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.

 

Conservatives should just admit they do not care...

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

I don't care. About you. Or your need to my income tax money.

I work my ass off for my money. Why are you entitlted to it?




posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


So it's not about hate redneck - though you seem to need for me to be a hater to fluff up your argument

I'm not the one you need to convince.


I'd still like to see evidence of Trumps genuine goodness in action

I can't help you there. I can only lead you to the water; I cannot force you to drink.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Same could be said about Killary, or Obuma and any other leftist political parasite.

Personally I think people don't like conservative because it's not bleeding heart like a liberal.



a reply to: JustJohnny



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris
Donald Trump doesn't own any companies. He divested.


Actually, he didn't divest. Handing your business to someone to control for you isn't divesting: www.forbes.com...

He put it in a revocable trust: www.npr.org...

Divesting would be selling off the asset: www.divestopedia.com...



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

OK, I want to be clear on your position here...

The companies in question are not sole proprietorships. They are incorporated. No one "owns" the companies in question; they own shares of stock in them.

You define divesting as selling off an asset (I actually disagree but that's semantics). So are you saying Trump should have divested, as in sold off all of his stock in the companies he built? If so, does that apply to all elected politicians? What about trusts that contain stocks? Must they be divested before a person can run for office? What about trusts containing a stock portfolio that cannot be liquidated? Does ownership of such a trust disqualify a person from running for office?

I just want to be clear on this.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Back room deals with enemy government?... WTF are you talking about?... You mean the deals Obama made with the Russians? The millions of dollars that the Clintons got from a bank tied to the Kremlin meanwhile Hillary was helping sell a percentage of our uranium to the Russians?... Or do you mean the millions of dollars Obama gave to Iran, and the approval that the Obama administration gave to the Russians to sell to the Iranians uranium... You all in the left kept claiming "Iran will not make any atomic bombs, they gave us their word..." Now the Iranians came out saying they are close to making a nuclear bomb... Good job Obama and Hillary fans, you did sell our country out, and because none of you can't admit you are wrong, you project everything you, and your messiahs (Obama/Biden/Hillary) are guilty of meanwhile you plug your ears and keep screaming REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Your claims are ridiculous.. The problem with the majority in the left is that none of you seem even able to understand the English language anymore, even if it is your native language. I mean for crying out loud your latest "left-wing" argument is that "math is oppressive" so that dumb leftists don't feel bad that you can't learn math...

How about this, I have asked every member whom has made this same claim you made here as well. Go ahead and excerpt from the phone call transcript where did POTUS Trump offered quid pro quo to the Ukrainian President... Even the Ukrainian President has stated that POTUS Trump didn't force him, nor was there any quid pro quo...

You get Biden admitting that he did use quid pro quo to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired, and that he withheld over 1 billion FROM HIS OWN FREAKING MOUTH, and you left-wingers want to claim this is false, or that "Biden was fighting corruption when he demanded the firing of that prosecutor whom was about to investigate Hunter Biden, and his link to the corrupt Burisma Holdings. But the truth is, right after Shokin got fired the Ukrainian agency that was given over the investigation simply CLOSED THE INVESTIGATION.

All of you whom keep making these absurd and idiotic claims WILL NEVER even attempt to excerpt where you think POTUS Trump made quid pro quo, simply because HE DIDN'T.

Your entire op is just lies that you simply want to project on others because you simply can't accept a POTUS that is not left-wing.

Face it, YOU left-wingers love being lied to.. Schiff lied to you for 3 years claiming he had 100% evidence that Trump colluded with Russia... We know what happened with that evidence...
19 minutes right after Trump became POTUS in 2016 you leftists were already calling for his impeachment, and since then you all keep making the most absurd lies just because "orange man bad..."

I mean the lot of you seem to have something in common with Hodor, making claims that make no sense. You might as well just say "Hodor....Hodor.......Hodor..." and it would make as much sense as this op.






edit on 7-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
...
I mean that was a first.. no american president has ever been laughed at by all the worlds leaders..


