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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Who is more Dangerous, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton ?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Trump doesn't meet one standard of the antiChrist, not even a remote possibility.




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Thanks for clearing that up



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: AlienView

Trump hands down...with just taking into consideration three quotes that came from the horses mouth.

(1) 'If We Have [Nuclear Weapons], Why Can't We Use Them?"

(2) “I’m good at war,” he said. “I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war. I love war in a certain way, but
only when we win.”

(3) “I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."





There is no evidence that Trump ever said that about using Nukes.

None, it's propaganda and it doesn't bother you to push lies and half truths to promote your corrupt ass career politician.

Her voters and her are one of the same.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Time [while there is still time left] for some facts:


Clinton Cash The Movie Official Trailer




When I was much younger I used to read books on 'organized crime' [aka: Mafia, the mob, etc.]
In more recent years I found books on political conspiracy [such as the New World Order] even more fascinating.

With the Clintons [aka: the Clintonistas] I have found the ultimate combination of political corruption and
political conspiracy wrapped in one.

In spite of what you heard about Bill cheating on his wife and all the sordid affairs, one of which led to his
beng impeached, it has been a perfect marriage - almost like the marriage between crime and politics


Yes, and in fact Trump is the more dangerous of the two. No one knows for sure where hs will take us.
With Hillary you can feel secure - secure in knowing:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"


For the full version of "Clinton Cash":

CLINTON CASH — Director's Cut — FULL OFFICIAL MOVIE



And for you die hard Clinton fans - try this one:

How Evil Is Hillary and Bill Clinton? If You LOVE AMERICA PLEASE SHARE







"We have to straighten out our country; we have to make our country great again, and we need energy and enthusiasm."
- Donald Trump


edit on 18-9-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Throes
Considering that Hilary was a part of a regime which helped form ISIS, I'd say she's worse.



Please stop with that lie; Trump doesn't even tell it any more.


You have some research to do!! Start here..

truthinmedia.com...


You are the one who needs to do some research. Start here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It includes a link to the original document, which you clearly have not read.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: xstealth

Nor does he meet one criteria standard for becoming president...not even a remote possibility.

Honestly? Donny's closer to being the false prophet...so you're right about not being the Antichrist.

Hiilary too is the Devil incarnate herself. Hey...agree or disagree...either way....we're screwed this election.....

Thanks for the reply....MS




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xstealth

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since the first quote was taken from Joe Scarborough on the Morning Joe Show, who by the way was once a former republican representative. If a liberal reporter said this, I would put much less credence to the report. Joe would have gotten into a lot of hot water for quoting something Trump never said. As far as I know, Trump never tried to refute what Joe said nor had him retract it. Hmmmm...... Below are videos to back up these (3) quotes. Recorded videos don't lie. Trump and Clinton supporters who double talk and try to deny what BOTH these lying politicians say or do, LIE!

Maybe you should be more honest with yourself and more aware of what comes out of Trump's mouth instead of excusing or denying everything he says! You trump supports are so quick to change the subject and attack Clinton's lies every time someone points out Trumps rhetoric and lies. What's funny is just because I hit a sore spot about your candidate, you automatically claim I must be a Clinton supporter!

Why don't you take the blinders off and start recognizing the ignorant crap that comes out of your candidates mouth? Nothing like defending a candidate who doesn't research the issues or thinks before he talks. He certainly doesn't need me or anybody else to point out his blatant lies, rudeness, bigotry and dangerous rhetoric that has been caught on video time and time again! He's doing it quite well on his own! I live in reality not a fantasy world. I call it as I see them, a duck is a duck and both candidates suck! However having said that, if I had to pick the most dangerous of the two who would be more tempted to use nuclear weapons, it would be Trump hands down! He's the type of person who would react and worry about the consequence later. He's proven it throughout his campaign!

If you're in denial of his stupid and dangerous rhetoric, you're in company with the rest of Trump's supporters.

Joe Scarborough


"I LOVE WAR"


APPROVES WATERBOARDING



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   


Considering what North Korea has been up to? They should be reminded that we could retaliate if boy likes to play with his. And winning, always good winning. Not leaving a big fat mess. And worse than waterboarding? It wouldn't be as bad as being burnt alive in a cage would it?


