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.

 

Removing Trump by Force?

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: angeldoll

Your premise is that those who knew about it opposed it. They didn't.


And you support nuclear war, then? And if one person decided he wanted it, you would go along with that because, trump??


You make the mistake of assuming just one person can decide they want to launch our nukes here unless we've been launched on first.




posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




We aren't no matter how scared you are.


who said I was scared.

I have just wrote what I thought could be a thought provoking hypothetical thread and you lot seem to have lost your minds.

Actually the way some of you are posting on this thread I think I know who the scared ones are



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
We're talking hypothetically, not about next Wednesday.


Is this like that time you hypothetically asked me to shave your back?


Hypothetically, the dress I was wearing was backless.

So you'd have to.

Hypothetically.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Well, no, we should obviously all get vaporized and like it.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Scared or exasperated?



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

Hypothetically some wars are worth fighting?

Hypothetically that would include the Nazis forcing language change on occupied lands, I've never came across that scenario in reality.

Did they force language change in places like France?

I know the Italians took the biscuit within it's colonies, but you're alluding to German Fascists.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Good luck getting an answer. I know 10 million people would back him up in that decision
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK




Say you had a president absolutely opposed to launching those missiles in the face of a similar existential threat? Would you then say its ok for the military to usurp that one and launch the nukes themselves?


dam thats a good question.

It actually came up during the last election in the UK after Corbyn refused to give a definitive answer if he would use nukes or not.

I think if you were talking about a situation whereby a hostile state was just getting ready to launch nukes at say London and the PM was refusing to launch, despite it being possible that launching would prevent the loss of millions then I would have to say yes.

I wonder how Trump supporters would feel about a similar situation.
edit on 3-11-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

The would would be cleansed of all undesirables by now if we hadn't. Of course, what your definition of undesirable and the Nazi's was might differ quite a bit.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: angeldoll

Your premise is that those who knew about it opposed it. They didn't.


And you support nuclear war, then? And if one person decided he wanted it, you would go along with that because, trump??


You make the mistake of assuming just one person can decide they want to launch our nukes here unless we've been launched on first.


And you make the mistake of assuming we are not responding to a hypothetical scenario, in which he can.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
It seems this “hypothetical question “ came from a train of thought “how can Trump be forcefully removed by force”

“Got it! Maybe if the world was on brink of nuclear war. I’ll go post a thread and ask this hypothetical question but not seem I’m not actually thinking about him being removed”

The hypothetical question here can be discussed about any President of any country. Past, present or in the future. The question should be that. Not pointing at Trump solely. Also it wouldn’t be Trump only.

Look at Truman in WW2. A lot of people were pushing for it.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Very little would be different today. In fact, you can look at any of the subsequent examples of genocide in the world. It never happens because of just one man. It happens because many people suddenly decide to act against another group for whatever reason.

The victims rarely fight back because they are either in fact powerless to do so, or because they keep hoping it wont happen to them.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: FredWreck
Good luck getting an answer. I know 10 million people would back him up in that decision
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



well so far I have to say I have had a few good ones.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
If Trump was on the verge of starting WWIII it would be because the Rothschild's instructed him to do so. Removing him by force and installing another puppet won't change anything.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: SprocketUK




Say you had a president absolutely opposed to launching those missiles in the face of a similar existential threat? Would you then say its ok for the military to usurp that one and launch the nukes themselves?


dam thats a good question.

It actually came up during the last election in the UK after Corbyn refused to give a definitive answer if he would use nukes or not.

I think if you were talking about a situation whereby a hostile state was just getting ready to launch nukes at say London and the PM was refusing to launch, despite it being possible that launching would prevent the loss of millions then I would have to say yes.


I remember and have zero confidence in Corbyn ever launching a retaliatory strike so if he gets elected we may as well scrap our nukes and spend the money on MP's salaries, kickbacks etc


The point behind my statement was that if you look back most bad decisions were made by a small group of people trying to do what they thought of as the right thing. Generally if you leave it up to the electorate, they tend to get things right, so no, he shouldn't be removed. People knew what they were getting when they voted for The Donald, just as they would know what they were getting if they voted for Jezza.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
If Trump was on the verge of starting WWIII it would be because the Rothschild's instructed him to do so. Removing him by force and installing another puppet won't change anything.


I guess if you believe that then yeah thats actually a fair point.

Who is to say whoever replaces him would not just do the exact same thing because of whoever is pulling the strings.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: loam Thank you for answering my question. I love hearing people's personal answers. In basic history books they don't cover that aspect of history. Could be that middle and high school kids may be young to hear the true facts. Either way thank ya


edit on 2/19/2013 by Allaroundyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK




The point behind my statement was that if you look back most bad decisions were made by a small group of people trying to do what they thought of as the right thing. Generally if you leave it up to the electorate, they tend to get things right, so no, he shouldn't be removed. People knew what they were getting when they voted for The Donald, just as they would know what they were getting if they voted for Jezza.


yup am totally with you on that.

I think that if it ever came to it I am sure that Trump would be acting in a way he thought was right, I don't actually believe he would act in a deliberately malevolent way.

And yeah I suppose people knew who they voted for, even in this hypothetical in the real world the people who voted for Trump knew that he supported the use of nukes so thats also a very good point.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Should Roosevelt's Generals have staged a coup when they realized the President was going to enter a war and get 400,000+ Americans killed.

Absolutely, Germanys military had a responsibility to do something to stop Hitler from waging war. There should be no question in anyone's mind about that.

The "hypothetical" question is should there be a coup against the President to keep him from starting a World War.

Had America remained neutral (somewhat neutral as we were assisting in the war effort) during the war, it would not have been a World War. Should a coup have been staged to depose FDR in order to save American lives? Who does the President of the United States, the United States Military (Generals), American politicians, and the American people owe a responsibility to?


edit on 3-11-2017 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Trump is doing a good job,just because a few libtards don't like him,hardly any cause,grow the F up



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join