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.

 

How is Trump a Fascist?

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

He just call for the Op-ED poster to be turned over to the government.

Not fired.

I agree the person will be fired when they find out who it is.




posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I took the oath as well....



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: network dude

I took the oath as well....


then I assume you understand the gravity of all this.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Took the oath, did time in boots.

Never really talked about 1st amendment right much during that time. Still, that is what this is about, after all, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tovenar

One part propaganda, two parts fevered imagination, and dupes will believe he is a fascist. That's how he is a fascist: only in the minds of those hwo oppose him.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: network dude

I took the oath as well....


then I assume you understand the gravity of all this.


My guess is the OP-ED author spoke with a lawyer(s) before going to the NYT.

And the NYT screens this type of thing through a team of lawyers before print.

Logic tells me there is no implied crimes here, just a disgruntled/attention whore employee setting the stage for a book in the future.... We all know that name is coming out one way or another. They are going to self identify, or the government is gonna pull an Obama and tap devices until they get the source.

Seeing as the NYT has been burned by Obama and Trump by having their sources forcefully taken, they may have done an old fashion no paper/digital trail exchange this time around.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Fools

He just call for the Op-ED poster to be turned over to the government.

Not fired.

I agree the person will be fired when they find out who it is.


What exactly being turned over to the government mean and is that the entirety of the quote or a snippet or is it a paraphrased quote? I will check your link and see.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Fools

He just call for the Op-ED poster to be turned over to the government.

Not fired.

I agree the person will be fired when they find out who it is.


What exactly being turned over to the government mean and is that the entirety of the quote or a snippet or is it a paraphrased quote? I will check your link and see.


I found the tweet:

"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!"

I wonder how to define that as illegal. It seems that you do - I am not sure really. I didn't read the entire complaint and what was stated and whether or not it is a national security issue.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: network dude

Took the oath, did time in boots.

Never really talked about 1st amendment right much during that time. Still, that is what this is about, after all, isn't it?


no. it's not. If all this is, is some blabermouth trying to troll Trump, then sure, it's all fun and games. But the second there is validity to this claim, and this person might well exist, then I would expect every person with a pulse, who has taken that same oath, and is currently, or previously served, to not only condemn this, but to do all in their power to remove it and extinguish it. The oath we took never once offered the caviot that we didn't have to follow through if we didn't like the POTUS. Regardless of what Trump is, or isn't, he is the God damned president of the United States, he was elected by the process set forth in the Constitution, and we vowed to support and defend that office and his orders, with our lives if necessary.

If you think this is about the first amendment, you aren't paying attention IMHO. If you feel differently, I'm open to hearing why.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: network dude

I took the oath as well....


then I assume you understand the gravity of all this.


My guess is the OP-ED author spoke with a lawyer(s) before going to the NYT.

And the NYT screens this type of thing through a team of lawyers before print.

Logic tells me there is no implied crimes here, just a disgruntled/attention whore employee setting the stage for a book in the future.... We all know that name is coming out one way or another. They are going to self identify, or the government is gonna pull an Obama and tap devices until they get the source.

Seeing as the NYT has been burned by Obama and Trump by having their sources forcefully taken, they may have done an old fashion no paper/digital trail exchange this time around.


unless this is true. If so, then if you can't understand the crime, you have little to no understanding of the Constitution that binds our nation. I don't mean that as a slight, it's a fact I can and will back up.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: network dude

I took the oath as well....


then I assume you understand the gravity of all this.


My guess is the OP-ED author spoke with a lawyer(s) before going to the NYT.

And the NYT screens this type of thing through a team of lawyers before print.

Logic tells me there is no implied crimes here, just a disgruntled/attention whore employee setting the stage for a book in the future.... We all know that name is coming out one way or another. They are going to self identify, or the government is gonna pull an Obama and tap devices until they get the source.

Seeing as the NYT has been burned by Obama and Trump by having their sources forcefully taken, they may have done an old fashion no paper/digital trail exchange this time around.


unless this is true. If so, then if you can't understand the crime, you have little to no understanding of the Constitution that binds our nation. I don't mean that as a slight, it's a fact I can and will back up.


No offense taken, you're a respected member.

It depends on the manner they tried to block some of his policies/actions. Did they do so by teaming up on a point and convincing him against enacting/acting? If so, that's literally the job of the cabinet.

