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.

 

Trump's V.P. Address- Objectives First? -Nope. Mostly blasting the opposition.

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I would literally vote for ANYONE other than Hillary. If the choice was Hillary, or any other lying scumbag politician in the world, I would vote for the other. I would not even need to think about it.

I cannot believe that anyone would even consider voting for her. It makes no sense on any level, and it is not justifiable using any argument. There is no rationale behind voting for her. Even if you despise Trump, he is still much more viable than she is.


the people with some actual knowledge, and diplomatic skill, will use Trump like a 5-dollar whore if he gets into office....first complement him on anything he does or says...then go from there




posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

The people with any money or influence or owed favors will use Hillary like the puppet she is.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
I would literally vote for ANYONE other than Trump. If the choice was Trump, or any other racist scumbag politician in the world, I would vote for the other. I would not even need to think about it.

I cannot believe that anyone would even consider voting for him. It makes no sense on any level, and it is not justifiable using any argument. There is no rationale behind voting for him. Even if you despise Hilary, she is still much more a viable than he is.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Everyone's got one, and they all stink!






posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I would literally vote for ANYONE other than Hillary. If the choice was Hillary, or any other lying scumbag politician in the world, I would vote for the other. I would not even need to think about it.

I cannot believe that anyone would even consider voting for her. It makes no sense on any level, and it is not justifiable using any argument. There is no rationale behind voting for her. Even if you despise Trump, he is still much more viable than she is.


the people with some actual knowledge, and diplomatic skill, will use Trump like a 5-dollar whore if he gets into office....first complement him on anything he does or says...then go from there


I find it telling that one of his talking points is that he would renegotiate all our trade deals, and he knows how to make a good deal. Apparently, he is under the impression that the President's only responsibility is to make trade deals, and that this is done in person. He is unaware that these negotiations take years of negotiation on the part of Under Secretaries... and that if he ditches NAFTA and TPP, he will be negotiating with a lot of different countries with differing agendas. He really does have the mind of an eleven year old.



posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: mysterioustranger

I would literally vote for ANYONE other than Hillary. If the choice was Hillary, or any other lying scumbag politician in the world, I would vote for the other. I would not even need to think about it.

I cannot believe that anyone would even consider voting for her. It makes no sense on any level, and it is not justifiable using any argument. There is no rationale behind voting for her. Even if you despise Trump, he is still much more viable than she is.


the people with some actual knowledge, and diplomatic skill, will use Trump like a 5-dollar whore if he gets into office....first complement him on anything he does or says...then go from there


I find it telling that one of his talking points is that he would renegotiate all our trade deals, and he knows how to make a good deal. Apparently, he is under the impression that the President's only responsibility is to make trade deals, and that this is done in person. He is unaware that these negotiations take years of negotiation on the part of Under Secretaries... and that if he ditches NAFTA and TPP, he will be negotiating with a lot of different countries with differing agendas. He really does have the mind of an eleven year old.


It's easier to negotiate with one country at a time. As we have seen with the EU, trying to negotiate a deal keeping every country happy is nigh on impossible. That is why they take years.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness


LMAO. Really? what's the total of Sanders freebies? Over 10 trillion...or there about....



For that kind of coin we could turn Mexico into the next economic super power
.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


Well, you having 'problems' him as a pick isn't really germane to Trump's picking him, is it?

He wouldn't have been my first choice either. I think I get why he picked him and can understand it. He isn't a bad pick, per say....considering the V.P.s we've been stuck with for a looong time....



edit on 20-7-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

At least he didn't pick Chaney. Biden wasn't exactly, well anything really. Just a goof who was the king of awkward moments. He was about the same as having a monkey for VP that would dance a little now and then to entertain you once and while but that's about it. But even that was better than Chaney.

I know why Trump picked this guy. Or at least I have a good idea why. The man is a complete psycho as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Trump plans on offloading Presidential Responsibilities to him is very worry some IMO.

IMO this guy is an international disaster waiting to happen as well as a civil nightmare. He's so far to the Neo-Con side of thinking that it's almost like having a young inexperienced Chaney. Only He's more Neo-Con than Chaney in some ways which is just scary. The fact that he's not as capable or good at getting things done as Chaney I think is both good in some ways and bad in others.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
Even if you despise Hilary, she is still much more a viable than he is.


How do you figure that? Do you even know what Hillary stands for?
edit on 20-7-2016 by VivreLibre because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: SudoNim
Even if you despise Hilary, she is still much more a viable than he is.


How do you figure that? Do you even know what Hillary stands for?


There is an amount of diplomacy that a leader of a county needs to adhere to. Obama tried in England and failed. Speaking during God Save the Queen is a no no. He tried. Now Trump. Would he even give a # about diplomacy? Call the Queen "Liz".... during the anthem? Jesus people. Think about who is going to represent you.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: nwtrucker

At least he didn't pick Chaney. Biden wasn't exactly, well anything really. Just a goof who was the king of awkward moments. He was about the same as having a monkey for VP that would dance a little now and then to entertain you once and while but that's about it. But even that was better than Chaney.

