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.

 

Republicans Block Attempt To Question Donald Trump’s Interpreter

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Never an open mic around when you need one:





posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

"Nice to know you support dictatorship"

Honestly, how much of a clod can you be? Are their limits to the depth of the logic hole you want to dig yourself, or are you just intending to reach the core of the planet, have a break, then visit China on the other side after a bit more digging?

A dictatorship is a system of governance in which one person or very small group thereof, controls everything, with everyone else subservient to them in every respect. Your President, in refusing to share data with his underlings, is behaving in dictatorial fashion, PRECISELY like a dictator in fact. If he were not, he would have asked to be debriefed by the intelligence heads after his meeting, so that everyone on his team was singing from the same hymn sheet, because it is a significant risk to national security, to have the nations intelligence heads unaware of the goings on in such an important meeting.

Do you live in Flint, Michigan or something? Because surely to God there is something bad in the water you are drinking.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


I have read it, and likely in a great deal more depth than you have. However, that document makes no allowances for a person being in the office of president, who does not know when to speak and when to remain silent, or indeed what to say when his mouth is open.

Maybe because all those attributes are subjective? You know, the basis of law used by every dictator since the first cave man held a bigger club? Dictators get to make subjective decisions... we do not do that.

And no, you obviously had the document upside down when you tried to read it. Turn it over.


Were your president a capable diplomat...

More subjective reasoning...


Your President is an incompetent oaf, who is more than capable of sharing critical data with a person who should not have it!

Yes, he is able to share data! You did read the Constitution (well, Constitutional law)! The President can declassify information at any time he wants, to whoever he wants, however he wants. That's because he's the President!

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Wow... thank you for clarifying that it is at the Presidents discretion, whether he puts America at huge risk, and that nothing can ever be done to prevent it, should he decide to hang his nation out to dry.

Well done, bravo, you committed patriot you.

Oh, no, wait, thats the word you use when people challenge insanity in their government, my mistake, I should have said servant, i.e. drone, automaton.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


A dictatorship is a system of governance in which one person or very small group thereof, controls everything, with everyone else subservient to them in every respect.

That is exactly my point. In a dictatorship, laws are not absolute and can be changed on a whim. You apparently either are completely unfamiliar with the laws that govern our country, which you (attempt to) refute, or you support changing the laws on a whim just because "I don't like this." That is an attribute of dictatorship. If written laws are strictly enforced, a dictatorship cannot happen by definition.

And Trump acting like a dictator? That is completely ludicrous. He's acting like a President. You just don't like him.

Too damn bad. He didn't run for British Prime Minister. You got stuck with Theresa May. Come to think of it, I can see why you're so upset...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Plus there is the ongoing suspicions of him colluding with Russia. Regardless whether the suspicions are true or not, meeting privately with the head of a country he is currently suspected of colluding with isn't a good look.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


Wow... thank you for clarifying that it is at the Presidents discretion, whether he puts America at huge risk, and that nothing can ever be done to prevent it, should he decide to hang his nation out to dry.

Yeah, that's the way we do it, for 235 years and counting since we managed to kick out the occupying force that was here. I would explain the legal checks and balances to you, but I doubt you would even try to understand it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




The double standards at work in the GOP and indeed in the Republican base during this Presidency, have been nothing short of epic in scale

What is there about a "secret meeting" i.e. classified that you do not understand ?
Hades , Obama won a transparency in government award in a closed , secure meeting...
Now that is hypocrisy at its finest
Clinton had the secret meetings with China
Even Carter had the secret meetings with Iran

edit on 7/20/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Today's Republicans are traitors pure and simple.


Both parties have their good and bad. I am typically a staunch independent...

That said I am completely against the Democrats mission to put their woes with Russia because they ran some propaganda online.

Rather than admit Hillary was a bad choice, they'd risk deteriorating already flimsy ties between two large superpowers with a history of bad blood.

You are certainly right that there are and have been some Republican traitors, humans will be human and do bad things.

Risking war because you can't admit you lost.... Pot calling kettle black?



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Your point is bogus, because, again, if he were behaving like something other than a dictator, his intelligence officials would not be wondering what was said, because he would have told them.

And as for this garbage...



or you support changing the laws on a whim just because "I don't like this."


Do you have a reading comprehension problem as well? A visit to the doctors might be an idea, this water problem is definitely getting to you.

NO, I do not support changing laws on a whim because of personal opinion. It is not an opinion that having Trump meet with Putin without any monitoring or debrief to the intelligence heads is a national security threat, its a damned fact! The man has no discretion. That is a threat. There is no other way to see the thing, without closing your eyes first and merely imagining it to be different!



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:59 AM
link   
What is it with people who think because they think something that its 100% right and by GOD it better be done.
What is this thinking?
Go vote ffs.
And foreigners, your thought bubbles are null/void to me. Worry about your own.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TrueBrit

Plus there is the ongoing suspicions of him colluding with Russia. Regardless whether the suspicions are true or not, meeting privately with the head of a country he is currently suspected of colluding with isn't a good look.


