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.

 

McMaster Caught Spying For Soros

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Agreed that size isn't everything


Efficiency through teamwork hasn't worked out that way. If everyone was all-in and proportionally share the cost and the work, sure. I might not be well informed but the only bases I see shut down are those deserted do to us not having troop strength or those in the US shut down by efforts to reduce the military.

In my military experience, if you give a general budget he'll spend it and want more. If you give the pentagon money the same applies. And that's not taking into account the black budget that continues to grow.

I agree with your logic and basic reasoning but in reality it doesn't play out that way unless congress and the whitehouse make it happen by cutting off funds and employ a good plan.

So far the "plan" hasn't been that great and results in loss of life and ill equipped troops.




posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Of course they do. The problem is there are so few that are truly principled. Who's to judge who is truly principled and who's not? All we have is the press and our observations. Unfortunately, actions we observe that would otherwise be deemed as principled are driven by an agenda. The motives of an agenda may or may not hold to the same principles. Humans aren't perfect and the basic laws of nature apply. How are we to know who is truly principled and who is really acting with nefarious motives? Was it Brennan that said "When the American people think they know what's going on, then we know we did a good job". Or words to that effect.

In a truly principled society there would be no lies and no secrets.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trick question. Sometimes.



LOL. Fair enough. I'm guessing it's fake news when Mr. Trump doesn't like it?

Thanks for the answer.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I would be, you know, happy to help out a fellow member. However, this is all common knowledge that is easily researched. Example, the left had a voter fraud investigation immediately after the election, but only in red counties and fight vigorously against auditing blue counties as a threat to democracy. Even their enforcement team, Antifa, is using markedly fascist tactics while screaming about Nazis. Help me narrow it down. Which points do you, you know, contest?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Templeton
a reply to: Gryphon66

I would be, you know, happy to help out a fellow member. However, this is all common knowledge that is easily researched. Example, the left had a voter fraud investigation immediately after the election, but only in red counties and fight vigorously against auditing blue counties as a threat to democracy. Even their enforcement team, Antifa, is using markedly fascist tactics while screaming about Nazis. Help me narrow it down. Which points do you, you know, contest?


Somehow, I doubt your sincerity.

Nope, you don't get to claim that you're correct because "it's all out there" or "common knowledge" ... common knowledge is something like "There are 24 hours in a day." Something that isn't contested by anyone.

Can you back up your statements with factual references, or not? That's the only question here, honestly; I'm really uninterested in more spewing of unsubstantiated fringe nonsense.

For example, what is "the left"? What vote audit are you referring to? Can you establish a connection between ANFIFA and whoever you think "the left" is? And that's just from your last post.

Surely, you have something factual that underpins your ideas, right?
edit on 10-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Templeton
a reply to: Kali74 Democrats have really drilled in the point this year that they have no place for democracy. If they did they would accept the leader that the vast majority of the country selected.


There is a vast gap between "accepting the win" and "going along with him."

I accept that he won. But I do not agree with his agenda and I do not agree with almost all his policies and orders (there are undoubtedly a few that I would agree with but I can't think of any at the moment. I'm sure they exist.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith



Wait....

Who leaked the leaker? Lol



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: Byrd

Agreed that size isn't everything


Efficiency through teamwork hasn't worked out that way. If everyone was all-in and proportionally share the cost and the work, sure. I might not be well informed but the only bases I see shut down are those deserted do to us not having troop strength or those in the US shut down by efforts to reduce the military.


There was more to it than that behind the shutting down of bases. They had reduced the forces (no need for a huge army) and wanted to consolidate bases. The hearings were fraught with drama and anger and sorrow - towns had a love-hate relationship with bases and it was quite a blow to some to lose them.


In my military experience, if you give a general budget he'll spend it and want more. If you give the pentagon money the same applies. And that's not taking into account the black budget that continues to grow.

Well, yes. And there's always the sharks circling with new toys and proposals to use that money.

On the positive side, it drove a lot of research (including medical research and research that benefited the disabled as well as technology that eventually trickled down to improved cars and other amenities.

It's a "no easy answer" there.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry it was a #recount2016, not a voter fraud investigation. Although there is little distinction besides semantics. The recount was endorsed by team HRC and there was irregular funding, but it was not driven by the 'left' as I stated. But fraud was implied.

www.cnn.com...

During the recount, Detroit, which was heavily in camp HRC, had their votes deemed 'uncountable' and they found 37% of their precincts had electronic voting machines casting too many ballots.

www.detroitnews.com...
nypost.com...

The recount was then shot down by the supreme court as a waste of time and money and AFAIK Detroit's local audit is still pending.

If we look at the county map of 2016 results we see the Democrats focused almost entirely on a few cities.

brilliantmaps.com...

