized Republicans who "walked the NRA line." His stance wasn't exactly pro-gun control, but it was a far-cry from his current stance on guns. Here's an excerpt:
"It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions."
However, back in August 2013, Trump met with illegal immigration activists who he claimed "convinced him" to support immigration reform. In a Fox interview detailed in ForAmerica's video, Trump appeared highly sympathetic toward immigrants. "People who have been here for years, hard workers [who] have good jobs, they're supporting the family — it's very, very tough to just say you have to leave," he said. "How do you throw someone out who's been in this country for 20 years?"
That doesn't seem like much of a flip-flop. He wasn't anti-gun, he was for limited restrictions including the assault rifle ban and longer waiting periods on the background check. Though it's a bit of a tough topic so I do not get surprised when people shift their ideas on something like this, even Hillary. I haven't read that Trump book, though. I'll grab a copy for kindle of it this weekend and see what it says exactly.
Every day, Donald Trump continues to prove that he is nothing more than a idiot whispering authoritarian who hopes to rise to political power through the time honored tactics of tyrants the world over, primarily the scapegoating of ethnic/racial/religious groups and thinly-veiled promises of extralegal measures to accomplish his agenda.