It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Political zealots: have you no shame?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:00 AM
a reply to: JBurns

Trump full well knowingly broke campaign finance laws. If you don't see that you are blind and/or a fool. Don't you dare say you uphold the law or support the constitution blah blah blah if you don't think he should be indicted once out of office.

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:58 AM

originally posted by: Metallicus
I just wish there were more zealots for freedom and personal liberty. Both sides are sadly lacking of attention to things that actually matter.

Regardless of the left vs. right debate, of which I care none about as I'm neither of either, freedom is gone. Dead.

I live in Las Vegas, which is the reason we have The Eye in the Sky from Alan Parsons so very many years ago. Possibly the most heavily surveilled city of them all. And now I have a stupid phone as I couldn't even try to find nor get a job without one. Now I'm letting them surveil me. I freaking hate it but how else can I exist in this world?

And why is my spell checker telling me I spelled surveilled/surveil wrong? I looked it up and I have it right. Shows how much these stupid devices actually know. I do know I'm going blind but I'd swear I got that right.

Just watch the episode of Through the Wormhole w/ Morgan Freeman titled Is Privacy Dead? Privacy, and therefore freedom, is dead.

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:35 PM
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

There are measures you can take to prevent surveillance, especially of electronics.

But largely, I agree, too many cowards willing to sacrifice our liberty for something as petty as safety or security - which are some of the pettiest and most meaningless reasons for attacking liberty

Not even one shred of liberty is worth trading for any amount of security/safety. Our Constitution already grants us a maximum degree of safety through our second amendment, despite the government's infringement on this unalienable right (that shall not be why is it being infringed upon and what next?)

2A says "shall not be infringed" yet there is infringement. Clear infringement. Infringe is defined as: "actively break the terms of"
edit on 8/24/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:45 PM

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I think the biggest reason for the attacks on Trump is to keep him on the defensive, stopping him from implementing significant change and instituting a conservative agenda.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think that Trump's plan is instituting a conservative agenda when budget deficits and spending are out of control under this administration.... probably mean religious ideologies.

The days of fiscal conservatism are long gone.

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:01 PM
a reply to: darkbake

Would a real patriot stand by as it came to light that their President and his associates were engaged in criminal activity?

Nope. Not with *actual* evidence. Not talking about "connecting dots" or based on the "good word" of any human being (all humans are liars to some degree)

With actual, tangible evidence pursued in an fair/equal fashion patriots would not stand by that hypothetical President. But we are not anywhere near that point with Trump. There is nothing but a house of cards built on top of unsubstantiated "dot connecting" built on top of political partisans and lies (like the unaccredited dossier - whose author has even rejected)

Would a real patriot want the corruption to continue or to let the criminals off easy?

No one wants to see corruption or see criminals let off easy.

We do demand fair and equal application of the law. For instance, if you find President Trump violated the law by getting dirt on his opponent from foreign nationals attempting to influence our election then you must also conclude non-President Hillary Clinton violated the law by getting dirt on her opponent from foreign nationals attempting to influence our election.

Equal application of the "law" (if we're suddenly criminalizing having foreign contacts...which AFAIK is not a crime)

For instance, Trump should sit for an interview with Mueller.... as soon as he provides Trump/team the same considerations and accommodations he provided HIllary.

Just like campaign finance laws... as soon as someone can explain how/why Obama's campaign got off with a slap on the wrist yet *SOME* are trying to make a federal case of it RE: Trump then I'll accept he may be guilty

....but until those things happen, this is *still* a deep state/anti-Trump plot to remove him from office or make him a Bill Clinton-esque lame duck. Just like the retaliation for the email investigation, Democrats cheer the anti-Trump activities because it hurts someone they don't personally like. Just wait til this exact same series of events happens to the next Dem POTUS, then you'll see the problem with what you're all doing

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in