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

I Didn't Realize How Bad It Was

page: 18
135
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: Metallicus

You do realize that if the result was opposite and Clinton won we would be seeing the same protests and crybaby antics. The election was so divisive it was practically inevitable.


Highly unlikely because she's been in power before for decades. People saw her as president. They've accepted it. Trump though got everyone by surprise. That's why people reacted so strongly.




posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: JustinT

originally posted by: ozb1777
The whole thing illustrates how pathetic America has become ,a bunch of brainwashed [by the media ,Hollywood ,Disney ,the BS in Universities ,etc] whiny ,spoilt ,lazy ,me me me i, i ,i self obsessed brats ,tantrum throwing little hypocrites and their pathetic little ''Causes '' they fight for, the LGBT Community,the Muslims ,Mexican [here illegally ,do the know the definition of the word illegal ? if you tore the page out of the dictionary and stuffed it down their throat they still wouldnt want to know ,just throw another tantrum] Pro abortion ,anti gun where does it end ,Anti everything !!!!!!!! ? .Make more threats, break some shop windows ,burn a car .If Clinton was President im sure the [''EVIL'' ] Conservatives would not have been happy, BUT not resorted to this childish carry on and ''NOT MY PRESIDENT '' are these people adults ? NO ! just the spoilt brat generation ,masquerading as ADULTS .But now the Bolsheviks are threatening to kill the ''Evil'' Royal family ,Lefties never change ,they are all about one thing, Destroying Society, and they Revel in it !


If only millennials voted Hillary would have won every single state. The country is becoming more liberal. The GOP can either evolve or in the future they will never win. This election was an exception because it was so bizarre. Hillary vs Ted Cruz would have been an easy win for Hillary. Trump's strategy was new to politics. He figured out how to use the media to his advantage, along with divisive rhetoric. Hopefully we never see that again. Conservatives are dying out and old. They would not protest. Liberals were quiet because they thought Hillary was going to win easily. Once Trump won, it became real. Now they want to make sure he doesn't implement his campaign promises.


Do you honestly think all millenials are Liberal?

You're truly mistaken. Trump won, and I know a lot of millenials that voted for him. I work with a lot of young people.

You say the GOP needs to change, when they just won all three branches? Yes even the judiciary as well. Liberals have been saying the GOP needs to evolve for a very long time, and Trump just destroyed BOTH parties. Sit back,and let that sink in for a minute. It's not the GOP that needs to evolve, it just did. The DNC needs to take a look at WHY they lost and realize they abandoned the middle class in favor of elites, colleges, and the poor. The reason Trump won is because he had mass appeal that the DNC, and the media failed to see. They ridiculed anyone who brought it up, and smugly proclaimed their own superiority. Not the way to win an election, by insulting your opposition's supporters CONSTANTLY, obviously. Now, some (even MSNBC) realized their errors, but the zealots continue their failed tactics.

Trump knew exactly what to say to get the media to run with their false narratives, thus giving Trump even more support. He did indeed play them.

Get over it.


I never said that all millennials were liberal. I used actual stats. If only they voted, Hillary would have won almost every single state. Most millennials are liberal.

Trump was a bizarre exception. We had never seen anything like that in politics. Using Trump as an example won't get Reps very far. I doubt he'll last 4 years. His win was temporary. The worst thing Reps can do is take his strategy seriously. Its not a long-term winning strategy. If he's taken seriously. We might get Kanye West running on the dems side with Kim as the first lady. With Trump winning, Kanye & Kim getting the nomination doesn't even seem that odd. I hope we don't go in that direction, but who knows how much damage Trump has caused.

Also, Trump barely won. Hillary won the popular vote and 100,000 votes kept her from winning the rust belt states. It was extremely close.

Trump supporters love to tell us to get over it. That's not what's going on. People are trying to put pressure on him so he can't implement his campaign promises. Seeing how hated he is, even Reps will think twice before going along with him. They need to get reelected. Trump just wanted to win. He doesn't even want to live in the white house. He said he wants to sleep at his Trump Tower bed whenever possible. He doesn't even want to govern. He told Kasich that if he'd be VP that he could handle all the governing, Trump would just show up when he needed to be on TV. If he said that to Kasich, he likely offered Pence the same deal. He's already filling the white house with lobbyists. Trump isn't going to drain the swamp, he's just going to fill it back up with more conservative people. Trump just wanted to win. Reps know his win was a one time thing that can't be duplicated for other Reps. They will run whenever possible. The protest are not about "getting over it." It's about blocking Trump.
edit on 12-11-2016 by JustinT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Hey Metallicus: A more heartfelt OP I haven't read lately. But the times definiteively call for it.

