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.

 

More regarding Trump's P-gate

page: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Media and intel both stress that the allegations have not been validated.


gawd, then stress not talking about bs.

"yellow cake" comes to mind.




posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

What ?



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reverbs

What ?
intelligence agencies should not be stressing something they put out there is unknown.

in other words intelligence agencies have lowered the bar even after the yellow cake incident.

It's like they think people are dumb.

I am only saying it's dumb to underestimate your target audience.

edit on 13-1-2017 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs
Which intelligence agency stressed this?

Or yellow cake, for that matter? Wasn't it the administration which did so?



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reverbs
Which intelligence agency stressed this?

Or yellow cake, for that matter? Wasn't it the administration which did so?



No they didn't pull it out of their butt..
They were fed info.

It's obvious what is going on,
but this time they can't kill kennedy



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs




They were fed info.

About yellow cake? You don't really know much about that, do you?
pubrecord.org...



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reverbs




They were fed info.

About yellow cake? You don't really know much about that, do you?
pubrecord.org...


I very much know..

your words

"Media and intel both stress that the allegations have not been validated. "

So STOP following like a dog wagging your tail.

use a link about past lies to validate some point that is against my point that we should not listen to any of these people??

what?


edit on 13-1-2017 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs
And, once again, your statement makes no sense.



use a link about past lies to validate some point that is against my point that we should not listen to any of these people??
Intel told admin the claims were bullcrap. The bullcrap did not come from intel, it came from admin.


edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reverbs
And, once again, your statement makes no sense.



haha..

your one liners are against ATS policy and definitely not adding to the subject.

Your link only showed that lies spread..

My point is STOP...


edit on 13-1-2017 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs




your one liners are against ATS policy and definitely not adding to the subject.

No. One liners are not against policy. I've been here long enough to know what is.
But I added something after your edit.


My point is STOP...
Why? Because you say so?

edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Reverbs




your one liners are against ATS policy and definitely not adding to the subject.

No. One liners are not against policy. I've been here long enough to know what is.
But I added something after your edit.


yes well read the T and C it's been the rule since at least the year 2000.
And you are still making my point in your edit..
people are lying.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs



yes well read the T and C it's been the rule since at least the year 2000.

Citation please.
 


people are lying.
Did I say that someone isn't? This is what you said:

intelligence agencies should not be stressing something they put out there is unknown.

This was my reply:

Which intelligence agency stressed this?


edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

Media and intel both stress that the allegations have not been validated.


gawd, then stress not talking about bs.

"yellow cake" comes to mind.


Pee + Cake = Yellow Cake? Is that from Russian Intelligence?



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Good luck P-OTUS!



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Vasa Croe

EXACTLY!!

Put up...or SHUT UP!!





You don't understand how blackmail works as others on this thread don't either:-/

IF those Russian made tapes exist they will let Donald know about them after he is president and will want something back in return



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Since the Democrat's INSIST (to this day) that even a moderate wanting to see Obama's birth certificate implied that any such person was ONLY in it for RACIST reasons...

Clearly, the Democrat's who now treat this dossier as Truth are SEXIST.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How so?



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I came here to find out what Pee-gate was all about, thinking you put it in your OP, so I can expect a brief rundown of what Pee-gate was, boy was I wrong!

All I can say is, unless your president abuses children or animals, his sexual proclivities are nothing to do with you. You don't see me posting about the strap-on Theresa May uses on Philip?

Trump might be an asshat but he might also be the best president America has ever had. It's about time you guys suck it up and get on with it...



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

Looking at his picks for who will be running his admin..I am not gonna hold ma breath..



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

All I can say is, unless your president abuses children or animals, his sexual proclivities are nothing to do with you.


I think this is a good point and was just about to post something about this myself.
If i may, i wish to expand a little further on this point:
(Stay with me here, this may appear a little off topic at first)

America is touted as a relatively (compared to the rest of the world) liberal society and certainly a society which one could fairly describe as (again relatively) sexually liberated. American society has come to a point where homosexuality (and all the other 'in-betweens') is seen as perfectly normal and acceptable (which i personally feel is the right point of view) and anyone who feels differently to this is, to put it mildly, thoroughly chastised and, in fact, opens themselves up to criminal prosecution should their remarks stray into the realms of offensive.

Americans are told that their society should mind it's own business what people do behind closed doors, as long as it does not harm others and is between consenting adults and, i believe, the majority of people support this stance wholeheartedly.

Now, here we have a story about a consenting adult engaging in a sexual practice with other consenting adults, and suddenly this is seen as utterly despicable and grounds to suggest that Donald Trump is unfit to be president.

Now, lets say we substitute urolagnia for homesexual intercourse; would there be the same reaction here? Would the same individual's calling for Trump's head be levelling the same amount of hyperbolic vitriol if he was having gay sex? That would be somewhat paradoxical i feel, or at least hypocritical.

If the argument is that this information could be used to blackmail Trump; blackmail is only effective if the information held is potentially damaging, and, in this case, the information is only damaging if people are willing to view it as such. If people were instead inclined to view it as 'none of anyone else's business what consenting adults do behind closed doors' then it ceases to be damaging and therefore ceases to hold any power over Trump.

Now the questions are;

A) are the same people shouting about this; i.e. viewing his actions as potentially harmful, wrong, damaging etc. the same people who would defend the rights of LGBT people to live their lives (and their sex lives) as they see fit, free from judgement and interference from others.

B) if so then; why are these people happy to accept one kind of sexual practice between consenting adults yet vehemently decry another? Does it serve an agenda? Or is it a case of 'anyone can do what they want as long as I don't personally find it objectionable'?
Are they drawing an arbitrary line of morality based on their own sensibilities and, in fact, are only liberal/libertarian when it suits them? Or are they feigning outrage because it's politically convenient to do so, thus undermining their own integrity. If not, are they genuinely unaware of their hypocrisy?

C) if they are in fact part of the group that believe that ANY behaviour outside of a 'normal' heterosexual relationship is wrong, then why are they not being subjected to the same level of abuse and outrage that they would be if they were calling into question his fitness to be POTUS if he were gay?

It smacks of hypocricy and cognitive dissonance at best and deliberate manipulation and politically 'selling out' for convenience ( in this case for 'convenience' read 'character assassination') at worst

Wiki definition of politically selling out, for reference:

"In political movements a "sellout" is a person or group claiming to adhere to one ideology, only to follow these claims up with actions contradicting them"

(Sound familiar?)

I will say again, as i feel it is tremendously important here that; this kind of information is ONLY effective as blackmail if it has the power to damage Trump, and it ONLY has the power to damage Trump if the people decide they care what he does in his own bedroom.

So, you decide; is it ok for people to enagage in any kind of non-harmful, sexual behaviour they like in private or is it ok to make judgements and interfere in an individuals sex life because we personally find what they are doing to be unpalatable?
That's the only pertinent question here in my view. Everything else is just window dressing.
edit on 13-1-2017 by Indrasweb because: Edit to clarify

edit on 13-1-2017 by Indrasweb because: Edit for formatting and punctuation




top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join