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.

 

Will Republicans Sanction Russia or Prove Their Treason with Inaction

page: 9
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DBCowboy

shouldn't he let the American people know? is that too hard?

no, he's not doing anything, if he were, he'd be bragging about.



Oh boy.

You do know that the government does tons of stuff that we never know about, right?

I mean, I spent a lifetime in the military doing nothing important, and I even know stuff.




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

OK, first explain who we are sanctioning and why?

Remember these are 13 Russian citizens and not the Russian government as a whole according to the indictments.

So, are you in favor of sanctioning an entire country for what some of its citizens did on social media?

I indulged your question and you wish to further evade the simple question I've asked instead in hopes of getting away from the answer which is already given by the Constitution of the United States of America.

No more deflections.

"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
"Yes" or "No."


What was Obama's constitutional duty in regards to DACA? He did not have the constitutional right to write an EO establishing DACA. Will you vilify him for doing so? Basically, if you can not admit that Obama stepped WAAAAAAY out of bounds when he did that, you have no moral high ground.

Yet another challenger who cannot answer a yes/no question, but wishes instead to deflect to Obama under the mistaken assumption that I am a Democrat.

I've already answered that when ketsuko tried to deflect. Read the thread. So many are not doing that.

Then answer the question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No


Yes and by your logic Obama should have been impeached for failure to do so.

Perhaps so, but it's a bit late for that.

Answer the question. Yes or No.

ok we get it mr kristol you hate POTUS
don't you have neocon opinion pieces to finish before press time?

Still unable to answer a simple "yes" or "no" I see.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


is he hiding it cuz he's scared of putin?



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DBCowboy


is he hiding it cuz he's scared of putin?





2 Assumptions.

One he is hiding.

Two, he is afraid.

Can you validate any of these, or is it just your opinion?



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


i think he's very afraid, but of course that's is just my opinion.

just like it's your assumption he's doing something, or else you'd validate.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

i have answered
you simply choose not to acknowledge it
thats ok
neocons should be distressed
trumps election to POTUS signals the end of your stranglehold on the gop
its ok for you to be angry
hillary was going to be almost as good as W

change is hard



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DBCowboy


i think he's very afraid, but of course that's is just my opinion.

just like it's your assumption he's doing something, or else you'd validate.




If I had proof, of course I'd validate.

But, alas, I am not in a position where the president of the United States answers to me.
































































Yet.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


lol

maybe he'll have the courage to at least admit it wasn't a hoax after all.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: DBCowboy


lol

maybe he'll have the courage to at least admit it wasn't a hoax after all.



Or maybe they'll just do what they always do and ignore us and our opinions.

Even though we've written on ATS, Trump probably still won't read it.




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: aethertek

I dunno... are the Democrats looking to slap sanctions on Enrique Peña Nieto for his citizens defrauding the United States, being here illegally, pretending they're legal US citizens, and working online to organize rallies, voter support, and contributions to candidates who are illegal friendly and pushed for amnesty and open borders? No? Why? Seems they're even more nefarious and damaging to this country's electoral process seeing as how the ends they seek actually cost Americans (real Americans) tax dollars, jobs, and loss of rights and freedoms whereas nobody has yet to fully explain what, exactly, the downside to me as an American was of this "Russian election meddling." If Russia's goal was to cost me money, cause me consternation, or otherwise harm the USA, then mission completely failed from where I stand.


Whataboutism? Really?

"What about illegals...what about...what about...?"

How about we DISCUSS the sanctions that 99% of congress voted in support of...and Trump even signed.
edit on 16-2-2018 by DanteGaland because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland


they won't even talk about a strategy to protect ourselves.

they don't care. it's crazy weak.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland




Whataboutism? Really?


Putin's playbook, they learn from their masters.

K~



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: aethertek

republicans only love rich white heterosexual christian Americans




If you're gonna go full-retard, do it right brah


Actually, I thought he did a rather passable impression.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Greven

i have answered
you simply choose not to acknowledge it
thats ok
neocons should be distressed
trumps election to POTUS signals the end of your stranglehold on the gop
its ok for you to be angry
hillary was going to be almost as good as W

change is hard

Your answer was "daca" not "yes" or "no" and whether you think daca is equivalent to yes or to no, I do not know.
Clarify.

Also, not a neocon.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

OK, first explain who we are sanctioning and why?

Remember these are 13 Russian citizens and not the Russian government as a whole according to the indictments.

So, are you in favor of sanctioning an entire country for what some of its citizens did on social media?

I indulged your question and you wish to further evade the simple question I've asked instead in hopes of getting away from the answer which is already given by the Constitution of the United States of America.

No more deflections.

"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
"Yes" or "No."