I don't really know what to say, other than to point out the obvious: the press loves calling this a "democracy," and it never really was. It's a representative republic.

Why is that important, attendant to your OP: because it explains the increasingly dynamic divide, that's why. Here we have yet another "democratic" election, eclipsed by the electoral college vote. And yet, I think, if you polled the general public, you'd find that most didn't support either candidate.

What does that say, overall? That it is not a democracy and never has been, and further, "the great experiment" has likely failed.

What we do now, with that circumstantial situation, is the true question and answer of who we are and who we will be.
Having said this, it's clearly not easy. None of us, on this site, in particular, I think, want to be represented in a representative republic by people who simply don't represent a single one of us.[i/]

So what do we do now?
I've lived quite a long life. But I see the current times/situation as more reason than ever for civil disobedience peace wise, and boycotting any further participation, energy being given to this current government, and government sponsored paradigm......
tetra



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Spirimiribilus wrote:
The Donny (or his twitter fixer) says he admires their passion? Right after he says how unfair they're being? Like I said - watch what's happening right in front of your own eyes


He basically said paid professionals were fomenting much of the protesting and that was unfair.
Then he said that he admires the passions of americans that are shown by those (assumed ordinary people) protesting.
Basically he seemed to be trying to make sure that his gripe about 'funded encouragement' was not perceived as a gripe against people's freedom of speech.
Of course if people are determined to read the worst intent into every possible thing, no conversation shorter than a 300-page legal brief will be able to spell out every possible caveat and consideration to prevent attack.


Bigfatfurrytexan wrote:
95% of our landmass contains about half of the supporters for the convervative platform. The remaining 5% contains our cities. Two completely different life experiences needing 2 completely different sets of laws to meet their daily needs. And one over reaching Federal government that steps all over all of it. Thats what is wrong here. If we were less centralized, none o this would really be this divisive because it wouldn't matter as much.

Hi you. I agree -- states' rights also allow vastly more ability to get grassroots efforts to change and form your own government, because it's so drastically smaller (and faster) than fed. The most interference at the state level is the money maintaining power at the top, but that's one reason DJT wants to limit congressional terms.

You would think that decentralizing would be a good thing for everybody, but many people just get even more upset because it suggests -- and probably rightly -- that some states would end up far more conservative than others. I would genuinely hate to see us start regressing to the dark ages concerning issues for women or gays for example -- that's a tragedy to imagine -- though it's likely to go the other direction in some states. I live in Oklahoma, the reddest red-state of the union (once again in this national election it's the only state with every single county red!) and women would probably have to go to another state for an abortion if that issue were decentralized to state decision. On the other hand, people in California could have all their law-abiding citizens hand over their guns while here we actually charge people with murder if they commit a crime with someone else and anybody gets killed -- even the other criminal. The 'victim' isn't charged even if they shot the guy -- it's their house/people to protect. So definitely I can see states having some very different laws if more were decentralized.

Many people want everything federalized so the feds can make it go their way and apply to everybody in the nation. But then when any decision doesn't go their way, or even threatens potentially in the future to not to, they're nearly paralyzed with fear. I think you can't have it both ways. Either government is far more local and the states get to choose about things or it's federal, and really nobody gets to choose anything except every few years a president they pray will get to add a judge more or less liberal/conservative, so a few people in robes can determine even the daily way of life for nearly 310 million people.

I feel the constitution and 'union of nation-states' tried to set it up so the "infrastructure" elements -- military, transport, communication, currency, and other elements that have developed over time (e.g. electric power) could be handled at the top level, as well as some critical things to keep anyone going too far off the pier (e.g. murder's illegal at the federal level so it has to be in every state). But everything else really falls into the up-close subjective level of "daily life." That was to be handled at state level because the people in New York wanted something different than the people in Arkansas. And the people of those states could be a real influence on their own government if they chose (AR has only 3 million people and you need a voting majority to see it your way, vs. 310 million in the nation).

