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

Trump urges Americans to give up the Constitution for Security

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
So... Trump's latest attack on the Constitution: he wants to reinstate intimidation tactics that have already been ruled unconstitutional years ago. He has already declared that he wants to eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment and the "due process" clause. Now this?

His policy plans will clearly require Constitutional Amendments to implement. What exactly are his plans to get these proposals through Congress and ratified by the States? How stupid does he think the electorate really is?

Trump Proposes Reinstating Stop And Frisk At Event Aimed At Black Voters

From the linked article:


Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump thinks the best way to stop crime in black communities is to broaden the use of stop and frisk, a policing tactic that has been proved to be discriminatory against blacks and Latinos.
...
Trump’s claim that “in New York City, it was so incredible the way it worked” isn’t quite accurate. The tactics used there have been broadly condemned for disproportionately targeting blacks and Latinos while only incrementally reducing crime.
...
In 2013, a federal judge ruled the practice was being used unconstitutionally in New York, calling it a “policy of indirect racial profiling” because the New York City Police Department disproportionately targeted black and Latino men during routine traffic stops. In her ruling, Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote that stop and frisk was “a demeaning and humiliating experience” for communities of color.

“No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” she wrote.

Later that year, an investigation by the New York state attorney general found that only 3 percent of traffic stops “led to guilty pleas or convictions at trial” and only 0.1 percent were for violent crimes.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

How has being nice and understanding working for us ?

I love my rights...

The problem is others could care less about my rights.

Or Yours...



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
In before Hillary comments and attack on the source.

Trump supporters don't care, just as Hillary supporters don't care about her negatives.

They both represent things that don't represent the American populace.

Being lifelong friends, can't say I'm surprised.

Once again - Americans are plagued with the notion and (s)election between Democrats and Republicans that are both corrupt and do not represent we the people.

Wake up, folks - we're being played.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The title states that he wants a 'stop and frisk' at an event for black voters. NOWHERE in the article does it state what event. If I missed it, please let me know, but I read the whole article and it was basically general to stop the violence. What event just for black voters, or is this just sensationalistic yellow journalism used by the now left-leaning Huff Post to get you to click on the article?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

So?

Hillary wants to end the 1st and 2nd.

What difference does it make who gets in office?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:21 PM
link   
After this election we have to go collectively to a political party something like what is now the , take your pick, constitution party or green party and start over. We have to NEVER EVER support a national level R or D. We have to vote them out at the polls or the freedom for all of us individuals to do as we wish as long as no other is hurt, will die a slow death as witnessed now.

The only other options are not pretty and I have kids to protect. I want this done by upholding the laws even for the elite class. Some of them are now obviously and lawlessly getting the benefit of major differences in standards.
edit on 21-9-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

So , I gather from your Post that you Favor the Rights of Criminals of not being Identified by Law Enforcement Officials over the Right of Law Biding Citizens being Protected by the Law ? I see...........

edit on 21-9-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: seplling



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
People who are at the local level are fine. But let them go to DC and the scum take over. They compromise the young ones and they become victims of their own greed which is held over the new congress critters like the "sword of Damocles". Trump is a symptom of this criminal class and may be just fine but there are lots of clues like the OP to suggest we aren't getting a Plato or George Washington type with Trump. Still he isn't a Clinton, case closed.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: FissionSurplus

The comments were made at a townhall recorded earlier today hosted by Sean Hannity. There's already a thread about it here.

a reply to: DBCowboy


So?

Hillary wants to end the 1st and 2nd.

What difference does it make who gets in office?


Hillary wants to "end the 1st and 2nd?" Last I checked all she was blathering about were expanded background checks? I have no love for her pandering to the gun-control crowd and I wish she'd just drop it altogether. That said:

Donald Trump wants those too. Did you forget the whole "there oughta be a list like the no fly list" bit?

I've not seen in my lifetime a politician who was more openly hostile to the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of the Press. I don't want to go off on a whole spiel about it, you've heard all the things he's personally done. You've heard/read the whole "open up libel laws" quote I'm sure dozens of times by now. How about Freedom of Religion? Trump has said he wants to target Muslims for surveillance (and "all kinds of programs"), target "certain" Muslim places of worship for infiltration, ban all Muslims from entering the country until some indeterminate point in the future.

