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.

 

Did Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Just Turn on Trump?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Dudemo5


I mean, seriously. Who will they vote into the Presidency next? Kid Rock? Barney the Dinosaur? I'd rather not know.


You can bet your ass it Won't be that bitch Clinton. And if you can't find a better choice, Kid Rock might be 46. Bawithabaw.


In what alternate reality do you think anyone would need to be told that the GOP base wouldn't elect Hillary?

Even the Dems don't want her.

It's kind of absurd to point it out.

As far as voting in Kid Rock: I think Trump has proven it's a mistake for a persons first job in professional politics to be POTUS. I mean, Christ, let the guy earn his stripes as a governor or something first.

But yeah, your sort of proving my point. This is why I don't want Trump impeached. You guys will show up in record numbers to vote some complete gomer into office again.




posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
It's not just Tillerson support that Trump is losing. He's losing support from his own party day by day with his insulting tweets. The GOP can't count on him to lead; he's still to interested in continuing to campaign for the photo ops and "atta boy" from his supporters.

www.newsweek.com...

also losing many of his key people in other branches. This isn't draining the swamp; they want no part of his toxic presidency. believe me!!

www.rawstory.com...

and that's not all....

news.vice.com...
edit on 27-8-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: Gothmog
I have a close friend that disagreed with me about a very important upcoming life decision . And didnt mind letting me know. Was that considered "tuning on me" ? No. I took the advise and it would change my life for the good
Think....


Did your friend make his disagreement known on national television?

Of course not. But he probably would have given the chance.
And your point being ?
Pointless ?


My point being that Tillerson could have easily stayed on the Trump train and said some BS about Trump doing the right thing for America, but he instead chose to show his disapproval on national TV instead of simply addressing it with Trump privately, as your friend did.

Yes , but why ?
If you are asked a question directly , do you answer with the truth ? I do...
And I will call a friend out if I feel they are making a mistake. Or , I dont agree. Do you ? Or just keep your mouth shut and go on ? Sounds like the latter.
Again , your point ?
Or just an anti-Trumper looking for anything....?
Again , I feel the latter is the case.


This thread isn't about you or I, so how much we lie is irrelevant. We're talking about politicians who lie all the time, especially to the people. Tillerson in this case chose to tell the hard truth rather than towing the Trump line.

I only provided that little story as a prelude .
The thread is not about me , I agree. So , why do you keep bringing it up ?

The thread was about a question that was posed , and an informed opinion given as an answer.



Tillerson in this case chose to tell the hard truth rather than towing the Trump line

As Tillerson saw it , yes.
Doesnt mean their are problems brewing there . See my responses. An omission of truth is the exact same as a lie.
Of course :
"Some folks , if they dont know you cant tell them" - Louis Armstrong.
With that , I leave you to your self-imposed truth.

ETA - You did not answer one question . Truth hurt ?
Checkmate

edit on 8/27/17 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5



But yeah, your sort of proving my point. This is why I don't want Trump impeached. You guys will show up in record numbers to vote some complete gomer into office again.


Bingo.

They do not seem to be concerned about voting for people who will govern with strength and intelligence. They just want to beat the Dems/Left.

It appears they approach politics like it's a sporting event.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dudemo5



But yeah, your sort of proving my point. This is why I don't want Trump impeached. You guys will show up in record numbers to vote some complete gomer into office again.


Bingo.

They do not seem to be concerned about voting forpeople who will govern with strength and intelligence. They just want to beat the Dems/Left.

It appears they approach politics like it's a sporting event.



We tried that, haven't we?

Been slim pickins for quite awhile and here we are.

Wanting to do the same thing over and over again expecting it will work this time for sure, is crazy.

The story is not how they portray it.






posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
it sounds like rex and a lot of other trump appointees prefer the easy life of being a corporate CEO and collecting a yuuge paycheck instead of actually having to do something as a government employee for a much smaller paycheck.

I guess these greedy elite never heard Kennedy's speech when he said :

ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country.

edit on 27-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dudemo5



But yeah, your sort of proving my point. This is why I don't want Trump impeached. You guys will show up in record numbers to vote some complete gomer into office again.


Bingo.

They do not seem to be concerned about voting forpeople who will govern with strength and intelligence. They just want to beat the Dems/Left.

It appears they approach politics like it's a sporting event.



We tried that, haven't we?

Been slim pickins for quite awhile and here we are.

Wanting to do the same thing over and over again expecting it will work this time for sure, is crazy.

The story is not how they portray it.





Well, it might be helpful if either side could vote in an "anti-establishment" candidate who wasn't a complete moron.

