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.

 

NYT refuses to use the term "President" Trump

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: ZombieZygote

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: 00018GE
here's the link to the story. A story about CNN faking news. Time after time they refer to him as "Mr." Trump NOT "President" Trump. Pot meet Kettle! wow!
How about a little respect.
www.nytimes.com...


He has to earn it first.


Huh. Figured that he did just that by actually becoming President. Odd standards you live by.



Do you respect bill clinton and obama?


I didn't say I respect Trump, I merely pointed out the fact that he literally is President Trump. Since he, you know, became president and all.

Also, hell no I don't respect those genocidal sociopaths. But I still used the term President Clinton or President Obama when referring to them. You know, since they became president and all.




posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ZombieZygote



Also, hell no I don't respect those genocidal sociopaths.


So who was the genocide directed towards? Sources please. For each.

Also do you know what a sociopath is? Because I don't think you do.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: ZombieZygote



Also, hell no I don't respect those genocidal sociopaths.


So who was the genocide directed towards? Sources please. For each.

Also do you know what a sociopath is? Because I don't think you do.



Upon further review, you are correct. They aren't sociopaths. They are psychopaths. They have zero empathy for the countless lives destroyed by their policies and actions.

In Obama's case, completely destroying Libya, which had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, led to a very large number of completely innocent people in a sovereign nation being murdered and eventually starved by the "peaceful" USA. Tens of thousands of Libyans we're killed and hundreds of thousands became homeless or refugees. At least they finally have a Rothschild owned Central Bank though....(which was being built during the conflict. Odd timing.)
fpif.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...

Bill Clinton had an incredible dearth of knowledge and reports being fed to him about the 1994 Rwanda genocide, and deliberately suppressed information to justify inaction and ignorance. He could have put a stop to it though the U.N. or a myriad of other means. The scumbag did nothing.
www.theguardian.com...
Then of course their is the whole signing of NAFTA thing, which incentivized horrific sweat shops and slave labor in poor countries, so first world countries can have cheaper conveniences that they don't need at the expense of other people's miserable lives.

Swell chaps, no?



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   


1. As others have stated, they called him "President Trump" in the article opening lines, so...
2. Regardless, who really cares? This is sort of what we need and want here. As long as the MSM are teeing off on the man over horsecrap nothings, his base grows larger and the media loses narrative control. I sincerely hope they disrespect my president for the next 4 years, ensuring he is reelected and gets another 4 years to piss them rightly off.
3. There's a lot to be said for the idea that it's better to be hated and feared than respected among those who are, themselves, unrespectable. In that regard, I'm not sure anyone with half a frog's hair worth of self respect would want to be respected by most of these goobers.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
beats being called an ape...



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ZombieZygote

Why should any president be respected I feel in principle they are civil servants that are employed to serve a Job for four years and in an ideal world they would work for the nation populace they serve instead of serving their own self interest and the interests of others behind the scenes.

They aren't royalty and should be subject to the limitations on their power set forth in the constitution.
In my opinion the executive branch has gotten too powerful over the last century and could stand to be scaled back a bit.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
beats being called an ape...


Yeah, it was not cool that "chimp" was how many referred to Bush.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join