Using a nuke would have world wide consequences! With nukes you have radiation fallout. Nuke North Korea and radiation fallout will not only settle and contaminate the food and drinking water of North Korea but it could easily settle down on China, Russia and South Korea! It's like someone Nuking Canada and the U.S. getting the radiation fall out! Think how pissed people in the U.S. would be, not to mention our government's retaliation. It would easily set-off world war III and trigger launching a nuclear war between the U.S. and other countries affected by the nuclear fallout. Goodbye humanity! Donald puts the carriage before the horse. The consequences of using nukes is just too great.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons


.........However having said that, if I had to pick the most dangerous of the two who would be more tempted to use nuclear weapons, it would be Trump hands down! He's the type of person who would react and worry about the consequence later. He's proven it throughout his campaign! If you're in denial of his stupid and dangerous rhetoric, you're in company with the rest of Trump's supporters.

And that is precisely what makes him the less dangerous of the two candidates - The fact they he would retaliate if that madman
in N. Korea launches one of his new nuclear weapons against the US or its allies - Tha fact that he is willing to risk all
to defend the United States is the ONLY DETERRENCE we have against those forces determined to destroy the Unites States
at all costs - They respected Ronald Reagan and while he showed an unwillingness to capitulate to the USSR the Soviet
system finally collapsed
- He was not going toi bargain away the US - Hillary will - Trump will not


So what are you willing to risk to maintain your rights under the Constitution ? - Many died risking it all.

Make no mistake about the forces of the so called 'New World Order' they are in play and it really is one small world.

But whether the US maintains its higher standards of living and greater autonomy and freedom for its people is very
much still questionable - Maybe Trump is the more dangerous candidate - especially if we want to maintain our sovereignty
as a nation and as a people.

And as for Clinton ? - I have no doubt she would sell us all into hell if the price was right


So do you want the safety of no guns, no right to defend what is yours, and no nation left to be worth defending


Or, like some of us are you willng to gamble it all


Safety does not equal Freedom - living free is always dangerous

edit on 19-9-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

You do realize that Trump did deny it and even snopes thought it was a made up story third person etc. Trump grew up in the duck and cover decades he knew perfectly well what using nukes means. Thus was a made up story by Joe ever since him and Donald had a falling out. Dobald apparently insulted him back in may. Or so the story goes and Joe at that point became an a very big anti Trump guy. Even going as far as say g he wasn't the man I used to know. So in other words its just made up without a shred of facts to it.

PS at thr time this was said he hadn't even received his briefing yet betting you didn't know that huh??



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Donald Trump is more dangerous in the short-term. If we live through the short-term, the long-term outlook is much brighter with Donald Trump, however.

Thank-goodness our government has a "balance of powers" built into its construction. I can't recall what that is, but there's a term for it.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
After seeing this video www.powerlineblog.com... , I have to change my vote to "undecided", as to which candidate would bring more danger to our shores, and/or our troops abroad.

If Hillary looks this BAD at 10pm, after 4 hours of work, every evil leader in the world is probably salivating at a Clinton presidency. They know that it will take HOURS for her to come to life and respond, if they time their attacks after 1:00am Eastern time.

BTW.. those STRONGER TOGETHER signs look almost Unreal, hanging behind Hillary looking so weak and drugged. I think the videographer framed his shot that way on purpose!



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I am going to start calling the dems campaign, "the bizarro method". Its like everything they are guilty of, they try to paint the other guy guilty of, using biased, agenda-driven, media propaganda. If thats not the most dangerous candidate, I dont know who would be. She is obviously out for her and hers, not the population of our country. I think Trump will do good things, we just need to stop with the media and those who control its narrative from making us tear ourselves and our surroundings apart from inflammatory rhetoric. Crazy as it is,our most dangerous adversary is ourselves. We know who is playing for who, i think Trump is way more on our side, I think the other side is against us, and more so, our constitutional freedoms. I shudder to think of hill nominating 4 or more supreme court judges. Thats the real danger, losing our freedom, turning into more of a police state, and our government waging war for profit, against our allies and selves, by destabilizing regions and radicalizing their inhabitants. I do feel for those people, its horrible whats gone on over there and we need to stop being the world police. I think Trump will have a good relationship with Russia. I think hill and her folks behind the curtains want war. This election is a turning point, I dont think we have any other option than trump. We cant let those people destroy us any further. We are on the brink. God bless America.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Who is more dangerous a mixture of Barry Goldwater and Charles Lindbergh in Trump or Richard Nixon personified in Clinton? I am not convinced either candidate would stop the drift towards global conflict on a scale not seen since WW2.

