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.

 

Now what does Trump do?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker





posted on May, 15 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekaran


Muhammad Ali

Didn't serve due to religion.


Bruce Springteen

Failed his physical.


Bill Clinton

College deferment.
All of these things are acceptable too bad Trump couldn't claim any of them. He wasn't religious and as soon as he got out of college he ran to his doctor who gave him a laughable excuse to get out of serving.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekaran

Muhammad Ali's reason makes sense, considering the climate of America during his years. Trump talks like a big tough guy, who can throw down with anyone, yet he dodges the draft.

Coward.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

He goes golfing at the Loudon Golf Club (owned by Trump) in DC

Later on, he'll give another version of what happened (complaining about it in a speech or tweet) and then blame some of his staff for misunderstanding him.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Impeachment for what? Please enlighten me because I'm seriously confused by your post.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: Tekaran

Muhammad Ali's reason makes sense, considering the climate of America during his years. Trump talks like a big tough guy, who can throw down with anyone, yet he dodges the draft.

Coward.


Ah, there it is. Selective judgement.
We can all find reasons. Wasn't Trump's reason medical?
edit on 15/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Guess not.

Anyway, making excuses for Trump because you give him the benefit of the doubt doesn't make the excuses valid.

In my opinion it is all show anyway. The reps and the dems are not against him, even the media isn't "really" against him. Made me think of this thread, The Beautiful Ones, Dr. Calhouns Utopia....



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Impeachment for what? Please enlighten me because I'm seriously confused by your post.


There is a speculative side to the thread, as I stated in the OP. I do not believe that the forces against him are speculative in the least.

As far as impeachment goes, it requires a sufficiently large enough group opposed to Trump-votes- not 'validity'. If validity was a pre-requisite, Clinton's impeachment would have passed.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: nwtrucker

He goes golfing at the Loudon Golf Club (owned by Trump) in DC

Later on, he'll give another version of what happened (complaining about it in a speech or tweet) and then blame some of his staff for misunderstanding him.


Cruz supporter?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

They're all excuses. I don't see any difference to the ones you quoted or Trumps excuse. It's okay because they were 'good guy's.

Mohammed Ali was one of the most Racist Mother f#ckers of the lot.

Bill Clinton is a rapist.

Bruce Springsteen, I don't know much about him but I like his music.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Repeal. There's no huge debate needed. Promised. Demanded even. IF Trump made a mistake, it was sugar-coating the Republican Congress' failure to repeal.

Repeal will never happen. Congress doesn't have a Republican super-majority to achieve this. That's why they passed the last bill using that shady tactic of making it a budget reconciliation bill, however that can only address taxes and the Senate will have to strip any language out of it that violates that.


Maybe he did see it as a 'first step', if for no other reason than the tax cut hinged on it's passing. This one is too much for my aged brain to figure out..

This bill is wildly unpopular because of how many people it would kick off of insurance and repealing the ACA will be even more unpopular. The sooner you guys get it through your head that there is no going back the sooner we could come together and fix this bill.


Still, nothing more points out there are two distinct camps, in this. That is my point. It should be rather obvious as otherwise far more progress would have been made. It isn't Trump who's slowing this down and that's a certainty.

No. There are three distinct camps. The far right conservatives who all want repeal everything, the moderate conservatives who only want to reduce the taxes a bit but maintain many of the popular benefits of the ACA like pre-existing conditions, and the Democrats who aren't fractured in their opinion because no one is talking to them anyways.

The problem becomes that the Democrats, despite being the minority party, make up a sizeable part of the House, and the situation is even worse in the Senate. So when the Republicans exclude them from the conversation then they are forced to walk a VERY narrow line of compromise to appease two polar opposite opinions in their own party. And the inevitable result is the upchuck known as the AHCA or Trumpcare.

This brings me to why you really need to accept that the ACA isn't going away. Because the only alternative to really any legislative solution is to compromise with the Democrats, and they are going to be even LESS willing to strip the ACA of its teeth than the moderate Republicans are.
edit on 16-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Impeachment for what? Please enlighten me because I'm seriously confused by your post.

As of now, obstruction of justice for firing Comey and attempting to influence a federal investigation by demanding his loyalty, or for disseminating classified information to the Russians a day after the firing of Comey.