Couldn't they just pick up a phone and talk if they wanted to? What would be the difference?



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The difference is that the intelligence services would have a damned idea what was said, making their job... Oh, I don't know, remotely possible, instead of absolutely impossible?



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TrueBrit

Plus there is the ongoing suspicions of him colluding with Russia. Regardless whether the suspicions are true or not, meeting privately with the head of a country he is currently suspected of colluding with isn't a good look.


Couldn't they just pick up a phone and talk if they wanted to? What would be the difference?

The phone would be tapped and monitored by both countries' (but most importantly, our) intelligence agencies.
edit on 20-7-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


Your point is bogus, because, again, if he were behaving...

I see you're still not reading what I type. You do understand the word "subjective," don't you? Thus far, you have not given a single objective reason that supports your idea that...


I do not support changing laws on a whim because of personal opinion. It is not an opinion that having Trump meet with Putin without any monitoring or debrief to the intelligence heads is a national security threat, its a damned fact!

That is the definition of an opinion. Literally. Merriam Webster probably has a job opening for you.

You could define "oxymoronic" with that post, too. "I don't support changing laws on an opinion, but my opinion is not an opinion! Dammit!"

I guess since you can't read my location, though, I shouldn't expect much more... bigly sad.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The difference is that the intelligence services would have a damned idea what was said, making their job... Oh, I don't know, remotely possible, instead of absolutely impossible?


How is their job impossible now? The IC in the US has an aggressive stance towards Russia (rightfully so).

You think that they aren't dedicated assets to making sure we have fail safes on our contingency plans?

Look, I wish I knew what the meeting was about, this subject has been a blight on American politics. But I seriously don't get why so many people want us to piss on our ties with Russia, because they put out some propaganda (for both sides) and some people didn't like the way this election turned out. Fun fact, if he did lose, this conversation would be about Hillary and the dossier. They know what they're doing, and they're doing it well.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Force your silly queen to provide transcripts of her talks with Trump--how far will that get you or your parliament?

Or is that a faux pas that will never happen?

See, here's the thing--sometimes the Congress of the U.S. (the legislative branch) is in no position to need to know what the head of the executive branch is discussing with foreign leaders. That's the thing...they each have separate jobs and are not always privy to what the other is doing (unless there is a need to know, which in this case, there isn't).

And when one side, for purely political reasons based on a knowingly false "collusion" narrative that has yielded nothing of substance concerning the POTUS, demands testimony of closed-doors discussions between heads of states, I'm glad to see that they are being denied. Congress is not privy to every word that comes out of the President's mouth, nor should they be.

But again, while you berate our president and speak in passive-aggressive words where you hope that people in our government off themselves in some way (not the first time you've alluded to this--it's a childish and pathetic tactic) while pretending the world only stands with people in America opposed to Trump, you have an antiquated monarchy that is about as secretive as they come. Hell, even Piers Morgan had to take your countrymen to task--you included, by the way you talk--about whining about Trump at every turn.

The irony is palpable--you guys piss and moan about Trump walking before your queen and float idiotic Trump-baby balloons during his visit, yet you pretend that you possess the intellectual integrity to berate us? That's the best chuckle that I've had in a while.

ETA:


originally posted by: TrueBrit

It is not an opinion that having Trump meet with Putin without any monitoring or debrief to the intelligence heads is a national security threat, its a damned fact! The man has no discretion. That is a threat. There is no other way to see the thing, without closing your eyes first and merely imagining it to be different!

Actually, yes, that is an opinion--your conclusion is based on your belief that Trump is inherently dangerous when talking to foreign leaders because...well, because he's Trump.

You imply that (a) he needs monitored 100% of the time because you can't trust him, or (b) that he must swiftly go debrief the "intelligence heads" because otherwise you're certain that he must have caused a problem due to his lack of discretion.

What utterly silly nonsense. Seriously, you couldn't sound more paranoid if you put forth a concerted effort to be a caricature of a paranoid individual.


edit on 20-7-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I read what you typed, but what you typed is not accurate.

You can call the truth an opinion all you like, but it does not change the facts. Your president is a security hazard. Its not just my opinion, its a reality you need to deal with as a country, preferably before it causes you trouble you cannot avoid or mitigate for.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Piers Morgan is in no position to educate anyone on proper conduct. He is beneath notice, and worthy of only the most complete contempt, therefore his concerns mean less than nothing.

And I did not suggest that the broad body of congress needs to know what was said in that room, but I do say that the intelligence heads need to know what was said, because it is their job to protect the nation, or so we are told. In order to do that, they need to be sure that the President has not outed or compromised any of their assets, something they cannot be sure of because he refuses to share anything with them.

And as for your poke about the Queen, unlike Russia, there is a long history of co-operation and unity between Britain and America. That makes the situation rather less concerning, especially since the Queen is in no position to act on uncarefully provided intelligence from the President, being as she is purely a figurehead, possessed of little to no power of her own, not even the power to refuse to meet the man a power she would absolutely have exercised if she could possibly have done, which you would know if you were fit to comment on her at all.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They could text each other on FBI phones--those are super-secret.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join