Speaking of surveillance, he's completely in favor of mass surveillance and has indicated in more than one quote like the "we should have all kinds of programs" (or was it "sorts" I'm too lazy to look it up right now) comment that his interests like in expanding the surviellance. Do you know who Peter Thiel is? Aside from a very big donor, supporter, advisor, etc to Trump (and having his lawyers send Gawker a C&D over a story about Trump's Hair — true story), Peter Thiel is the co-founder and chairman of Palantir.

Do you know who Palantir is?


Palantir Technologies, Inc. is a private American software and services company, specializing in big data analysis. Founded in 2004, Palantir's original clients were federal agencies of the United States Intelligence Community (USIC). It has since expanded its customer base to serve state and local governments, as well as private companies in the financial and healthcare industries.[2] The company is known for two software projects in particular: Palantir Gotham is used by counter-terrorism analysts at offices in the USIC and United States Department of Defense, fraud investigators at the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, and cyber analysts at Information Warfare Monitor (responsible for the GhostNet and the Shadow Network investigations). Palantir Metropolis is used by hedge funds, banks, and financial services firms.[3][4]


As bad as Hillary's record (and in fact, everyone pretty much except Bernie who was a candidate this election) on mass surveillance, Trump trumps her by a bit — and that's saying something.

Now he's come out in favor of expanding the horrendous program Stop-and-Frisk which has been implicated in hundreds of thousands of instances where people's Fourth Amendment rights were utterly disregarded. He called it what? A tremendous success or some such nonsense?

This guy couldn't throw up more red flags if he "hired" a bunch of illegal Polish laborers to do it for him and didn't pay them.
edit on 2016-9-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The honest answer is both sides will use the Constitution when it suits them, and work around it when it doesn't. That has been US Politics since 1972 at least, and a good argument could be made for 1962. Trump, in my opinion only, is the lesser of two evils. Hilary is more openly hostile to the spirit of the Constitution and with Huma's (Abedin, her Chief of Staff and likely next SecState) family ties and published articles in support of Sharia Law, the far less appealing candidate. Chose your poison wisely.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaaLook at how well he is polling. This might mean to him that we are really really really strupid. That is unless he is really really really strupid too.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
double post.


edit on 30America/ChicagoWed, 21 Sep 2016 21:37:20 -0500Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:37:20 -050016092016-09-21T21:37:20-05:00900000037 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

It's not "Unconstitutional." A sole federal judge ruled it was in 2013, but the SCOTUS ruled the practice is Constitutional and legal this summer.
www.rt.com...
Supremes Trump federal judges in matters of Constitutionality, making the entire premise of your thread a fail.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Convince me this won't be abused like so many other laws that are eroding our Constitution.

Please.

Because I'm not in favor with this.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Convince me this won't be abused like so many other laws that are eroding our Constitution.

Please.

Because I'm not in favor with this.


And I am not in favor of Obamacare's mandate forcing me into commerce so they can tax me for it, but the SCOTUS ruled that is constitutional too, and I'm sure this OP likely thinks that just fine.

So it seems we are at an impasse and this is likely why no one has any faith in government or its various institutions.
edit on 21-9-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Meh. To be honest, the existence of the law is immaterial. If the police want to check you out, they can do so and make up a rationale afterward. "He was acting suspiscious" case closed" EXCEPT in regards to civil suits for discrimination cases brought by people stopped. Guess what? You and I pay those civil awards, so yeah... I have no beef with any law that limits taxpayer exposure to frivolous lawsuits.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I dont like stop and frisk, but I dont think he plans on doing it nationally and randomly.


He is refering to doing it in areas where it would make sense.

Sorry, but in ghettos, guns and knives are used...and minorities live there. I dont know how to put that any other way.

Maybe we can legalize weed since cops will now have an excuse to check someone for warrants...which is all any of this ever is.


edit on 9 21 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's still not right.

I swear, I try to stay consistent when it comes to individual rights.

Will it make a big difference? Perhaps not.

But I find it difficult to ignore individual liberties. I really do. I understand how "stop and frisk" is effective.

But I just can't.

*Shakes head in frustration*



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Stop and frisk is effective when the police also steal anything they find. Guns, cash, cigs...

The authorities can't be trusted- so giving them more authority to directly interfere with MY rights is probably a bad plan.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
This is horribly sensationally titled and completely false. The headline may as well say hoax in relation to the source article and what it actually reports from the townhall meeting.

a reply to: rnaa



He has already declared that he wants to eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment


That is new to me. Could you please direct me to where he is quoted as saying this, or perhaps a word from his campaign about this???

edit on 9-21-2016 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join