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.
Muhammad Ali
Bruce Springteen
Bill Clinton
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.
originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Impeachment for what? Please enlighten me because I'm seriously confused by your post.
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.
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.
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..
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.
originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Impeachment for what? Please enlighten me because I'm seriously confused by your post.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.