What was Obama's constitutional duty in regards to DACA? He did not have the constitutional right to write an EO establishing DACA. Will you vilify him for doing so? Basically, if you can not admit that Obama stepped WAAAAAAY out of bounds when he did that, you have no moral high ground.

Yet another challenger who cannot answer a yes/no question, but wishes instead to deflect to Obama under the mistaken assumption that I am a Democrat.

I've already answered that when ketsuko tried to deflect. Read the thread. So many are not doing that.

Then answer the question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No


Yes and by your logic Obama should have been impeached for failure to do so.

Perhaps so, but it's a bit late for that.

Answer the question. Yes or No.

ok we get it mr kristol you hate POTUS
don't you have neocon opinion pieces to finish before press time?

Still unable to answer a simple "yes" or "no" I see.


Why should anyone else answer you? You took my answer and tried to twist it into something it wasn't. You don't want an answer out of curiosity. You want something to use to attempt to beat someone over the head with and proclaim yourself the victor.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Greven

i have answered
you simply choose not to acknowledge it
thats ok
neocons should be distressed
trumps election to POTUS signals the end of your stranglehold on the gop
its ok for you to be angry
hillary was going to be almost as good as W

change is hard

Your answer was "daca" not "yes" or "no" and whether you think daca is equivalent to yes or to no, I do not know.
Clarify.

Also, not a neocon.

oh really???
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the foreign policy platform of the Democratic Party.
what were you asking about again?



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

Obama already sanctioned Russia for meddling in the 2016 election....



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: aethertek

I dunno... are the Democrats looking to slap sanctions on Enrique Peña Nieto for his citizens defrauding the United States, being here illegally, pretending they're legal US citizens, and working online to organize rallies, voter support, and contributions to candidates who are illegal friendly and pushed for amnesty and open borders? No? Why? Seems they're even more nefarious and damaging to this country's electoral process seeing as how the ends they seek actually cost Americans (real Americans) tax dollars, jobs, and loss of rights and freedoms whereas nobody has yet to fully explain what, exactly, the downside to me as an American was of this "Russian election meddling." If Russia's goal was to cost me money, cause me consternation, or otherwise harm the USA, then mission completely failed from where I stand.


Whataboutism? Really?

"What about illegals...what about...what about...?"

How about we DISCUSS the sanctions that 99% of congress voted in support of...and Trump even signed.




He signed it already?

Why is it not in place?!!

Better talk to them hawaiian judges.

They seem to dictate foreign policy now.




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...

and so did Trump....



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

OK, first explain who we are sanctioning and why?

Remember these are 13 Russian citizens and not the Russian government as a whole according to the indictments.

So, are you in favor of sanctioning an entire country for what some of its citizens did on social media?

I indulged your question and you wish to further evade the simple question I've asked instead in hopes of getting away from the answer which is already given by the Constitution of the United States of America.

No more deflections.

"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
"Yes" or "No."


What was Obama's constitutional duty in regards to DACA? He did not have the constitutional right to write an EO establishing DACA. Will you vilify him for doing so? Basically, if you can not admit that Obama stepped WAAAAAAY out of bounds when he did that, you have no moral high ground.

Yet another challenger who cannot answer a yes/no question, but wishes instead to deflect to Obama under the mistaken assumption that I am a Democrat.

I've already answered that when ketsuko tried to deflect. Read the thread. So many are not doing that.

Then answer the question:
"Is it okay for the President of the United States of America to disobey his or her Constitutional duty?"
Yes or No


Yes and by your logic Obama should have been impeached for failure to do so.

Perhaps so, but it's a bit late for that.

Answer the question. Yes or No.

ok we get it mr kristol you hate POTUS
don't you have neocon opinion pieces to finish before press time?

Still unable to answer a simple "yes" or "no" I see.


Why should anyone else answer you? You took my answer and tried to twist it into something it wasn't. You don't want an answer out of curiosity. You want something to use to attempt to beat someone over the head with and proclaim yourself the victor.

This is an odd response.

You wrote:

originally posted by: Khaleesi
There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.


I replied:

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Khaleesi
There are times when the law is wrong. In some instances the president has a moral obligation to disobey the law.

You advocate for a nation where laws are malleable for those with whom you agree.

That is dangerous territory.


The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. By saying that the president sometimes has an obligation to disobey the law, you advocating that the supreme law of the land is malleable.

Who decides the moral circumstance that allows such malleability?

You? Me? Who?

I'm not trying to bash people. I'm pointing out what I believe to be a flaw in your argument. If laws can be malleable for whatever 'moral obligation' means to whomever feels that way - then they are no longer laws.
edit on 0Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:11:07 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)







 
53
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join