From what Trump has said publicly I can take a stab at his foreign policy. I think Trump would be willing to surrender the Ukraine and the Baltic States to Russia. In Russia would military do most of the work load when it comes to knocking out ISIS in the Middle East. Such a course action would increase the likelihood of another European War in thee 99% range. Putin would use military force to restore the pre 1989 Soviet Borders.

Trump would treat the US most reliable ally Australia in the same way he does NATO countries. Trump may do what Bill Clinton inventively nearly did in 1999 on the matter of East Timor and that is kill the US- Australia alliance. The wider collapse of the US alliances with Japan and South Korea would trigger a new Nuclear Arms Race. Japan , South Korea , Australia and perhaps Indonesia would become members of the Nuclear Weapons Club.


Under Clinton the US military would knock out ISIS in it's Middle East heart land. Other global trends like the reemergence of Russia will go on unchecked. In this case I rate the chances of a European War at 70%. The other 30% is left open to unexpected events putting a stop to Russia's wartime economy or Putin no longer being in office.

Unlike her husband Hillary would treat Australia as a key ally and partner. As US foreign policy moves away from Raw Power projection to working partners Australia role in the Asian Century will begin to emerge. I don't think either candidate will be able to reign in China's territorial ambition but that is yet another story.

Clearly Trump would pose the risk if he didn't smarten up his act in the event he became President.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: xpert11


Who is more dangerous a mixture of Barry Goldwater and Charles Lindbergh in Trump or Richard Nixon personified in Clinton? I am not convinced either candidate would stop the drift towards global conflict on a scale not seen since WW2.


Perfectly put! I differ with you over the odds, but agree with the general analysis. I would put the odds of a Pacific Rim war under Trump at 100%, freeing Russia to expand its European and Central Asian borders.


Clearly Trump would pose the risk if he didn't smarten up his act in the event he became President.


Trump has never given any indication that he is willing or able to learn.
edit on 19-9-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I do find it hard to argue with you concerning a war in the Pacific Rim. The war could well break out before any Nuclear Arms Race takes place in the region. Even if he loses the election Trump's legacy will be how he ignited the America First MK2 Movement. The America First MK2 movement will outlast the current electoral cycle. As someone who lives in New Zealand my primary concern is the effect the America First MK2 movement will have on the Asia - Pacific.

If Clinton becomes President China will delay any planned military aggression in Asia until around the 2025 mark. In short China would use military force to resolve their territorial claims. In making the territorial claims China has overplayed it's hand . This can be seen for instance in how the Philippines has welcomed the return of the USN something long thought relegated to the days of the Cold War.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: xpert11

For all intents and purposes the war has already begun. China has claimed land it is not entitled to and the other regional powers are weighing their options. It would be extremely naive to believe that Japan is not already a nuclear power. If they have not already secretly stockpiled a nuclear armory, it would not take them very long at all to create one.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Much of the differences in the two candidates has been about the question of "judgement" as it applies to their past statements and actions.

We have all heard Trump kind of thump his chest and speak with some bravado when talking about getting tough with our adversaries. This could be attributed to his actual lack of experience when dealing with foreign powers on governmental levels rather than in the business arena.

I wonder how many of us remember Hillary, during one of her early missions as head of the State department, talk about "landing in Bosnia and running with our heads down to avoid the incoming gun fire". there is video which refutes this claim and shows her meeting with some childern. The main point which causes me to question her "judgement" in this particular case is not her statement. It is the fact which is shown in the video. Not only does she "claim" to be putting her self into a serious position of being "under gun fire", she has brought her daughter,Chelsie, into the same situation.

I would think it is one thing to question a parents judgement for openly lying about their achievements. However, I think it is a larger question of about them putting their own childern in the line of fire from some hostile forces.

I actually believe if there had been any real threat posed toward her and her grope at the time, the plane would not have landed or it would have not stayed on the ground long enough for her to make an exit.

So, which is it ? A lack of judgement for lying about an event which was obviously taped ? Or does she show a lack of judgement by putting her daughter in harms way for her own political gains ?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Just started a new post:

"Hillary Clinton: The Truth can not be covered up"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join