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 senior aide Manafort resigns after being pushed aside

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by Nikola014 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: UKTruth


The Manafort/Ukraine story has been in the news for at least a month. It the people running this campaign were competent they would have vetted the story and dropped him long ago.

LINK.


The Podesta/Panama Papers story has been in the news for months. If the people running Hillary's campaign were competent they would have vetted the story, and dropped Podesta long ago.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump never said he wanted to kill families of terrorists



"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

LINK.



originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump never said he wanted Japan and Korea to get nukes


"North Korea has nukes, Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea."
Chris Wallace: "With nukes?"
"Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

LINK.


Trump never said he wanted to let Russia have Crimea

"I'm gonna take a look at it [recognizing Russian annexation of Crimea] Trump told ABC's This Week. "But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.

LINK.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel



You just proved my point.
So to reiterate:

Trump never said he wanted to leave NATO.
Trump never said he wanted to kill families of terrorists
Trump never said he wanted Japan and Korea to get nukes
Trump never said he wanted to let Russia have Crimea
edit on 19/8/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: UKTruth


The Manafort/Ukraine story has been in the news for at least a month. It the people running this campaign were competent they would have vetted the story and dropped him long ago.

LINK.


The story was headline news across multiple sources only a week ago - it was only a real distraction recently. In fact the REASON he has left is because this had become a distraction.
You can't change history to suit your argument.
edit on 19/8/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DelMarvel



You just proved my point.
So to reiterate:

Trump never said he wanted to leave NATO.
Trump never said he wanted to kill families of terrorists
Trump never said he wanted Japan and Korea to get nukes
Trump never said he wanted to let Russia have Crimea


"You have to take out their families," direct quote from the man - yet that somehow equates to "never saying he wanted to kill families of terrorists."

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DelMarvel



You just proved my point.
So to reiterate:

Trump never said he wanted to leave NATO.
Trump never said he wanted to kill families of terrorists
Trump never said he wanted Japan and Korea to get nukes
Trump never said he wanted to let Russia have Crimea


"You have to take out their families," direct quote from the man - yet that somehow equates to "never saying he wanted to kill families of terrorists."

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.


He never said the word 'kill' and that statement was clarified nearly 6 months ago.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

So the correct statement would be "I believe that he meant to say he would kill the family of terrorists".
edit on 19/8/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74



A pair of Republican congressman have also called for investigations into Manafort's business past.

"I want to know what money he got from a pro-Russian organization in the Ukraine," Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.

"I think Donald Trump ought to really investigate this and where his chief adviser, what his association with the Russians are," Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois told CNN's Jake Tapper earlier this week.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: amicktd


If we're speculating, I'd say he's running to Make America Great Again!




Hope and change ! Hope and change!


Are there any other options at this point? If so, enlighten me!


Gary Johnson.

That or do what my American girlfriends thinking of doing and saying # it and moving lol


Well Gary Johnson as of now has no chance in beating Trump or Hillary. My main point is to keep Hillary out of office, so Trump is my best vote to beat Hillary. If I vote for Johnson, then I'm voting against both Trump and Hillary. I have no intentions on moving out of my country.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

It's called "politics" sillyoldyou.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

Now you understand the game. Good for you.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Do you have any evidence Trump actually killed any terrorist families?

Obama and Hillary have specifically targeted and killed terrorist family members along with countless innocent civillians in drone strikes and other operations.
edit on 19-8-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Kali74



A pair of Republican congressman have also called for investigations into Manafort's business past.

"I want to know what money he got from a pro-Russian organization in the Ukraine," Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin told CNN's Chris Cuomo on Tuesday.

"I think Donald Trump ought to really investigate this and where his chief adviser, what his association with the Russians are," Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois told CNN's Jake Tapper earlier this week.

www.cnn.com...





Never Trumper's are so obvious. Are they calling for further investigation into Hillary's multiple Russian ties?


A billionaire and a Russia-controlled bank named in the Panama Papers have links to Hillary Clinton through two separate lobbying efforts — one through a Clinton-connected lobbying firm and another through Sidney Blumenthal.

Clinton is linked to Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, through Podesta Group, a lobbying firm co-founded by Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother, Tony Podesta, a major Clinton bundler.


Bidzina Ivanishvili, a Georgian billionaire and former prime minister of the Caucasus state, is also named in the Panama Papers, which is believed to be the largest leaks of financial documents in history. A close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ivanishvili appeared in the Hillary Clinton email dump through her longtime friend Sidney Blumenthal.




Read more: dailycaller.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: matafuchs

I asked for links that prove your claim. The OP link doesn't suggest any Clinton ties with Russia, I think you need to re-read. See Manafort was acting on the pro-Russia side. Tony Podesta was lobbying on behalf of European interests. You get the difference?


You want proof of ties to Russia here you go:




Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.


NYTimes



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Kali74

Well, you're saying Trump is controlled by Putin, and I'm saying that's not true.

You are just repeating words from your cult leader, without zero credible evidence. And I mean, it doesn't take to be a genius to use your brain and make your own conclusions.


Well, even if you don't believe Trump is controlled by anyone, there needs to be something...anything, that sticks out to say that you don't believe that.
However, there is one quite striking example of Trump indeed siding with Putin..that of Ukraine.
Thing is a month ago in the Republican national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military.
Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that stripped out the platform’s call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate assistance.”
That amendment was passed.
“appropriate assistance.” is, while being somewhat ambiguous, probably more or less the same as Obama is doing already by sending medical aid and supplies but not arms, and by not sending arms, Obama it seems went against his security chiefs advice.
So I don't know about the Democratic party stance on arming Ukraine, but it seems as if they are not for arming Ukraine, however the Republican party does seem to have had ideas on arming the Ukraine, and the Donald stopped that.