At this point I care about that more than if he colluded with the Russians during the election.
edit on 16-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
There has been almost 1 year of investigations, including "wire tapping" Trump associates and unmasking names (including Trumps) in recorded conversations. What exactly is an independent investigator going to find??? I will assume that no rational person just wants an investigator on the ground continuing until he or she finds something - or not - forever! The route open seems to be to go via the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, which actually would be overseen by Sessions. All that 'special prosecutor' stuff ended in 1999 when the law ran out and was not renewed.

I don't know until we appoint one. Need I remind you that there were eight investigations into Benghazi?


Lets just be honest - the Democrats have no evidence but want to draw this out and extend the news cycle into 2018. It's a political play to try and win back the Senate and House. The phony calls for a special prosecutor (which does not exist, although I am glad you have at least used the term special investigator) are nothing more than political red meat. The first thing to do is to get the results from the FBI, House Intel Committee and the Senate Intel committee. IF they find something then, yeah, move it forward.

You do realize that the point of an investigation is to collect evidence right? So not having evidence really isn't a problem when it comes to wanting an investigation to take place. In fact, it's usually a pre-requirement. Sarcastically dismissing this because you don't intend to understand the process isn't going to make these calls go away, by the way.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Then where was the 'three camps
' of Republicans when they voted to repeal it numerous times under Obama?

They voted repeal time after time. That is a fact. The damn thing is collapsing. Get it through your head that the ACA and the 'wall' were part and parcel why Trump won the election. Sigh.

I suppose Trump could do what Obama did and arbitrarily change the bill to suit himself.

I think Trump would leave coverage for the poor via Medicare, either way. At least, it's what I'd do.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Then where was the 'three camps
' of Republicans when they voted to repeal it numerous times under Obama?

Well I guess when there is more on the line when you know there is a chance your bill will actually be passed then people start getting cold feet. I don't know why you are arguing this with me. I'm not the one who voted to repeal it all those times under Obama then got scared when I knew that the vote could actually stick.


They voted repeal time after time. That is a fact. The damn thing is collapsing. Get it through your head that the ACA and the 'wall' were part and parcel why Trump won the election. Sigh.

Regardless, it doesn't mean it will happen. He can promise you unicorns but that doesn't mean they magically exist.


I suppose Trump could do what Obama did and arbitrarily change the bill to suit himself.

I think Trump would leave coverage for the poor via Medicare, either way. At least, it's what I'd do.

You think? Clearly you know nothing of the AHCA. It cuts the Medicaid expansion over time and pretty much guarantees that working class people in red states with pre-existing conditions will be kicked off of insurance and then priced out of insurance due to a rate hike in the bill. Don't worry, I'll be fine though living in a liberal area and all; they won't opt out so my insurance would be safe for the time being. Great times right?
edit on 16-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
There has been almost 1 year of investigations, including "wire tapping" Trump associates and unmasking names (including Trumps) in recorded conversations. What exactly is an independent investigator going to find??? I will assume that no rational person just wants an investigator on the ground continuing until he or she finds something - or not - forever! The route open seems to be to go via the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, which actually would be overseen by Sessions. All that 'special prosecutor' stuff ended in 1999 when the law ran out and was not renewed.

I don't know until we appoint one. Need I remind you that there were eight investigations into Benghazi?


Lets just be honest - the Democrats have no evidence but want to draw this out and extend the news cycle into 2018. It's a political play to try and win back the Senate and House. The phony calls for a special prosecutor (which does not exist, although I am glad you have at least used the term special investigator) are nothing more than political red meat. The first thing to do is to get the results from the FBI, House Intel Committee and the Senate Intel committee. IF they find something then, yeah, move it forward.

You do realize that the point of an investigation is to collect evidence right? So not having evidence really isn't a problem when it comes to wanting an investigation to take place. In fact, it's usually a pre-requirement. Sarcastically dismissing this because you don't intend to understand the process isn't going to make these calls go away, by the way.


There were eight investigations into Benghazi because there was evidence AND people died. Hello? To compare the two is disingenuous. Even the most rabid of Democrats have said there has been zero evidence pointing to collusion. Just the hope there's something....somewhere.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Trump didn't write the ACHA. He wanted repeal. Then a new bill. So yes, I THINK. Try it. It's fun.


edit on 16-5-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join