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.

 

The NYT should NOT release the name of the anonymous OP-ED writer

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
It isn't a stretch; t's a lie. The interesting question is why you'd say it.


Because there are nutbars in this thread saying it's time to start shooting. Me saying they would take care of the President's pent up frustration prior to that is just some fun to get all blind followers to smile.



No I get it. I just don't understand why one would try to show balance by using a truth to describe one side, but a falsity to describe another, unless he was biased.




posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


Yeah, that's nice, do you think the 'high ranking' executive isn't one of the 353 and it's some lower level dweeb that can do what they are claiming?

Put your Trump pom-poms down and use your brain.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
No I get it. I just don't understand why one would try to show balance by using a truth to describe one side, but a falsity to describe another, unless he was biased.


You can choose to ignore my factual statement about people wanting to shoot the other people. Not like the Trump fappers aren't here in this thread saying that.

Time for the new Civil War, baby!!! Bring it on.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


Yeah, that's nice, do you think the 'high ranking' executive isn't one of the 353 and it's some lower level dweeb that can do what they are claiming?

Put your Trump pom-poms down and use your brain.


Not so simple is it, despite your claims. Though you and perhaps even Trump would like to pretend it is, it isn't the Apprentice.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
No I get it. I just don't understand why one would try to show balance by using a truth to describe one side, but a falsity to describe another, unless he was biased.


You can choose to ignore my factual statement about people wanting to shoot the other people. Not like the Trump fappers aren't here in this thread saying that.

Time for the new Civil War, baby!!! Bring it on.


And you can ignore that you spouted a falsity to describe one side, but used a truth to describe another.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Not so simple is it, despite your claims. Though you and perhaps even Trump would like to pretend it is, it isn't the Apprentice.


Not, it is that simple. This person was appointed by him and when the name does come out, which it will, we'll find that it was someone that he had his hand in placing in that role.

Then the shooting can start and it will be glorious.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
And you can ignore that you spouted a falsity to describe one side, but used a truth to describe another.


Just because you don't want to service the President doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. Some people are obviously much more patriotic than you.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Not so simple is it, despite your claims. Though you and perhaps even Trump would like to pretend it is, it isn't the Apprentice.


Not, it is that simple. This person was appointed by him and when the name does come out, which it will, we'll find that it was someone that he had his hand in placing in that role.

Then the shooting can start and it will be glorious.


I don't doubt that. What I doubt is that we should blame Trump for something someone else admitted to doing.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
And you can ignore that you spouted a falsity to describe one side, but used a truth to describe another.


Just because you don't want to service the President doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. Some people are obviously much more patriotic than you.


Maybe you can find one?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
And you can ignore that you spouted a falsity to describe one side, but used a truth to describe another.


Just because you don't want to service the President doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. Some people are obviously much more patriotic than you.


Maybe you can find one?


Anyone willing to kill over an opinion piece (and probably some good inside information the nation should see) is far more than seven minutes in heaven if you catch my drift.

But honestly what I find funny is these triggerings happen almost weekly.

This one will be forgotten soon, and it will be something equally as petty in a few weeks. The pajama crew with face masks will break another window and people will go back to cleaning their guns while listening to Hannity then come on here to say how badass they are..... Gunna go do me sum killin'.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He appointed them for a specific function under his own authority. He did not grant them the power to subvert him, his office or our agenda. And he most certainly did *not* grant them across the board executive powers (or any degree thereof) which these unelected individuals have assumed.

They are appointed yes, but unelected. Appointed does not equal elected. And again, the scope of their appointment is very clear. The Constitution does not vest any Presidential authority/duties to these appointees outside the very specific scope (ie: to enforce and execute laws of the union, to establish diplomatic relations, to fight and win foreign wars, etc) of the appointment

You make an interesting argument though, one that could even persuade a court. I think the appointments clause could possibly shed light here, I am going to look it up.

for you AM. Thanks for the reasoned and fact based discussion



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Here is something I found in Wiki about the appointments clause


The Appointments Clause confers plenary power to the President to nominate various officials. It also confers plenary power to the Senate to reject or confirm a nominee, through its advice and consent provision. As with other separation of powers provisions in the Constitution, the wording here both ensures accountability and preempts tyranny.[1] This separation of powers between the President and Senate is also present in the (immediately preceding) Treaty Clause of the Constitution, which gives international treaty-making power to the President, but attaches to it the proviso of the Senate's advice and consent.


