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.

 

Idiocracy is a "documentary" ATTN!

page: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


It does absolutely say that he didn't arrive as President with no previous political experience. He had some.

Very, very little. Maybe you want to count the hours he watched the news as experience as well?


He was also the leader of a large organization, too. Surely 'political issues' were a day to day occurrence in the governance of that as well.

A large organization that operated on business principles for survival and thrived, not a political organization that ignored them with impunity. That's the whole point.


He didn't just want it. He actively did it. A subtle difference, I know.

So he became President before? That's news to me.

He wanted to become President. He didn't actually become President at the time. Donald Trump never held public office before his election to President in 2016.


Also, Trump's previous party-hopping would indicate...

...a dissatisfaction with both parties. Unless you are also an accomplished mind reader?

If one wanted their ego stroked, it would make more sense to stick to one party and gain acclaim as being a die-hard party loyalist. Neither party is usually especially fond of ex-opposing-party members. The GOP wasn't very fond of Trump until he won the election (some still aren't).


At least Bernie has shown that he would forgo honors and accolades for what he believed was a greater good for the country. He isn't an egomaniac.

No, he's a sell-out. He stands for nothing. If Bernie had an ounce of integrity he would have refused to endorse Clinton over her unfair campaign practices against him. That endorsement cost him his opportunity this time... had he stood his ground, he would have a shot at defeating Trump in 2020.

You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

What you call an "egomaniac" I call someone with integrity and conviction.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




Truth is, this entire OP is BS.


Not Bs.

Just incovenient truths.

Only people are too dumb to see the truth for what it is.

REALITY.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut

Thinking about running for office is not the same thing as running for office. lol.

Nice try though.


Trump did more than think about running for President in 2000.

Trump 2000 campaign photo

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He actually did run for President and won both primaries but withdrew from the campaign when polls put him way behind George W. Bush (Trump only had 7% support) and it was clear he didn't have a chance.


Which makes me bring up, once again, running for the office of a politician and winning the office are two entirely different things. I hate circular logic. It's so odd to me. I am actually arguing about how Trump does not have political experience, but somehow you will argue that he has more political knowledge and knowhow than anyone in office right now.
I tell you what. I will let you win this argument, because you are actually admitting that he has enough experience to be more than capable for his job.


I'm only arguing against the untrue and manufactured image.

I think that Trump has a lot of (unsuccessful) political experience.

Kudos to him for getting back up each time he got knocked down.



And this is the first Political Leadership experience he has had.


Oh, like AOC.



Yeah, except on a level that he can really do something to help America.


She might, just like he might.




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


It does absolutely say that he didn't arrive as President with no previous political experience. He had some.

Very, very little. Maybe you want to count the hours he watched the news as experience as well?


He was also the leader of a large organization, too. Surely 'political issues' were a day to day occurrence in the governance of that as well.

A large organization that operated on business principles for survival and thrived, not a political organization that ignored them with impunity. That's the whole point.


He didn't just want it. He actively did it. A subtle difference, I know.

So he became President before? That's news to me.

He wanted to become President. He didn't actually become President at the time. Donald Trump never held public office before his election to President in 2016.


Also, Trump's previous party-hopping would indicate...

...a dissatisfaction with both parties. Unless you are also an accomplished mind reader?

If one wanted their ego stroked, it would make more sense to stick to one party and gain acclaim as being a die-hard party loyalist. Neither party is usually especially fond of ex-opposing-party members. The GOP wasn't very fond of Trump until he won the election (some still aren't).


At least Bernie has shown that he would forgo honors and accolades for what he believed was a greater good for the country. He isn't an egomaniac.

No, he's a sell-out. He stands for nothing. If Bernie had an ounce of integrity he would have refused to endorse Clinton over her unfair campaign practices against him. That endorsement cost him his opportunity this time... had he stood his ground, he would have a shot at defeating Trump in 2020.

You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

What you call an "egomaniac" I call someone with integrity and conviction.

TheRedneck


Well, you did.

But my guess is that there is some bias involved. I mean, you are seriously arguing that running for President of the United States isn't political experience.




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


But my guess is that there is some bias involved. I mean, you are seriously arguing that running for President of the United States isn't political experience.

I am arguing that running for President on a third-party ticket (automatic loss) is not enough to even attempt to place Trump in the same category with the vast majority of present politicians... AOC and a few others not included.

According to your definition, there are an awful lot of politicians in this country that have never held an office.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Its exhaustimg watching someone try to have serious conversation with someone who makes up stuff as they go along.

Is this how you guys will beat Trump? Out lie him?



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I mean, you are seriously arguing that running for President of the United States isn't political experience.


Is masturbation sex?
ETA: Or, more related to this topic, is flirting/asking a woman out on a date constitute sexual experience?
edit on 5-6-2019 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   
What the hell?

Wasn't I in a thread about the movie "Idiocracy"?

Man! That was just two beers ago! ??????