For what it's worth, I don't think that the Ukraine should be armed up anyway, where there is so much corruption in their governments methods, and their propaganda, and a long way from a decent democracy.
So, what do you think? Donald doing Putin a favour, or just following Obama's line?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DelMarvel



You just proved my point.
So to reiterate:

Trump never said he wanted to leave NATO.
Trump never said he wanted to kill families of terrorists
Trump never said he wanted Japan and Korea to get nukes
Trump never said he wanted to let Russia have Crimea


Trumps words from a dozen sources.

NATO-"You know, there's nothing wrong with saying that a concept was good, but now it's obsolete or now it's outmoded.
Now, it can be trimmed up and it can be, uh, it can be reconfigured and you can call it NATO, but it's going to be changed. I mean this thing was -- was done many decades ago. And there's nothing wrong with saying it's obsolete. But it is obsolete."

Japan - "wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons?" ""Maybe they would be better off -- including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

Families ""The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

Crimea ""I'm going to take a look at it," he said. "But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that"

Granted Trump is confused on most of these subjects not knowing NATO has a counter mission for decades, that the US spends only 500 million on NATO, that the only nation to activate the alliance defense clause has been the US after 911 sending all of NATO into Afghanistan. He also seems to think Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are trying to get nukes when they are not because as part of are defense deals they do not need them. And of course we all know Trump has no clue what is going on in Ukraine or Crimea, not knowing Russia was already in Ukraine and flip flopping all over on the entire subject.

Now maybe somebody can sit him down and explain things to him.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: RomeByFire

Do you have any evidence Trump actually killed any terrorist families?

Obama and Hillary have specifically targeted and killed terrorist family members along with countless innocent civillians in drone strikes and other operations.


How would he have killed any terrorist families? Given them a spoiled continental breakfast at the Trump Ramada?

Yeah, the Obama drone wars are terrible (though they do try to avoid collateral damage.)

The important point is not necessarily what Trump might do in office as no one really has any clue what he might do if elected, including his supporters here. The point is he DID say we should intentionally kill the families of terrorists and that flippant remark alone damages our foreign policy. Not to mention all the other crap he's said without thinking about it.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DelMarvel



You just proved my point.
So to reiterate:

Trump never said he wanted to leave NATO.
Trump never said he wanted to kill families of terrorists
Trump never said he wanted Japan and Korea to get nukes
Trump never said he wanted to let Russia have Crimea


Trumps words from a dozen sources.

NATO-"You know, there's nothing wrong with saying that a concept was good, but now it's obsolete or now it's outmoded.
Now, it can be trimmed up and it can be, uh, it can be reconfigured and you can call it NATO, but it's going to be changed. I mean this thing was -- was done many decades ago. And there's nothing wrong with saying it's obsolete. But it is obsolete."

Japan - "wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons?" ""Maybe they would be better off -- including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

Families ""The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

Crimea ""I'm going to take a look at it," he said. "But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that"

Granted Trump is confused on most of these subjects not knowing NATO has a counter mission for decades, that the US spends only 500 million on NATO, that the only nation to activate the alliance defense clause has been the US after 911 sending all of NATO into Afghanistan. He also seems to think Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are trying to get nukes when they are not because as part of are defense deals they do not need them. And of course we all know Trump has no clue what is going on in Ukraine or Crimea, not knowing Russia was already in Ukraine and flip flopping all over on the entire subject.

Now maybe somebody can sit him down and explain things to him.


Discussed above... you points were conclusions you have drawn which is fair enough. I am just pointing out that I disagree with your conclusions and prefer to look at the actual word and the context in which those words were spoken.

Example on the nukes for Japan...

Japan - "wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons?" ""Maybe they would be better off -- including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

He's answering a specific (and leading) question and does not give a definitive answer, rather just a 'maybe'. I watched that interview and my take was that he didn't really have a clear answer he wanted to give, which is understandable considering he had no access to any intelligence briefings at the time.

edit on 19/8/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I watched that interview and my take was that he didn't really have a clear answer he wanted to give, which is understandable considering he had no access to any intelligence briefings at the time.


He shouldn't have opened his gub then. As for Crimea, he could speculate, but he didn't need to since that region voted overwhelmingly to be part of Russia...96.77% being the given figure.
As for NATO being no account and reconfigured, how do you do that, make the planes go underwater and the subs fly?
That was a nonsense statement anyway...unless it was meant to be consolative to the likes of Putin, and that Trump wasn't so happy that NATO had gone beyond it's boundaries, which it has. Trump though probably didn't realise the latter,



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: UKTruth
I watched that interview and my take was that he didn't really have a clear answer he wanted to give, which is understandable considering he had no access to any intelligence briefings at the time.


He shouldn't have opened his gub then. As for Crimea, he could speculate, but he didn't need to since that region voted overwhelmingly to be part of Russia...96.77% being the given figure.
As for NATO being no account and reconfigured, how do you do that, make the planes go underwater and the subs fly?
That was a nonsense statement anyway...unless it was meant to be consolative to the likes of Putin, and that Trump wasn't so happy that NATO had gone beyond it's boundaries, which it has. Trump though probably didn't realise the latter,


That's not relevant. I am just pointing out the that conclusions offered are really just opinions. As for NATO, they did actually announce changes not long after his discussion. He was right, the organisation does need to change and happily took his advice and the advice of leading politicians who concurred with Trump shortly after he spoke about NATO.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join