I mean, I sort of get it, as an act of protest, to keep voting in whatever populist champion you can get, even if he's ineffectual, thinking maybe eventually the parties would realize they need to change their platform positions and their behavior.

But Christ Almighty, the cure seems worse than the disease.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

Trump was hardly a populist candidate he was hated and maligned by every news organization and most politicians including politicians from his own party.
Trump wasn`t elected because he was a populist candidate he won the election because he WASN`T a populist candidate.

The election should have taught us all that people are sick of the same old, same old, populist candidates and will vote for a Donald trump before they will vote for a career politician populist candidate.


edit on 27-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dudemo5



But yeah, your sort of proving my point. This is why I don't want Trump impeached. You guys will show up in record numbers to vote some complete gomer into office again.


Bingo.

They do not seem to be concerned about voting for people who will govern with strength and intelligence. They just want to beat the Dems/Left.

It appears they approach politics like it's a sporting event.



Ya, it's a shame Obama had above average intelligence but was way short of governing with strength.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Dudemo5

Trump was hardly a populist candidate he was hated and maligned by every news organization and most politicians including politicians from his own party.
Trump wasn`t elected because he was a populist candidate he won the election because he WASN`T a populist candidate.



Lord, sometimes I wonder where you people come from.

www.bloomberg.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

well I don`t mean to pull a bill Clinton but obviously we need to define the word populist.

if gaining the most votes makes one a populist then according to the liberals Hillary was the populist candidate because she won the most "popular" votes, trump only won the most electorial college votes.
if you look at the definition of popular, trump certainly doesn`t fit that definition.
so, I`m thinking that popular is the root word of populist and since trump doesn`t fit the definition of popular then he probably doesn`t fit the definition of populist.




edit on 27-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about Kim Jong? That's his so-called area of expertise.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Dudemo5

well I don`t mean to pull a bill Clinton but obviously we need to define the word populist.

if gaining the most votes makes one a populist then according to the liberals Hillary was the populist candidate because she won the most "popular" votes, trump only won the most electorial college votes.





There are a number of good articles floating around if you want a good definition of Populist or Populism, but we probably don't need them for our purposes (it can get complicated).

But one hallmark of Populism is a claim to represent the common man, combined with anger or resentment at the ruling/governing class. Trump's entire campaign was based upon this.

Bernie Sanders and Trump were both Populist candidates.

Clinton was not.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus

if gaining the most votes makes one a populist




It doesn't. Populist doesn't mean "Popular."



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

so, you`re saying Hillary never claimed to represent the common man?

I`m pretty sure that isn`t true,but if it is maybe that`s why she lost the election.

The country is made up of mostly common men and women so if a politician doesn`t represent the common people then it`s no surprise that they would lose the election,and since the country is comprised of mostly common men and women then being a populist isn`t a bad thing.
in fact it means you represent the majority of the country.



edit on 27-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Dudemo5

so, you`re saying Hillary never claimed to represent the common man?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Go back and look at the characteristic of populism mentioned in my previous post. It contains TWO elements, not one:
1) A claim to represent the common man
2) Anger and resentment at the ruling/governing class



I`m pretty sure that isn`t true,but if it is maybe that`s why she lost the election.

Hillary never expressed any outrage at the "ruling class." Hell, she is ONE of the ruling class, not just from an outside perspective but by her own campaign hyperbole.

She lost the election because she sucks as a candidate.

And no, she's not a populist.



Trump's "Drain the Swamp" is a Populist siren call.

Bernie's constant attacks on corporate CEOs and big banks is also a Populist siren call.

You might want to go study up on what Populism means.

edit on 27-8-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
This is a good article describing what Populism is, and what it isn't:

www.theatlantic.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

ok, well lets look at the other definitions of populist and see if they fit your agenda:


a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies.

a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people


I`m pretty sure none of the candidates fit that first definition

and all the candidates proclaimed to fit the second definition.



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

No he didn't. He stated he does not speak for the president.

Did you even watch your own source?



posted on Aug, 27 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Dudemo5

ok, well lets look at the other definitions of populist and see if they fit your agenda:


a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies.

a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people


I`m pretty sure none of the candidates fit that first definition

and all the candidates proclaimed to fit the second definition.



Dude, give it up. Trump is a populist candidate. There are hundreds of well thought out articles online explaining what Populism is (as described by POLITICAL scientists) and showing how Trump is a Populist candidate.

It's pretty clear you're just learning what Populism is for the first time, while at the same time trying to win some stupid internet debate about something you know nothing about.

Take a deep breath and learn something. I've given you a couple of articles to read. There are lots more.
edit on 27-8-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)







 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join