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.

 

The Trump & Clinton Fact thread

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:


posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Hillary has medical issues that have been verified in the past. But is there a medical threshold for holding office?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Here's another one:

She represents the PC Culture / SJW Cult Movement. For this reason alone she must be stopped. Just look at what only a few years of this stuff "going mainstream" has already caused (at the tail end of Obama's 8 years). To add another 8 years to follow it, kiss the species goodbye well in advance of 2050. The truth about the big picture our species faces this century, in the face of emerging technology, I guarantee nothing to do with it has been part of the public dialog with election cycle. And as a resident expert on this stuff: I blame all this on the social fallout caused by this Social Group Warfare (SGW) 'race baiting' agenda the SJW's have been pushing.


It seems plenty from her voting and advocacy record ought to stoke your pages. Here's one:


originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Don't forget NAFTA, if it hasn't been mentioned.

www.ontheissues.org...
[ AdWatch: Supported NAFTA in 1998; opposed CAFTA since 2005
Obama released a radio ad in S.C., in which the narrator says, “Hillary Clinton championed NAFTA even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.”

The ad’s claim that Clinton “championed NAFTA” is misleading. It is true that Clinton once praised the North American Free Trade Agreement that her husband championed. As recently as 1998, she praised business leaders for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.“

But her position on trade shifted before her presidential run: In 2005, for example, she voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and she told Time in 2007 that ”I believe in the general principles [NAFTA] represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain.“ ]


And another:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
REASON:
She has always been and still is a War On Drugs Warrior, which in practice truly is a racist policy, and one that harms millions of Americans across all social lines. It is also a detriment on Mexico, that place liberals supposedly love.



originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
[How Hillary Played Politics With 9/11
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, Washington politics changed dramatically. Senator Clinton did not.

September 11 spurred her to win pork — large federal grants for her well-heeled corporate campaign donors and pipelines of money for boondoggles in New York — and dodge the tough issues in order to maintain her political viability.

The $20 Billion ‘First Installment’

Two days after the attacks, as Ground Zero was still smoking, Senator Clinton and Senator Chuck Schumer marched into the Oval Office and demanded President Bush give New York $20 billion—the largest federal aid package in history. President Bush quickly approved. What the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy suspected, America learned months later: millions of these dollars were routed to big business and pet political projects.


Hmm. I was actually looking for a 2008 campaign ad I recall of hers where she portrayed herself almost as if some kind of first responder hero on 9/11. I seem to remember it being plainly ludicrous and criticized (not unlike Rudy endlessly playing that card but he really was down executing that day). Seems there should be tons of ugly to work with from that campaign, but I was mostly trying to help Ron Paul vs. the Neocons until not long before she gave up too. So I wasn't an expert in all that side of the ugly. ]

THE BIGGEST REASON:

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
REASON:
She's Clearly The Ruling Establishment's Choice.
The best out and obvious metric by which to judge if a politician is for The Establishment (the TRUE "Patriarchy") or they're for The People is in how the controlled Corporate Media treats them. When you see majority of new coverage favorbly covering one they are The Establishment pick. When you see both sides of the left/right media & political fields on a constant demonization campaign against someone that is clearly The People pick.

In her case we even saw the DNC actively work to undermine Bernie (thanks to those emails it is PROVEN), their own guy! They did the same thing to Dennis Kucinich in 2008. The GOP did that same thing to Ron Paul in 2008 & 2012 (the only man who could have ever beat Obama)!

edit on 11-8-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

How about being able to stand and walk unassisted (before election)?

How about not having seizures, and appearing to belong in a nursing home (physically & mentally) / mental institution?
edit on 11-8-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DBCowboy

How about being able to stand and walk unassisted (before election)?

How about not having seizures, and appearing to belong in a nursing home (physically & mentally) / mental institution?


All good points. But in public appearances, she does appear cogent enough.

Until her medical history is verified though, what we'll have is conjecture.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Well over 100 people with close ties to the Clintons have been found dead from unnatural causes, "suicide," or murder dating back into the late 70's.
www.inquisitr.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

True.

But nothing has been proven or verified.

Just like recent activity surrounding the Clinton Foundation.

