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.

 

A War Trump Won

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Seeing that ISIS™ has been 'defeated', any idea if they'll be selling all those white, brand new Toyotas™ they got from the State Dep't.?


I'm thinking more than a 'defeat' its just ALL the mercenaries who play ISIS™ terrorists, took Chris†mas™ off to spend the Holiday with their families and blowing that fat Xmas bonus $$$.. They'll be back (probably with new gear) the first of the year OR when its convenient.




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Lies. I see propaganda media at Fox News that is almost always positive about Trump. It's always funny how Trump supporters try to pretend like Fox News and the Conservative media sphere isn't ever propaganda or subject to pushing a false or distorted narrative.
edit on 18-12-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not lies

Even if fox was 100% positive (I don't know, I don't watch TV, but I doubt that's the case as they were barely positive during the election) that wouldn't make up for three other networks being 90% negative.

Here's a harvard study from may analyzing how positive each was, including fox. Fox was 52% negative and 48% positive.
Link
edit on 18-12-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias

Yeah that sounds like a non-partisan and unbiased source to me.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

source ad homs are all you've got? Here, how about Harvard

From the link:

Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.


That's insanity.
edit on 18-12-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

source ad homs are all you've got?

Spade is a spade. That source didn't even hide its partisan slant and displayed it on the site's title page.

At least the Harvard source is a better source than your first one. BTW, that source says the number is 80% negative; not 90%. Also, this study was tallied 100 days after Trump took over office. Currently, it's about one month shy of a year Trump has been in office. What about the rest of that time? The Harvard study is out-of-date on this front. You need updated scientific data to make a claim about the current state of media coverage.
edit on 18-12-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
So a conservative opinion columnist credits Trump for something? Stop the presses!
edit on 18-12-2017 by Regnor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Grimpachi

Ahhh yes, back into the "he didn't fight the war so he gets no credit" corner. So much for credit where credit is due, huh? Trump made changes to how the war was managed. The results are better than his predecessor's. Ergo, he deserves credit for the changes he made. No one is trying to give him a purple heart.


You keep saying he changed things which led to a win, but you haven't shown what those changes are. You say he let the military do what they needed to do, but you proved that previous administrations did as well. Basically, you make it look like Trump told the military to go win a war then sat back and waited for it to happen. Pretty much the only thing that changed from Obama to Trump was more drone strikes, but if I remember drone strikes was what Trump and many of his supporters were crying foul about with Obama. A bunch of hypocrites.

If he stayed out of the military's way that's great since the botched raid he presided over that was probably the right choice. I will not call it great leadership on his part, but I will say at least had enough common sense to not manage things from then on.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This sounds like a throwback to this


At least it's only Fox News saying it and not the President this time.


Actually it's just Fox reporting what the New York Times wrote.

Nice of you to try, though.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Regnor
So a conservative opinion columnist credits Trump for something? Stop the presses!


Nice try.....


Ross Douthat, who previously endorsed Hillary Clinton,


He's not a leading Conservative voice.
edit on 18-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

If you think the dislike for Trump is as deep as some silly hashtag on Twitter then you have SERIOUSLY underestimated the liberal base. It's not like you have to look far to find other Americans with like minded opinions on Trump or anything:
Poll: Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record

But I'm guessing since it's a negative poll about Trump it's flawed.


The same polls that said Hillary had a 90% chance of winning. The joke is on you.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
ISIS took the bit in their teeth and ran with the idea of causing Armageddon, in this past year. They grabbed the correct piece of ground, but Trump unleashing his Sec'y of Defense, ran their prophecised time table into the crapper. More importantly, if humans can defeat, change, or delay, a dated prophecy, then it's only a false prophecy. A more interesting one is that 2017 begins the Ragnarok, in the old Norse Religion. But this Clusterflub starts up in the Heavens, and then finds it's way down here, to Earth. So, have you seen any Valkyries, lurking around??



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtruckerthats bs because isis works for the saudis and as long as they can hide behing money and oil they will keep region and world in turmoil.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Aw yes he is. He once wrote an article called "Dick Cheney for President". And IF he did endorse Hillary Clinton it was only because he was disgusted by Trump personally and not anything Hillary could offer.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TinfoilTP

They'll either credit Obama or ignore it.

While ISIS has not been totally defeated, they have been beaten back.





They might even claim "IT WAS SHILLARY NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!...



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: nwtruckerthats bs because isis works for the saudis and as long as they can hide behing money and oil they will keep region and world in turmoil.



Isis works for the Saudis??? Now that's BS. The Saudis are cleaning house as we speak.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: nwtruckerthats bs because isis works for the saudis and as long as they can hide behing money and oil they will keep region and world in turmoil.



Isis works for the Saudis??? Now that's BS. The Saudis are cleaning house as we speak.


It's not BS. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar all had a hand in the growth of ISIS. ISIS was whahabbist at its core. SA and Qatar supplied the money and Turkey the route for men and arms to make their way into Syria. That S.A. now seems to have had a Change of heart is good news but there is ample evidence the House of Saud wanted to topple Assad BAMN.

You never wondered why ISIS didn't drive South into the Saudi Oilfields when they had the chance?
edit on 18-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't see money pouring to the rebels who were pouring those weapons back to Isis, as with Obama. I don't see where Obama addressed the ME leaders, explained the new U.S. position and adhere to it as Trump has. Botched raid? See any more chemical attacks since? I haven't....


At the very least, Obama's support of the Muslim Brotherhood , his labeling of Isis as ISIL, hence implying support for an Islamic super-state, his lack of support for the actions in Egypt and Syria, taking a back seat to both England AND France..

A completely different picture since Trump took office. Simply put, Obama's actions looked 'lip-service'. Trump? Job one.



edit on 18-12-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Source ad homs fall flat. It's a sign of intellectual shallowness. Debunk their logic or method. And are you seriously arguing that 80% negative is A-OK, but 90 is just a road to far? LOL



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Regnor

Voting For Hillary Clinton gets your Conservative Credentials Card revoked, in my book.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join