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.

 

President Pence Soon: Trump's Very Bad Terrible EO Signing Day

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: windword

Mr Bush had his off days where he went strange many times in press conferences. Mr Reagan did that, too.


Difference between Trump, Bush and Reagan is we know what Reagan's mental health was really like, and Bush never, ever tried to pass himself off as an Expert in Everything. He knew when he opened his mouth, he was a bumbling doof and just shrugged his shoulders & rolled with it.

If The Great Negotiator has some cognitive problems, playing the Denial Game while forgetting he has EOs to sign in the middle of signing them doesn't serve him well.




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Many people in the US voted for Trump because he was not part of the current stock politicians. I don't/cannot have an opinion on this being from the UK and respecting your democracy. However,it does seem to me the word I seem to describe for Trump is "naive" - maybe he thought his big business profile could prepare himself for the scrutiny that he would get - but the scrutiny seems to be at another level as POTUS.
And age is not on his side. Still playing football (US: soccer) in my 50s - knocks do take longer to heal. If he has a virus/cold/under the weather, even with great doctors it will take him longer to heal than a 50 year old - fact of life.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Shamrock6

Each one of the quotes you offered reflect a member of the press pursuing informing the American public no matter what the cost.

This doesn't invalidate anything that Windword is saying ... does it? If so, how does it?


Because windword's entire argument is that the White House has talked the media into not reporting a story as massive as Trump having a serious medical condition.

How on earth can you come to the conclusion that multiple members of the media saying they'll report information "no matter what the cost" as somehow supporting the notion that the media would suppress information at Trump's behest?

My god.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Shamrock6

Each one of the quotes you offered reflect a member of the press pursuing informing the American public no matter what the cost.

This doesn't invalidate anything that Windword is saying ... does it? If so, how does it?


Because windword's entire argument is that the White House has talked the media into not reporting a story as massive as Trump having a serious medical condition.


That's not my entire argument. In my OP I noted that the media has edited out some of the worst, most embarrassing speech episodes from that event out of their videos. In my opinion, and based on my experience with my father and my late husband, who both had episodes of mini strokes, and both died from strokes, that I was watching Trump experience a mini stroke. That's my opinion.


How on earth can you come to the conclusion that multiple members of the media saying they'll report information "no matter what the cost" as somehow supporting the notion that the media would suppress information at Trump's behest?


The main stream media doesn't report on a world leader's medical condition, that hasn't been diagnosed by a doctor, discussed with their family and announced by their office. Nor should they speculative rumors, based on social media spectators, such as myself, be considered news worthy, from some expert anonymous sources.

When you commented and asked why the media wouldn't have a feeding frenzy with this info, I guessed that perhaps the White House asked them to edit those embarrassing parts out. When you asked why the media would comply, since they hate and want to overthrow Trump, and would leap at a great opportunity like that to get him while he's down, so to speak, I cited "national security". I mean, if you think that the press would jump at the opportunity to take down Trump, imagine how our real enemies might jump at the opportunity too, right?

Anyone can see the awkward edits and cuts. Why the media isn't showing the whole event any more is anyone's guess. Mine is; courtesy for the family, respect for the Oval Office and duty to American People's security.

Meh....


edit on 1-4-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Gryphon66

So now you suddenly care about him??? Give me a break.


It saddens me that you live in a world in which you can't be concerned about the welfare of other people that you don't agree with politically.

You must live in a tiny, bitter little place.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Typing an essay response and topping it off with "meh" is kinda silly.

The point I made is that you're advancing the notion that the media, which is in a feeding frenzy over Trump and has been for months, has now done a complete 180. There's zero reason for you to restate your case because I can just go read your previous comments and you can read mine.

The question was asked as to how reporters talking about reporting no matter the cost can invalidate what you're proposing. Since you're suggesting the media is sitting on a major story "for the good of the country" I think reporters talking about how it's their job to report no matter what pretty well does that.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



The question was asked as to how reporters talking about reporting no matter the cost can invalidate what you're proposing. Since you're suggesting the media is sitting on a major story "for the good of the country" I think reporters talking about how it's their job to report no matter what pretty well does that.


Now whose being pragmatically unrealistic, putting the press on a pedestal, even if it's of their own making?


edit on 1-4-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

He seems Jittery to me. Possibly having a hard time getting the words out. Just a question but does he drink? I almost wanted to say he had been drinking. Something was off, who knows what.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

How on earth can you claim that multiple members of the media stating that they would pursue the truth relentlessly prove that WIndword's contention that the President appeared to be having some sort of medical episode was false?

That's like countering an argument that the sky is blue today with a counterclaim that motorcycles have wheels.

Trump's apparent (at least to Windword and others) medical condition is the point of the thread, Shamrock. You've picked out one sideways comment in which she wondered about the subsequent cut-up footage that she was able to find representing some sort of reluctance on the part of the press to show just how bad his "attack" was.

Your whole argument against the OP is that the Press is relentlessly hounding the President unfairly, Windword countered that they are relentlessly pursuing the truth and gave examples of that, which you tried to reorient to attack an argument she didn't really make or which was at best a minor point.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jerseymilker
a reply to: smurfy

He seems Jittery to me. Possibly having a hard time getting the words out. Just a question but does he drink? I almost wanted to say he had been drinking. Something was off, who knows what.


According to his statements, he's never drank or used any drugs.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yea I didn't do any of that but hey, if it makes you feel better to pretend I did, go for it White Knight.