ETA: Yes, I'm sure of it now. This topic is called, "Idiocracy is a "documentary" ATTN!"

OK, I think. I'll wait another couple beers and see.

edit on 5-6-2019 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck


Wasn't I in a thread about the movie "Idiocracy"?

Yes, you are. We're just collecting first-hand proof.


Man! That was just two beers ago! ??????

You should drink faster.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Damn! Thanks Red Neck. I'll be chugging a bit faster now.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut

Its exhaustimg watching someone try to have serious conversation with someone who makes up stuff as they go along.

Is this how you guys will beat Trump? Out lie him?


I do try and post supportive links.

Perhaps I'm not making things up but am, in fact, merely exposing an alternate viewpoint to others?

Because apparently in this thread there were those suggesting that the Nazi's were not extreme right-wing and you seemed to have let that slide, yet you jump in suggesting i'm lying after someone can't concede that running for President is political experience.

You guys are a hoot!




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 11:00 PM
link   
We’re subsidizing stupid people to have children. They can have all the children they want and taxpayers foot the bill. They get free child delivery at the hospital of their choice. They get free food for their family. Their children are educated for free. They often get subsidized housing, too. Both parents may even be hard workers, but if they’re uneducated and unskilled they’ll never make enough to pay for even a couple of kids. Hell, the annual average cost nationwide for a year of public school is $10,000, and it’s much more in places like NYC, Chicago and LA. Stupid, unskilled people from the Third World who love large families are flocking here en masse because they know we’ll subsidize them, giving them a higher standard of living than they could have dreamed of back in Mexico or Somalia. And they can have all the children they want at no expense to themselves. They must think we’re the biggest suckers on the plant, and they’re right. We are so screwed.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Because apparently in this thread there were those suggesting that the Nazi's were not extreme right-wing and you seemed to have let that slide, yet you jump in suggesting i'm lying after someone can't concede that running for President is political experience.

You guys are a hoot!

Wanna know what's a "hoot"?

You trying to shoehorn 1940s-era German Nazi policies into either left-wing or right-wing American policy descriptions. The German Nazi party supported gun control and socialist policies, both left-wing ideals in modern America, as well as extreme nationalism, a right wing modern American policy. They weren't either wing. But you are so intent on somehow associating conservative American ideals of today with Nazi Germany, you just can't see how ridiculous it is.

Wanna know what else is a "hoot"?

You trying to twist an argument that our sitting President was not an experienced politician before taking office in 2016 into some absolute that any exposure to politics makes him a politician. You have already admitted that compared to other politicians, Trump is not a career politician, but you just can't let go of the narrative that he must be an experienced politician.

In a way that makes sense, though... because so far you have held, if I am counting correctly, 7 different advanced careers in your life, making you an absolute expert in every field and above reproach. I see now how you managed that... your political experience, was that an afternoon attending a political rally? Your engineering experience was surely little more than reading a book (assuming you read the whole thing). So yeah, I'll concede... based on your obvious definition of experience, Donald Trump is well-qualified to be President... and so am I, and so is everyone else reading this thread.

We just live in a slightly more difficult reality.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Because apparently in this thread there were those suggesting that the Nazi's were not extreme right-wing and you seemed to have let that slide, yet you jump in suggesting i'm lying after someone can't concede that running for President is political experience.

You guys are a hoot!

Wanna know what's a "hoot"?

You trying to shoehorn 1940s-era German Nazi policies into either left-wing or right-wing American policy descriptions. The German Nazi party supported gun control and socialist policies, both left-wing ideals in modern America, as well as extreme nationalism, a right wing modern American policy. They weren't either wing.


There you go. "Brawndo has electrolytes, it's what plants crave".



The Nazi's were extreme right wing. Absolutely and without question. The only people denying it are alt-right wingers desperate to distance themselves from the truth.

Unite the Right rally From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








But you are so intent on somehow associating conservative American ideals of today with Nazi Germany, you just can't see how ridiculous it is.


For ridiculousness, please refer to the pictures from the "Unite the Right" rallies in respect to the idea that the right wing aren't Nazi and the Nazi's aren't right-wing.


Wanna know what else is a "hoot"?

You trying to twist an argument that our sitting President was not an experienced politician before taking office in 2016 into some absolute that any exposure to politics makes him a politician.


'Exposure to politics' is at a different level than 'running for President', i.e: having rallies, devising policies, giving speeches, calculating budgetary feasibilities, organizing party meetings, getting consensus, shaking hands, photo opportunities and kissing babies.


You have already admitted that compared to other politicians, Trump is not a career politician, but you just can't let go of the narrative that he must be an experienced politician.

In a way that makes sense, though... because so far you have held, if I am counting correctly, 7 different advanced careers in your life, making you an absolute expert in every field and above reproach.


No, I never said that I had 7 advanced careers, and I explained it clearly and repeatedly that your assumptions aren't correct, but you choose to rehash the same argument, as if it was valid in the first place.


