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.

 

Matt Drudge is terrorizing Donald Trump

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Maybe we should remind folks that the same brand of Republican who hates Donald Trump also hated Ronald Reagan back in the day, but then things were far more civil and circumspect. Also, Reagan had spent some time inside the party building at least a little cred.




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I guess..

But what did we expect for results?

I still don't like that he could use gimmicks so effectively.

And when civil asset seizure and similar approaches start becoming a trend of a law enforcement the plan, conservatives dont speak up because it doesn't effect them yet. Meanwhile constitutional erosion is amplified by the policy of a party supposedly upholding it.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Heh, yeah. I'll agree with that. Reagan was certainly a little more diplomatic about it.

Reagan (whom I love BTW) had some what I call 'jellybean diplomacy' within the republican party, whereas Trump tends to go at it with a claw-hammer.

Different strokes I guess.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I also think Reagan was terrible.

His tax cuts during the massive savings and loan crisis under Carter nearly tanked the economy into recession and made the S n L much worse added to the debt substancially.

He literally traded arms for hostages with Iran and used money made to fund a rebel group. And was caught. All though he reminded us 120 times he didn't recall.

He was however a much better leader and an great public speaker unlike trump.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

And Obama expanded the violation of the fourth too. I didn't hear much about it when he was listening to everyone, including his political opponents.

I think it very much did affect us and we complained.

Thing is, that when I voted for Trump. I had no idea what to expect, but voting for Clinton? I knew precisely what I would get - more of the same. And I knew with 100% certainty that I DID NOT WANT more of the same, in anything, across the board.

So you tell me what my voting options were if I wanted to attempt to make a serious impact. Don't tell me I could either not vote or vote third party because that's not making a serious impact. That's the functional equivalent of not voting, or in a tight election, it's the equivalent of risking the election going to the candidate that represents everything you know you don't want to happen for 4 more years.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh I did. I also complained about creating division between classes and a host of other policy and presidential over reach.

I am more concerned with policy than the star allegedly representing those ideas.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

I also think Reagan was terrible.



(in my best Gomer Pyle voice) "Well...Sur-PRISE...sur-prise!!"




edit on 8/4/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Just a conspiratorial note, if there are only two viable choices and you are being encouraged not to vote for one of the two, then the one doing the encouraging is probably for the other.

Hell, even I "encouraged" people to vote for the Green party candidate.




It took votes away from Hillary colostomy-bag Clinton.







posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

He was a good public speaker and very good at leading the people with his words.

His lack of expierence. Ahemmmm.
Allowed some opportunists to run wild and worm tung bad ideas into practice.

Eisenhower, he was of the old guard republicans IMO. They became liberal spenders.

But probably no surprise.
edit on 4-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yep...real rocket-surgeon-'ness' there, huh?




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk



You have presented an argument with oblique references to a two-party political system, and then attempt to deny a 'lesser of two evils' scenario when it comes to elections...OF those same two parties.


I made a comment about the two-party charade that people chose to engage in. If you think that is a lesser of two evils situation, that is on you.



What you are failing to understand is, Trump wasn't a staunch member of either of those two parties. And, even though you acknowledge Clinton was a bad selection for the democrats, yet you still use a lesser of two evils argument to explain Trump's election.


Trump chose to be the candidate for the Republican party and I have not used a lesser than two evils argument to explain his election.

Again, you are making # up.



Now, honestly, I shouldn't have had to spend the time to break it down to that simplistic of a level for you to understand, I think you're a little brighter than this. But whatever, there you have it.


Well, it appears you are trying to argue a point I never made.

So ya, carry on.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Unfortunately if there is something that comes back from trumps history now that he is being poured over and it causes a big falling out, it strengthens the scum pond where Clinton was born..

If the reverse happened chances are it goes the other way,...however she was a pro at bleeching and owning important people so maybe would be harder to catch.

Just throwing in a what if..



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko



I am more concerned with policy than the star allegedly representing those ideas.


Well if that's the case, then why does it matter to you which of them won?



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Mostly I am posting about the ideas coming out of the person....

I can overlook his repulsive nature if he has good ideas. Kennedy was gross but he had some things that were honestly trying to bring the public together. Not tear us apart.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: SR1TX
Lmao, what are they going to find? That his cable subscription included RT?



It's not THAT huge of a leap.

FinCEN Fines Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort $10 Million for Significant and Long Standing Anti-Money Laundering Violations


Sounds like he paid a fine - interestingly the IRS were involved and have regularly audited Trump.
You'd think they would have found anything relating to money laundering for Russia...


He ran casinos! They probably laundered money for a lot of oligarchs.

Donald Trump's Casino Company Files Third Bankruptcy




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

Mostly I am posting about the ideas coming out of the person....

I can overlook his repulsive nature if he has good ideas. Kennedy was gross but he had some things that were honestly trying to bring the public together. Not tear us apart.



So you like the idea of tax reform? Kennedy cut taxes you know.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Regan also wouldn't have made a deal with the Russians...

Unless he was just spouting propaganda his whole career.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




It took votes away from Hillary colostomy-bag Clinton.


"It put's the lotion back in the basket. It PUTS the LOTION...back...IN...THE...BASKET!!!"

- Billary's 2017 (unused) victory speech to the American people.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ketsuko

Regan also wouldn't have made a deal with the Russians...

Unless he was just spouting propaganda his whole career.


No. That was the Democrats. They sent Teddy Kennedy to Russia to try to make a deal with the USSR to collude to take Reagan down during his re-election bid.
edit on 4-8-2017 by ketsuko because: saying second re-election is redundant



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Jfk cut from the supply side after being able to pass balanced budgets.

Or at least much closer to supply side cutting.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join