Much innuendo, but nothing can be proven and verified. So we're left with conjecture.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: burdman30ott6

True.

But nothing has been proven or verified.

Just like recent activity surrounding the Clinton Foundation.

Much innuendo, but nothing can be proven and verified. So we're left with conjecture.

Not true. I intentionally worded it in such a way so as to only cover the facts. It is an undisputable fact that over 100 people with close personal ties to the Clintons have died under curious circumstances over the past 35 years. Any conjecture or take-away is purely on the shoulder's of the reader.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The HRC crowd are going to blow a gasket on this thread lol.

They dont want score being kept of blatant verifiable facts for obvious reasons.

Fact is its not even close.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Don't forget the state departments GUN RUNNING idea..www.activistpost.com... html



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Here's an old 2008 Obama Campaign ad...

Says Hillary will say anything to get elected and then do zero.

Then he makes here SoS after she loses


Sounds like Trump could make the same ad today !!!

Obama: Hillary Clinton A Liar? or is this all a myth?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
The HRC crowd are going to blow a gasket on this thread lol.

They dont want score being kept of blatant verifiable facts for obvious reasons.


They can post facts about Trump, and they can post "good" facts about Hilldog.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That is true.

Over 100 people associated with the Clintons have died from unnatural causes.

Apologies.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
"A sociopath can be defined as a person who has Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder is characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one's goals."


-Seems to fit her pretty well

Can we call it?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

Sadly, no. We can call her that, but none of us are board-certified shrinks.

Can't be verified.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”


Fact check - Hillary did not come under sniper fire



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

A verifiable lie.

Thank you!



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Oh, Trump lie of the week.

"Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim that Barack Obama 'founded' ISIS, Hillary Clinton was 'cofounder"

www.politifact.com...


In fact, when Hewitt proposed a more cautious interpretation of his assertion — that Obama and Clinton "created the vacuum" in the region and thus "lost the peace" to ISIS — Trump rejected that formulation, sticking with the most literal version of "founder" and "co-founder."

"No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS," Trump told Hewitt. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

Hewitt pushed back, saying, "But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them." Trump dismissed that again, saying, "I don’t care. He was the founder.

The way he got out of Iraq was, that, that was the founding of ISIS, okay?"



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's a few to get things rolling. There's enough on Trump that I'd need the three months to the election just to detail the last three months worth of lies (and then I'd be three months behind!). I'll start with some well known abuses (attempted abuses) of eminent domain.

When Donald Trump wanted to build a limosuine parking lot for Trump Plaza, he went to the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) in an attempt to use eminent domain to force three property owners to sell him their property.

1. Peter Banin and his brother purchased a building for $500,000, intending to open a pawn shop. The CRDA offered them $174,000 which they refused. It went to court and Trump and the CRDA lost.

2. Vera Coking owned her boarding house for about 30 years. In 1983, Bob Guccione attempted to buy her out for $1 million. She refused so he basically build a massive steel and concrete structure around her home. Trump bought out Guccione and razed the structure. In the process, workers caused significant damage to the property, including starting a fire on the roof, breaking windows and removing her fire escape. In 1994, Vera Coking received a letter from the CRDA offering her $250,000 for her property and threatening to take her to court if she didn't accept their offer in 30 days. Trump and the CRDA lost in court three years later. After her death, the property went up for auction and his pal Carl Icahn snagged it for half a mil and demolished the boarding house.

3. Vincent and Clare Sabatini were the third party that refused to sell to Trump. The owned Sabatini's Italian Restaurant for more than 30 years when the CRDA came knocking, offering them $700,000. The fought Trump and the CRDA for 12 years before finally selling their property for $2,000,000.

Sources:

Intitute for Justice
New York Times
The New American


Around the same time, in 1994, Trump lobbied the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut to condemn five privately owned businesses so he could raze them and construct an amusement park, office complex and small seaport, promising to turn Bridgeport into a "national tourist destination." The deal fell apart and the businesses were spared.

Sources:

Daily Cuourant
The New American
edit on 2016-8-11 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Trump held fast to the ISIS issue, one that can be interpreted a variety of ways, but still one he held steadfast to.

So yes. That is legitimate.

The other post about Trump is also verifiable and also a fact.

Well done!

Keep 'em coming!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join