It's one of these cities that is unaccountable and suffered such a drastic technical anomaly. Coincidence? Maybe. Worth getting to the bottom of, I think so. The DNC, not so much.

time.com...

ANTIFA, you have me there. It is not proven the DNC endorses or finances their operations. However, ANTIFA's actions support the democrats, and the DNC is happy to capitalize on their 'disconnected' actions to silence dissenting voices.

www.breitbart.com...
www.eastbaytimes.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...

edit on 10-8-2017 by Templeton because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

There is, but accepting the win is not an option. The DNC's goal, as defined by their leaders, is to get Trump out of office. By any means necessary.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Lucidparadox

what are you if youre not nationalist?


Potentially sane.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
My understanding is that most lower ranks of military are conservative, higher ups such as generals are mostly liberal.


Not quite. The military is still a fairly conservative bunch, but higher ranks tend to see the whole picture. Conservatives, and this isn't a knock against them, tend to look at the world from the standpoint of themselves and their family. At a high level the military and top CEO's look more at geopolitical strategy and how large pieces fit together. They don't see individual struggles.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Templeton
a reply to: Byrd

There is, but accepting the win is not an option. The DNC's goal, as defined by their leaders, is to get Trump out of office. By any means necessary.


That's just politics as usual. Trying to remove Trump, trying to remove Obama, trying to remove W, trying to remove Clinton. There have been major pushes for all of those. I'm sure that if I were older I would be able to point to instances of trying to remove HW, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon too.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Templeton
a reply to: Byrd

There is, but accepting the win is not an option. The DNC's goal, as defined by their leaders, is to get Trump out of office. By any means necessary.


That's just politics as usual. Trying to remove Trump, trying to remove Obama, trying to remove W, trying to remove Clinton. There have been major pushes for all of those. I'm sure that if I were older I would be able to point to instances of trying to remove HW, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon too.


True. It is different here in that it is the main stream stance, not fringe elements. Trump took about 29% of Obama's counties. These are a lot of people that stood on the defense in both cases, and the right's rejection of Obama was no where near this caliber. Night and day. Here again HRC preempted criticizing her party's faults when she stressed the importance of Trump accepting the results and what a blow to democracy it would be if he didn't. It's effective, if we bring it up we will be met with something about GOP always making it about Hillary. Except she's still fat.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Templeton

I disagree. If anything I think the resistance to Trump is milder than it was to Obama and both of them have had it easier than W did.

My theory is that due to the internet and the gradual expansion of it, the cries against each President have grown more numerous, but it's also diluted the force behind them. I think there's some legitimate criticisms of Trump, just as there are against all Presidents or people but the signal to noise ratio is pretty high. Most of it is nonsense, and most of the population is able to figure that out.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Templeton

I disagree. If anything I think the resistance to Trump is milder than it was to Obama and both of them have had it easier than W did.

My theory is that due to the internet and the gradual expansion of it, the cries against each President have grown more numerous, but it's also diluted the force behind them. I think there's some legitimate criticisms of Trump, just as there are against all Presidents or people but the signal to noise ratio is pretty high. Most of it is nonsense, and most of the population is able to figure that out.



I think you give people too much credit.


www.washingtonpost.com... ary-part/?utm_term=.981c41875a16

What I see coming from the internet is a culture that cares more about upvotes and stars than they do about truth, freedom, and liberty.

www.pbs.org...

I have some legitimate concerns about Trump too. And I count on the opposition party to keep him in check. But I'm reminded of the old fable, the boy who cried wolf.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Unnamed sources.

Trump says unnamed sources are fake news.



Lefty's don't know how to make sense of facts. Stone named Israel intelligence as one of his sources and verified through several other sources.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Something odd going on here. The military on the side of the globalist? Doesn't make sense to me why a military man would back a group intent on reducing the military budget.



We can speculate all we want. Just don't lose sight of the facts. He was caught informing Soros about things he shouldn't have been.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Templeton

It's the opposite, if anything I don't give the general public enough credit. I think however that when you have frivolous attacks you also bait out all the frivolous defenders and they cancel each other out. For example, I was listening to Hannity earlier today and he said the Republicans gave Obama all of his Supreme Court justice nominees without a fight.

Honestly, there's a lot of partisian bickering going on out there, but I think it's only the extremes on both ends that really get down and dirty with it. There's a large chunk in the middle who only casually follow politics, don't really care, and aren't really swayed by arguments on either side. Those people don't change their opinion because of a media blitz on any given topic.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Ya, I saw the effect of bases deserted in S Korea. I looked up the base at Camp Casey and read about the poverty that followed our leaving them. Their whole economy relied on the base being there.

All in the name of Bush and his illegal war.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join