I didn't say anything about the media "unfairly hounding" Trump. He and his crew do and say a lot of dumb stuff, and that's going to get attention. Pointing out the media has a hardon for him is not saying it's unfair. So you made that up. #fakenews

I didn't say her assertion that he may have a medical condition was false. Point of fact I said she may be right. So you made that up. #fakenews

When the assertion is made that the media would be in on covering up said medical condition from the public, questioning why the media would do so is absolutely fair game. So you've made that up. #fakenews

Sorry White Knight, ya crashed and burned this time.




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You didn't say anything about the press unfairly hounding Trump, eh?


originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's completely and utterly preposterous to try and argue from the position of not one of the people who's been going after Trump day in and day out for months and months and months would say "no, eff you, we're running this story because the people have the right to know."



originally posted by: Shamrock6
I think the media's handling of any number of scandals, both real and imagined, going back for decades pretty much kills your narrative. I think the media's behavior since the election kills your narrative. You're stepping so far away from the reality of things and imagining them however they need to be to support your narrative. All this railing about a free press, all this adversarial contact between the press and White House, a nearly non-stop day in and day out slugfest aimed at the administration....


You've been on about her suggestion that the press might not go after this like it was gold the whole time dude. I'm not going to copy and paste that again, because anyone who cares read it. You've shown that you can't even stand behind your own condemnation of the press, when you just typed the words yourself.

Sorry, Doc, perhaps you'd better stay way from the OK Corral today. Bad for your breathin'.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yea like I said, I didn't say anything about "unfair." I pointed out that the media is going after him full bore. And they are. Don't insert "unfairly" into that and then pretend it's what I said.

I'm not really inclined to debate what you're making up and claiming I said. If you feel the need to lie and say I said something and then provide quotes that show I didn't actually say it while continuing to lie and say I did, you're welcome to do so.

The only thing bad for air quality is the amount of BS you're bringing to the table, White Knight.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yea like I said, I didn't say anything about "unfair." I pointed out that the media is going after him full bore. And they are. Don't insert "unfairly" into that and then pretend it's what I said.

I'm not really inclined to debate what you're making up and claiming I said. If you feel the need to lie and say I said something and then provide quotes that show I didn't actually say it while continuing to lie and say I did, you're welcome to do so.

The only thing bad for air quality is the amount of BS you're bringing to the table, White Knight.


Oh so now you did say the press was hounding Trump you just think it was fair? Whatever. I didn't make anything up, I quoted you. Stings don't it?

Here's the basic claim that I've made.

This thread/discussion is about the concerning evidence for Mr. Trump's health exhibited at the signing ceremony.

You are desperately trying to make it about your take on a minor item, that being what OP said about the press' reaction.

You're making a big point about something that wasn't the focus of the thread. Why, I don't know, you're not usually this obtuse.

At any rate, you've been shown up for what you're doing; if you want to continue to critique your chosen argument rather than OP's go ahead ... but everyone here knows what's up.

Doc.
edit on 1-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Back to your actual OP ... I had noticed on several occasions lately that Pence is in virtually every shot of Trump in official circumstances. He's standing by, as it were. I've never noticed that even with Cheney pulling W's strings and Obama and his buddy Biden before.

And the way Pence took off after the President? Made it worse in my mind. He ran after him like it was his grandpa going out the wrong door at the home.

We'll see if you're on to something in the coming weeks I guess. Don't let the trolls get you down.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I will state my own pet theory again ... that removal of President Trump through the 25th Amendment looks more likely in situations like these.

Oddly enough, that might be a way for Trump to "save face" ... if he's got some sort of "previously undetected medical situation."
edit on 1-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You got it!

His colleagues sure did look nervous. Yep, we shall see in the coming weeks.

Can't wait for Jimmy Kimmel to do "Drunk President Trump" with this one! LOL



edit on 1-4-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Gryphon66

You got it!

His colleagues sure did look nervous. Yep, we shall see in the coming weeks.



Those vids that are going around now showing Trump manically making minor adjustments to items around him sort of aligns with part of your idea.

/shrug
edit on 1-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

My my. Put your chubby away bud, calm down.

Your basic claim is based on making crap up and claiming I said it and then attacking me for what you've made up. The only thing that's been shown is your ass. You lied to create a platform to attack what I said from, under the guise of me being off topic while you were happy to go so wildly off topic to do so.

All you're doing now is trying to save face after being proven to be willing to lie in an effort to score cheap internet points. You're right, everybody does indeed now know what's up.

Buhbye now.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

My my. Put your chubby away bud, calm down.

Your basic claim is based on making crap up and claiming I said it and then attacking me for what you've made up. The only thing that's been shown is your ass. You lied to create a platform to attack what I said from, under the guise of me being off topic while you were happy to go so wildly off topic to do so.

All you're doing now is trying to save face after being proven to be willing to lie in an effort to score cheap internet points. You're right, everybody does indeed now know what's up.

Buhbye now.


I can honestly say that you've never given me one of those, Sham.

I didn't make up anything Doc. You've been on the OP's case, whining for pages for a minor claim that you think she made. You're derailing the thread because of what you want to talk about. I quoted you and everyone has seen that this is true.

Are you really trying to say now that you've not been on the OP about her minor claim about the press changing how they're reporting about the incident? Really?

Whatever, Doc.




top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join