But power always seems to want to pull to it more power. Federalism crept in, the civil war happened (although I think in retrospect we've just about rewritten that history to be solely about slaves) and by this time it's so extensive that most people expect nearly everything to be federally centralized. I laughed about the 'secede from the union' thing from CA after the election -- actually No CA has been talking about separating from So CA for eons, I grew up there -- secede is never gonna happen, but if more people would lean on decentralizing to states' rights, closer to the way the country began, CA could certainly have a whole lot of things more "their way" than they might now.

I think there are some issues that will just never be ok in the same way with everybody, period (legal right to abortion is probably one, although I consider the right to death and the right to prostitution to also be "body rights." I'm a constitutionalist, so crime and economy I'm a conservative, but I'm a mystic hippy so nearly everything else I'm far more liberal). One of the things about DJT's election is that regardless of his personal opinions I absolutely do not think he has any major concern about abortion -- not like to hunt down and change laws about it -- but people say they worry about Pence, his VP, who is actually a bit rabid about it. Mostly about late-term but he's done stuff in his state to really complicate getting it done early-term which is an injust catch-22 for all parties involved IMO. He's said he wants to overturn roe vs. wade which some people consider as terrifying as HRC's pledge to overturn the 2nd Amendment. But a rather obvious "compromise" would be to de-centralize this to being a high court decision of every state, at which point Pence's Indiana can criminalize you for even thinking about it and California can open up drive-thru dewombing or whatever. There's a big fear of this, that it needs to be central, but forcing it to stay central is just as likely to end up with it centralized opposite and illegal nearly everywhere instead. At least this way you could still go to a state where what you wanted to do or be was supported, or you could work with people to influence the gov't in one's own state.

And frankly I am really fed up with national elections, where the requirements for the CEO position are on a level that really needs to not have the "daily life" stuff even much of a consideration. Their ability to uphold and execute the laws and spirit of the Constitution and protection and welfare of the nation as a whole, locally and abroad, is supposed to be and should be the focus of their candidacy. Not whether they ever got high or believe in abortion. Not even whether they are a jerk (some of the most miserable people when it comes to individual human relations, make very good CEOs I'm sorry to say, I have often noticed and mourned this in business). I'd like to get as much of the 'daily life' stuff decentralized to the states in part just to get it the hell out of the way of making decent federal decisions.

RC



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
All this rioting and destruction by the liberal socialist democrats is paid for by George Soros. Just like during the summer last year. Once the federal government is firmly in control by Trump you can guarantee that it will stop or prisons will be full. He said will be a "law and order" President and give 100% support to the police. I believe he will. So they can have fun right now breaking up and destroying other peoples property. It just makes the democrat party look like a bunch of thugs.





edit on 12-11-2016 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I've been thinking that every time someone insists that merely having a strong border, that merely enforcing existing laws related to the border, is some kind of racist hatemongering crime itself, that we should suggest they all remove not only the locks but the doors from their home. Surely if they believe "securing" one's space as an issue of protection and privacy is unreasonable, they won't be needing those anyway.

RC



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
I used to live in a very rural area. We had crime. Even violent crime. There would obviously be more in a densely populated area. How should we handle similar crimes differently in different areas? I'm asking
...
So, are you making a case for Sharia law? Different beliefs require different kinds of legislation? There aren't atheists in rural areas? No devoutly religious people living right down the street from me here in the city - in more than one house even? Brooklyn, Boston - Philly - godless heathens?

It is always going to be "majority vote rules" in any form of democracy or democratic republic. The difference is that the majority will be a lot fewer people in any given state, than in the nation as a whole.

So fewer people have to live in an area not to their liking than it would be if all decisions were central/federal. Also, there would be other states you could move to if they were more to your liking, whereas fed means it's everywhere.

By acting like there must be either one central decision for everyone (not working out so well) or a different decision for every human being, that creates a strawman of impossibility -- nobody suggested 2 or infinite governments, merely 1 government that does what it was designed to do: provide the infrastructure/security/currency and then get the hell out of the way and let people in each nation-state live as they choose.

A state could, in theory, decentralize decisions even to counties or cities if they wished. Los Angeles CA might have some very different laws than Eureka CA up North for example. If someone wanted to make things that granular. The tough part would be enforcing anything without going back to walled cities, like most of the world had until around when we were founding this country, and there were some then but they were mostly very large military forts in those cases. But it's pretty tough to make a city restrict guns if there are no border checkpoints and the cities on all sides have them freely.