Maybe if they slighted him somehow could it be considered a crime. But I doubt that's the case as I said before, I'm sure plenty of lawyers were involved before this story got released.

Either way, we'll find out soon, that's something I'm fairly confident of.
edit on 6-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
dbl
edit on 6-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools




What exactly being turned over to the government mean and is that the entirety of the quote or a snippet or is it a paraphrased quote? I will check your link and see.


A tweet from Trump. Who knows what it means?

Sounds scary.

How would you feel if the president of a country was calling you to be "turned over to the government" for an opinion you wrote here?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




The oath we took never once offered the caviot that we didn't have to follow through if we didn't like the POTUS. Regardless of what Trump is, or isn't, he is the God damned president of the United States, he was elected by the process set forth in the Constitution, and we vowed to support and defend that office and his orders, with our lives if necessary.


I took an oath to defend the constitution. Not illegal orders, or blindly following the cult of a person.

I see this dust up coming from a person - Trump - who does not even understand the constitution, and wants people turned over to the government (as one posted pointed out - whatever that means) for exercising his 1st amendment rights in an OP-ED.

Get off your high horse. You are not the only one who served. I can right "god Damed" too.

And no one gives up their 1st , just because the president is a fascist.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I understand what you mean. Maybe it isnt something we can fix. Maybe we should just meditate over it.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Fools




What exactly being turned over to the government mean and is that the entirety of the quote or a snippet or is it a paraphrased quote? I will check your link and see.


A tweet from Trump. Who knows what it means?

Sounds scary.

How would you feel if the president of a country was calling you to be "turned over to the government" for an opinion you wrote here?


Until it's determined if this is real, no action should be taken. if it's just some asshole flapping his hate filled jowls about Trump, it's no big deal. The NYTimes will have to answer for how they vetted the letter and it's author, but that's another matter.

My issue is and will continue to be if there actually is someone or a group of people actively subverting a sitting president. And it has exactly ZERO to do with who is president, or how much of an idiot he might be. The office of the president is worth protecting now as it always has been.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




My issue is and will continue to be if there actually is someone or a group of people actively subverting a sitting president. And it has exactly ZERO to do with who is president, or how much of an idiot he might be. The office of the president is worth protecting now as it always has been.


Hate to break it to you, but there is a whole lot of people actively subverting a sitting president, and there should be. They are called over one half of American voters.
edit on 6-9-2018 by JasonBillung because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: network dude




The oath we took never once offered the caviot that we didn't have to follow through if we didn't like the POTUS. Regardless of what Trump is, or isn't, he is the God damned president of the United States, he was elected by the process set forth in the Constitution, and we vowed to support and defend that office and his orders, with our lives if necessary.


I took an oath to defend the constitution. Not illegal orders, or blindly following the cult of a person.

I see this dust up coming from a person - Trump - who does not even understand the constitution, and wants people turned over to the government (as one posted pointed out - whatever that means) for exercising his 1st amendment rights in an OP-ED.

Get off your high horse. You are not the only one who served. I can right "god Damed" too.

And no one gives up their 1st , just because the president is a fascist.


I think you are letting your hate blind your brain. Go back and read the oath you took. Then, if you still have questions, go back and read the Constitution. If you can find anything in either one, about not having to follow if you don't like the guy in charge, I'll kiss you ass.

This isn't my high horse, it's the law and the entire reason for the country to exist. My disagreement has nothing to do with the 1st. But it may have everything to do with the 2nd. Your oath, my oath, isn't done until you or I no longer breath air.
If your service is as you claim, then to not get this point is something you will have to explain to me. Again, none of this has anything to do with Trump, it has everything to do with the system and the office of the president.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: network dude




My issue is and will continue to be if there actually is someone or a group of people actively subverting a sitting president. And it has exactly ZERO to do with who is president, or how much of an idiot he might be. The office of the president is worth protecting now as it always has been.


Hate to break it to you, but there is a whole lot of people actively subverting a sitting president, and there should be. They are called over one half of American voters.


you really don't get this, or you lied and never served. Either way, i'm embarrassed for you.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The 25th amendment allows for the Vice President to become president in the event of death, resignation, removal from office or impairment that prevents the current president from fulfilling his or her duties.

Constitutional enough for ya?

Don't get so triggered. This is just what the fascist want.....



new topics




 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join