I see now how you managed that... your political experience, was that an afternoon attending a political rally?


No, I have attended very few political rallies.

I was a working member of a political party that achieved coalition government in New Zealand a few years ago. I was called their "Data Systems Administrator" and compiled 'walk lists' and, using GIS, directed a nationwide 'door knock' campaign that reached millions of people in face to face promotion of the party and its policies.

Prior to that, in Sydney Australia, I assisted in a technical capacity with the Young Liberals, the 'youth' branch of the center right Liberal Party (which is currently the governing party in Australia). And on an ad-hoc basis with the Christian Independent, Fred Nile, in local government.

I went to school with and have acquaintance with, three Australian Federal politicians (or now, ex-politicians). One of my employers was the son of an Australian Prime Minister.


Your engineering experience was surely little more than reading a book (assuming you read the whole thing).


Yes, I have had a number of jobs over the last 40 years of my working life, but I can't see what my CV has to do with anything, except that you seem to assume that a varied background is impossible. That probably reflects more on your intellectual grasp than mine, so don't keep trying to bring it up in argument. You will never know much about me, you are arguing from a position of great ignorance.


So yeah, I'll concede... based on your obvious definition of experience, Donald Trump is well-qualified to be President... and so am I, and so is everyone else reading this thread.

We just live in a slightly more difficult reality.

TheRedneck


Your reasoning isn't very robust.

Prior political experience doesn't necessarily qualify someone to be a President. I know of lots of career politicians who would, could and should never be President.

I'm just debunking the myth that Trump's propagandists are trying to portray about him.

edit on 7/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Truth is, this entire OP is BS.

Must be Monday.



Truth is, you couldn't refute a single point in the OP and would've been better off not posting rather than prove your "intelligence" to the world.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Its sad that you dont realize there is a difference in politics from 1940s Germany and 2019 USA.

THE NAZIS SUPPORTED GUN CONTROL what more do you need to know? They are nothing like the right wingers of 2019 America. OR the left wingers. Compared to what we have in America today, they are/were a whole other political animal.

This is tiring having to explain the most simple, most basic concepts to GROWN ADULTS... *YAWN* You people bore me to no end... Please catch up so we can, you know, actually have a conversation one day.
edit on 6/7/2019 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

It's more like trying to explain optimal control theory to a mule.

And I'm done trying. He can wallow in his ignorance all he wants.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ADVISOR

Democrats where recycling old stale Soviet Democratic Socialism is a great idea.



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: chr0naut

Its sad that you dont realize there is a difference in politics from 1940s Germany and 2019 USA.

THE NAZIS SUPPORTED GUN CONTROL what more do you need to know? They are nothing like the right wingers of 2019 America. OR the left wingers. Compared to what we have in America today, they are/were a whole other political animal.

This is tiring having to explain the most simple, most basic concepts to GROWN ADULTS... *YAWN* You people bore me to no end... Please catch up so we can, you know, actually have a conversation one day.


Prior to the Nazi's there was an absolute gun ban. However, the Nazi's changed that and allowed guns to be sold to those who had a "hunting" license (you did not have to hunt, to have a hunting license). This is the exact reverse of strict gun control.

The Nazi's did, however, confiscate weapons from those they opposed and oppressed.

The Nazi's were also voted in, they didn't seize power through force of arms against an unarmed public. So the suggestion that they disarmed the public then got in through force of arms is patently false, historically.

Nazi gun control argument From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact-checking Ben Carson's claim that gun control laws allowed the Nazis to carry out Holocaust - PolitiFact

What were gun control laws like in Nazi-controlled Germany? - Quora

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control - Guncyte.com

The Hitler gun control lie - Salon.com

Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Germany - Library of Congress (with specific reference to the fourth paragraph about more lenient laws introduced in 1938, i.e; under the Nazi regime).

The 'Nazi gun control argument' is as bogus as the 'leftist Nazis' one. Please research further than alt-right echo chambers.

edit on 7/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: 3n19m470

It's more like trying to explain optimal control theory to a mule.

And I'm done trying. He can wallow in his ignorance all he wants.

TheRedneck

I have frequently posted credible sources to support my argument, in this thread.

The only links you have posted in this thread were to support the irrelevant argument that other politicians had significant political career backgrounds. Something I, nor any other poster in this thread, disagreed with, and irrelevant to Trump's prior political experience.

You seem to have let slide some significant lies by others, simply because they are purportedly on your side, yet you take exception to something as minor as the suggestion that the 'Trump persona' propaganda doesn't fit the facts.

To help you understand me, I have never particularly been a 'follower' who jumps on board with every populist bit of ra-ra, nor have I been a 'leader', who drives and directs others. I am somewhat of an introverted, classic Asperger Syndrome personality, being content with my own company and being quite particular about actual verifiable fact. Advertising, propaganda, social memes and group think, don't work for me. So I research into things to find out and am naturally cynical, especially about those things that seem popular.

Whose responses are more likely to be ignorance?





top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join