I know why Trump picked this guy. Or at least I have a good idea why. The man is a complete psycho as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Trump plans on offloading Presidential Responsibilities to him is very worry some IMO.

IMO this guy is an international disaster waiting to happen as well as a civil nightmare. He's so far to the Neo-Con side of thinking that it's almost like having a young inexperienced Chaney. Only He's more Neo-Con than Chaney in some ways which is just scary. The fact that he's not as capable or good at getting things done as Chaney I think is both good in some ways and bad in others.


Obviously, I and many others disagree with your assessment. By the way it's Cheney , not Chaney.

Trump isn't remotely a 'neo-con' even though there's no such thing....merely another left wing label. So unless your into impressing people who agree with you, your not getting traction with those that disagree. In fact, Many Republicans claim Trump isn't a 'conservative' and in that I agree, he a right/centrist.

Not too many 'neo-cons are anti Free trade/TPP. A 'fundamental' of conservatism....and a major reason I no longer call myself conservative. There ARE other points not very conservative either.

The 'international disaster' and civil nightmare was coming in any event. What YOU are blind to is the response if a Hillary/Sander were to be elected....completely blind, actually, if for no other reason than only the left and it's MSM has been pushing the fear, fear, fear, if Trump was elected or Cruz was elected or Jeb was elected on and on and on.

Never once looking at what happens if Hillary is elected...... try to see the other side's view of things.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

No no....I wasn't calling Trump a Neo-Con. I was talking about Pence. Trump is nothing like a neo-con at all. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

I use the term Neo-Con as a way to separate Old Style Conservatism from the New Style. I'm not sure why you say there's no such thing though. It's a pretty commonly used label that I think most people use and understand within all political discussions.

Cheney correction noted BTW.

edit on 20-7-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm against the TPP as well. That's also a difference between Old Conservative and Neo-Con. Old Conservatives wouldn't have that for a second. Neo-Cons are all for it.

I don't support Hillary either. She's for the TPP too and I don't want her to be President either. Sanders on the other hand was and has always been against TPP. Which is why I did like him.

We're not so different ya know. Some things maybe. But I don't think you what it is I support and don't support or why.

That's the problem with the labels that get applied around here. We don't all fit them and so it makes for too many incorrect assumptions.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: SudoNim
Even if you despise Hilary, she is still much more a viable than he is.


How do you figure that? Do you even know what Hillary stands for?


There is an amount of diplomacy that a leader of a county needs to adhere to. Obama tried in England and failed. Speaking during God Save the Queen is a no no. He tried. Now Trump. Would he even give a # about diplomacy? Call the Queen "Liz".... during the anthem? Jesus people. Think about who is going to represent you.


That's not an answer to the question, but I didn't expect a decent answer anyways.

If you can get the masses to pick a better candidate, then do it.

Unfortunately, I have no method to stop the masses from picking 2 of the worst candidates this year despite there being several other great options. The majority of people have chosen Hillary and Trump, and no sensible person can justify support for Hillary. Although it's almost as difficult to justify support for Trump, it's easy when the other option is someone as destructive as Hillary.

Trump is a long shot from ideal, but he is also a long shot better than Hillary Clinton for obvious reasons.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: SudoNim
Even if you despise Hilary, she is still much more a viable than he is.


How do you figure that? Do you even know what Hillary stands for?


There is an amount of diplomacy that a leader of a county needs to adhere to. Obama tried in England and failed. Speaking during God Save the Queen is a no no. He tried. Now Trump. Would he even give a # about diplomacy? Call the Queen "Liz".... during the anthem? Jesus people. Think about who is going to represent you.


That's not an answer to the question, but I didn't expect a decent answer anyways.


If that didn't answer the question then maybe night school might be in order. I'd go with English to start with.


Unfortunately, I have no method to stop the masses from picking 2 of the worst candidates this year despite there being several other great options. The majority of people have chosen Hillary and Trump, and no sensible person can justify support for Hillary. Although it's almost as difficult to justify support for Trump, it's easy when the other option is someone as destructive as Hillary.


Sad, right?


Trump is a long shot from ideal, but he is also a long shot better than Hillary Clinton for obvious reasons.


I don't see that. At least she has diplomatic credentials.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


Diplomat credentials? What has that gotten the U.S.? Nothing but more wars. Post WWI 'accords'. Malta. The splittings of Vietnam and Korea into divided nations where none existed before, also resulting in 'more wars'. The politicos running Iraq, post Saddam. Benghazi....


Those 'credentials' should be relegated to the outhouse where they can be put to use....



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join