In the end the economy must improve, jobs must become more available, or we will continue spiraling to our doom. Corruption in govermment that makes corporate interests more important than the good of the people, and prevents the people themselves from usefully participating in the detail of their own governments, must improve. Those things in particular simply have to be addressed or we're not going to be able to address a lot of other important things. DJT put those things literally at the front of his official plans and I think a huge chunk of the nation saw that and thought yes, that stuff is critically important, you're sure a loudmouthed cretin but I hope you can get some of that stuff done.

I said to a friend today that I thought the left votes mostly on personality and social issue, and the right votes mostly on government and economic issue. The left spent a campaign obsessing on personality and social issues, oblivious to the fact they already had those voters, and those were not the things that actually motivate the other side. I know plenty of people including women who were like, "Yeah, he's kind of a jerk about/to women. Though he employs/pays them fine which is a sign of respect. Still he's an overmachismo bonehead." But that was felt to have little to do with whether he might be a good CEO for the nation, only with whether you'd want to invite him to your next barbecue or have him marry into the family. Whereas on the other side it was like, well he's a jerk so that's it, don't vote for him -- despite so far not a single person against him that I have found in person is even familiar with the plans he documented and made public years ago -- and it's only a 2-page executive summary for goodness sake.

RC



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   
This right here:




posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Is Trump going to last? The people don't want him to be president. If he stays, he's not going to be able to do much with him being so strongly apposed by the people. Trump doesn't want to be president. You could see it as he watched the results, as he gave a clearly unscripted acceptance speech, as he met Barack for the first time after the election. You can feel it in his desire to want to maintain his primary residence in NY, as if the White House is just some side venture he can check in on when not managing his main properties - this man has no idea what he has gotten into. He entered this race for notoriety and an attempt to boost his own public profile. *Actually* being President does nothing for him. The more I think about it the more I could see him choosing not to run in 2020 if he thinks thinks aren't going his way.

Remember, this man lives in palatial mansions. The white house is a work building and the presidency is very stressful. He never thought he was going to win. He told Kasich that if he was his VP that he could handle all governing, he's just appear when he needed on TV. If he offered that deal to Kasich, I bet he said the same thing to Pence. I wonder how long he'll be able to put up the act. He also said he wants to do rallies while he's president. In other words, he enjoys running for president not being president.

The part that worries me the most is that he himself said he doesn't like to read, he likes to go with his gut. We saw in the election what his gut feeling is like. His ideas are often way out there. I hope he doesn't get us into a war.

The people don't want him to be president. Reps are scared at what his win will mean in the future. Now that his supporters are seeing its clearly obvious he was running on lies that he will never implement - do they still want him? He doesn't want to be president. How long will he be able to keep up the act? What's next?
edit on 12-11-2016 by JustinT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Metallicus

Really? Because I never saw any support for Obama at all from the conservative camp so don't be angry the rest of us aren't rolling over and letting a sexual predator con man as our president.


You didn't see support because of ideological differences, But did you see rioting and violence like this? And I don't mean outlier incidents either because this is a different animal.

Also, you were willing to let a proven rapist back into the WH along with his enabler, whereas sexual predation from Trump, as you claim, is unsubstantiated.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Hermit777

Obama says for the good of the country there will be no transition i will stay until there can be a clean new election.

And what do you think would be the result of such an action?

This would put the US in shut down mode. It would serve no purpose and I don't think the people would turn on each other, I think it would be the straw that broke the camel's back, and the people would band together and revolt against the real enemy.

Declaring martial law and counterfeiting the election would be the same as declaring out and out war on the American people. Unless they are hoping for the immigrants to do their dirty work for them, and I don't see immigrants falling for that ruse, so they would be pulling the plug on America. Americans would survive, the government wouldn't.

The best we could hope for is the Phoenix born from the ashes.




If you are going to quote me then do it completely , I was extending the other posters comments and hypothesizing
nothing more. Whether you like it or not alot of people are thinking that, I think it is improbable but not impossible
i just hope it does not happen. I am sure the protestors would like that result though, but they have not grown up yet.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustinT
Is Trump going to last? The people don't want him to be president. If he stays, he's not going to be able to do much with him being so strongly apposed by the people. Trump doesn't want to be president. You could see it as he watched the results, as he gave a clearly unscripted acceptance speech, as he met Barack for the first time after the election. You can feel it in his desire to want to maintain his primary residence in NY, as if the White House is just some side venture he can check in on when not managing his main properties - this man has no idea what he has gotten into. He entered this race for notoriety and an attempt to boost his own public profile. *Actually* being President does nothing for him. The more I think about it the more I could see him choosing not to run in 2020 if he thinks thinks aren't going his way.