It seems a key focus of this clause (as well as the vast majority of the Constitution itself) is focused on preempting or otherwise inoculating against tyranny. That should also be kept in mind as we discuss individuals who have willfully decided to implement their own agenda in place of the People's agenda

To me it looks a problem bigger than left v. right. So why on Earth does condemnation come along party lines?
edit on 9/6/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

If you have an issue with the law you should address it via an act of congress. In this case, the crime and penalty is proscribed by the Constitution itself so an amendment is not quite as easy.

Don't shoot the messenger.

And where was this criticism when the left was falsely claiming Trump was guilty of treason? At least this OP-ED author admitted to their acts.
edit on 9/6/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Lol, the law doesn't say they'll be punished just because you twist it to fit your narrative.

Wait a few weeks. Some people might get fired. Guaranteed.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: DBCowboy this contest is ignorant. Read the definition in the federal statute

I dont see this person as a whistleblower, I see them as someone admitting in writing to sedition.


Talking about "sedition" in this context is absolutely ignorant. Read the statutory definition. Sedition is defined as fomenting an overthrow of the government by force. Of course, ignorance is the hallmark of the Trumpeteers.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Of course it doesn't "guarantee" anything, but then again those words never came out of my mouth (or keyboard). They did come out of yours though.

What it does is prohibit individuals from levying war or adhering to our enemies (foreign and domestic enemies) and provide specific penalties for conviction of that offense. I can't help if you don't approve of one or more of the penalties for breaking this or any other law

This is a conspiracy against the Constitution. Admitted in writing.

Not to mention verification of the deep state Trump has been fighting.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Thin skinned? If you're in power and need your circle to rely on, I' be damned if one of them were anons selling disinfo for leftist feed op-eds.

You don't know what you're talking about, much less been in THAT type of position, yes these are assumptions about you and I stand by them.


He's one of the thinnest skinned, hyper-sensitive politicians in the modern world. He's spent years moaning, whining, crying woe is me etc on social media every time someone calls him a name or bad mouths him.

A thick skinned person ignores trolling and gets on with the job like a grown-up.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
This is the point where the anonymous op-ed author should step forward and take a bow for triggering Trump into exhibiting exactly the traits described in the op-ed...with the op-ed.

From the op-ed:


Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.


I take some issue with labeling "free minds" and "free people" as being uniquely "conservative" ideals — in fact, if you were going to apply a label it would be "liberal" (in the traditional sense of the word) — but why bother as both the Left and the Right at least give lip service to the notion that they hold both in the highest regard.

But I mean come on, how better to display his erratic nature and illiberal tendencies than to Tweet a demand that the dissenting voice be turned over to government at once by the paper?


Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump

TREASON?

6:15 PM - 5 Sep 2018

Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

7:40 PM - 5 Sep 2018



We all know except those who prefer your type of spin for ignorant laughs at the POTUS expense, that the facts concerning the current Treason or Sedition simply doesn't matter if it has the intended end of usurping the election for POTUS 2016. The Commies in the Uniparty have a drain they need to go stand by and save us some time.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I imagine that if the Evil Hell-Queen Hillary The Loathsome had been elected and someone from her administration wrote something negative about her, we'd ALL want him/her to remain anonymous just so she wouldn't have him/her killed!


Only, they get killed when we don't know they have dirt worse than when we do know. We didn't know about Seth Rich and he sure appears to be killed by the HRC/DNC part of the Cabal.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Arnie123
Actual definition...


Here's the actual actual definition from the Constitution:


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


And the law Congress passed:


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


Notice 'war' in the Constitution has a capital 'w'. Who we at war with? Congress hasn't declared war since December of 1941. An Op-Ed, while Cheetolini may find it war-like, is not the definition of war or treason as laid out in that piece of paper those dudes signed.


Sedition it is then.




top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join