Remember, this man lives in palatial mansions. The white house is a work building and the presidency is very stressful. He never thought he was going to win. He told Kasich that if he was his VP that he could handle all governing, he's just appear when he needed on TV. If he offered that deal to Kasich, I bet he said the same thing to Pence. I wonder how long he'll be able to put up the act. He also said he wants to do rallies while he's president. In other words, he enjoys running for president not being president.

The part that worries me the most is that he himself said he doesn't like to read, he likes to go with his gut. We saw in the election what his gut feeling is like. His ideas are often way out there. I hope he doesn't get us into a war.

The people don't want him to be president. Reps are scared at what his win will mean in the future. Now that his supporters are seeing its clearly obvious he was running on lies that he will never implement - do they still want him? He doesn't want to be president. What's next?


I agree with a lot of what you said, but before acknowledging those parts, I want to challenge one thing: The people clearly do want him to be President, or he wouldn't be. Even liberals voted for the guy -- just look at what happened with working class white males in the rust belt.

To your point, yes, I acknowledge that a large group of people do feel very passionately that they don't want him to be president -- much moreso than one would find after a typical election loss -- but Trump still got the votes he needed.

Now, the parts I do agree with. I fear that the rest of your post could be dead-on accurate.

I truly hope Kasich's claims about the deal offered to him by Trump are incorrect -- as the Trump camp claims -- but I trust Kasich more than I trust Trump, and I have a feeling they're probably true.

Is having the VP do the work of the POTUS an impeachable offense? I'm just asking. I don't know. But it seems pretty damned suspect to me.

In any case, I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt because he won fair and square and, for the good of our republic, it makes sense to let the man prove himself.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JustinT
Is Trump going to last? The people don't want him to be president. If he stays, he's not going to be able to do much with him being so strongly apposed by the people. Trump doesn't want to be president. You could see it as he watched the results, as he gave a clearly unscripted acceptance speech, as he met Barack for the first time after the election. You can feel it in his desire to want to maintain his primary residence in NY, as if the White House is just some side venture he can check in on when not managing his main properties - this man has no idea what he has gotten into. He entered this race for notoriety and an attempt to boost his own public profile. *Actually* being President does nothing for him. The more I think about it the more I could see him choosing not to run in 2020 if he thinks thinks aren't going his way.

Remember, this man lives in palatial mansions. The white house is a work building and the presidency is very stressful. He never thought he was going to win. He told Kasich that if he was his VP that he could handle all governing, he's just appear when he needed on TV. If he offered that deal to Kasich, I bet he said the same thing to Pence. I wonder how long he'll be able to put up the act. He also said he wants to do rallies while he's president. In other words, he enjoys running for president not being president.

The part that worries me the most is that he himself said he doesn't like to read, he likes to go with his gut. We saw in the election what his gut feeling is like. His ideas are often way out there. I hope he doesn't get us into a war.

The people don't want him to be president. Reps are scared at what his win will mean in the future. Now that his supporters are seeing its clearly obvious he was running on lies that he will never implement - do they still want him? He doesn't want to be president. What's next?


I agree with a lot of what you said, but before acknowledging those parts, I want to challenge one thing: The people clearly do want him to be President, or he wouldn't be. Even liberals voted for the guy -- just look at what happened with working class white males in the rust belt.

To your point, yes, I acknowledge that a large group of people do feel very passionately that they don't want him to be president -- much moreso than one would find after a typical election loss -- but Trump still got the votes he needed.

Now, the parts I do agree with. I fear that the rest of your post could be dead-on accurate.

I truly hope Kasich's claims about the deal offered to him by Trump are incorrect -- as the Trump camp claims -- but I trust Kasich more than I trust Trump, and I have a feeling they're probably true.

Is having the VP do the work of the POTUS an impeachable offense? I'm just asking. I don't know. But it seems pretty damned suspect to me.

In any case, I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt because he won fair and square and, for the good of our republic, it makes sense to let the man prove himself.



What's next? He loves his lifestyle. He can't keep that while being president. The truck loads of death threats must make him regret this more than anything else. That means he'll need to be highly protected forever. Ivanka won't be able to roam around NY like she used to. All their lives are going to dramatically change. They are billionaires. They wont' want that. The secret service doesn't let the family roam around. I wonder what's going to happen? I can't picture him actually doing the job. I don't think he can keep up the act. Could he insinuate to the electoral college that they can "vote their conscience" on Dec 19? Then in secret tell them to give Hillary the presidency? We know that before this he actually said nice things about Hillary. He doesn't really hate her, he just wanted to win. He's go down in history as having won, that will be enough to make him happy. Also, Hillary being president would make him look like the good guy again. As out there as this sounds, EVERYTHING this year has been bizarre. She won the popular vote and in the past he tweeted that he didn't like the electoral college.

Whatever happens. I don't think he'll be able to last 4 years in the white house. He does not want to even be in the building.

Business wise, all that hate and all the protests are going to make his brand toxic. Letting the electoral college pick Hillary would restore his brand.

Lastly, he's 70. If he's president he'll spend his final years in the white house. By the time its over he'll be 78. 84 is the average lifespan of a male in the US. After accumulation billions, would he want to spend his final years doing something he doesn't want to do?
edit on 12-11-2016 by JustinT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Is Trump going to last? The people don't want him to be president. If he stays, he's not going to be able to do much with him being so strongly apposed by the people.

Um. The people voted the guy into office in a landslide. His party controls both house and senate. The worst that remaining angry-not-accepting population elements can do with the continued help of divisive incitive media, is put him in a position where he has to compromise more than he would otherwise with the republican party (he is mostly liberal, he merely ran on the repub ticket). If he has less ability to maneuver and more need to compromise, the result for the left will be far worse than having him at the helm with more power. Trump's a liberal for the most part, despite being an old man and a business man, he mostly doesn't give a damn about the details of the social stuff, he just wants what he thinks is most reasonable for security, economy, and for the systems we already have to be de-corrupted enough to make them more functional again.


Letting the electoral college pick Hillary would restore his brand.

ROFL. Oh... never mind.

I've seen people calling for 'impeach' and he is not even in office yet (oh brother). But that would sure be a case of people getting the government they deserve. Sure, take him out, one way or another, and then Pence will be President. Talk about the left getting just what they asked for but not what they wanted...


Lastly, he's 70. If he's president he'll spend his final years in the white house. By the time its over he'll be 78.

If he bothers with re-election. Who knows if he will.


After accumulation billions, would he want to spend his final years doing something he doesn't want to do?

How you manage to get that he spent this much time and money and effort to do something he doesn't want to do is beyond me. Does anybody want their life set in stone the way this will? God no. Especially not him -- like you said, it's a drastic lifestyle change, that's true. But that doesn't mean it isn't important to him or he doesn't want to do it anyway. Many very rich men have worked up till the hour they died because by nature of personality, what they were doing had great meaning to them.

RC

edit on 13-11-2016 by RedCairo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I might add that there is probably going to be a lot of things that privately inform him of stuff he doesn't want to know, and that may horribly tie his hands about important things, and he won't be able to say anything about any of it to anybody. If on occasion he seems unusually subdued -- like after the meeting with BO -- it's possible that kind of thing plays a role.

RC



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: RedCairo

I think the key, as you mention in another post, is "framework". While states, in a decentralized government, would retain certain rights...as always, any actions or laws that run rounter to the US constitution are not applicable. Equal Treatment is just a prerequisite. And if im being totally honest....i'd rather see the Fed funded via "fees" paid by the states as well as taxing at ports of entry, taxing commerce, etc. I have no real issue with paying sales tax, or some of the taxes that businesses pay. I have issue with taxing a persons labor.

But back on topic...the majority of the progressive concerns are fairly straightforward. Ratification isn't an impossible hurdle, right?

There should be some homogeneity between the states. The general gist of our national identity should help guide this, mostly. But some of it should be legislated at the Federal level as that framework.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

So you agree with the violence in the streets? Hopefully, one day you will wake up. All you democrats have been played bro. Seriously, can't you see it?



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Very well put! I totally agree! I perish the thought if hillary would have won. Dread the day when this generation of young people will be running the country. Hopefully, some sense will be knocked into them by then. Some of the damage won't be able to be undone. I thank God my sons are conservatives and real men!



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JustinT

Trump Supporters were informing Trump/Pence at rallies that if they didn't win they were going to start the next revolution. So yeah, would have happened either way.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join