I bet you none of them are laughing now that their economies are in the #, and ours is good. Even China is having a lot of economic troubles, but the U.S. is stronger than any of them. We have low unemployment, highest employment, including of minorities, in record numbers not seen in decades or longer. But no, you are stucked waiting for Schiff, Pelosi, Hillary, AOC, etc to tell you the truth... Keep waiting, you will die of a heart attack before they tell you the truth, and you still love them for it...





edit on 7-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JustJohnny
...
I mean that was a first.. no american president has ever been laughed at by all the worlds leaders..


I bet you none of them are laughing now that their economies are in the #, and ours is good. Even China is having a lot of economic troubles, but the U.S. is stronger than any of them. We have low unemployment, highest employment, including of minorities, in record numbers not seen in decades or longer. But no, you are stucked waiting for Schiff to tell you the truth... Keep waiting, you will die of a heart attack before Schiff tells you the truth, and you still love him for it...





You can upsize all that for a dollar, would you like to upside.

World leaders literally did laugh at trump and the economies you are mocking have been around a lot longer than the mighty us of a, I wouldn't be getting too cocky you've a lot to learn. And before you go off half cocked by you I mean the country.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

there I was thinking this was a thread about the UK conservative party , since after Grenfell inquiry they blatantly dont care !

are tories in the US anything like UK tories ?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Extorris

Uh, your business acumen is lacking. There is profit, revenue, expenses, and losses.

Losses come out of profits first, then become debt if the profit isn't enough to cover them. So no, it is not possible to make huge profits and lose huge sums simultaneously on the same product.


Holy crap. Please stop. I graduated with a degree in business and have run/owned a business for 20+ years.

If there are profits, then there are not losses.
If there are losses, then there are not profits.

Your statement of "Losses come out of profits" makes absolutely no sense.

Revenues: All Money flowing to a company.

Expenses: All money paid by a company.

Profits (Income or Net Profit): Revenues-Expenses (Positive number aka Revenues are greater than Expenses)

Losses: Revenues- Expenses (Negatives number aka Expenses are greater than Revenues)

Red had said it was impossible for Trump to profit from his office and still lose money.

I explained it was possible for the President to profit from his office (Revenue stream from abuse of office) while still losing money overall.

If Trump Org has Revenues of 4 Mil. and Expenses 6 Mil. for the month of August, then they have a Loss of 2 Mil. for the month.

But if Trump stays at Mar-A-Lago with 100 staff, aides and secret service in tow, rooms and meals for x number of days?

That increases revenues for Aug. from 4 Mil. to 5 Mil. Expenses still remain 6 Million...Trump Org still shows a loss, but it is only 1M not 2M.

In that and an infinite number of similar scenarios, Trump has profited from his office, while Trump org could still show a loss, just less a loss than it otherwise would be if trump hadn't interjected 1M of taxpayer funds by taking the POTUS Entourage and SS to Mar-A-Lago.


edit on 7-11-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

Your explanation ignores one important fact: before becoming President, Donald Trump was well-known for making money and increasing his wealth.


He was well known for CLAIMING he had made money and increased his wealth.
His claims have proven not credible, then or now.
He has provided little evidence if any about his finances and not enough to determine Profit or Loss or even general trends over the years.



He apparently (again, according to NBC) started losing money only after becoming President. So if he is making money and losing wealth, he is making much less today than he did before 2016.


That again is premised on him making profits before running for President.

No evidence of this and actually some evidence to the contrary.


edit on 7-11-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

O... K...

So now Donald Trump is not wealthy either. Got it.

Enjoy your fantasy.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

O... K...

So now Donald Trump is not wealthy either. Got it.


Did I say that? I said whether he was profiting or losing money (aka whether his wealth was growing or shrinking) in the years prior to his election is not known.

His Net worth is not known either. What he has claimed has not been supported with any documentation and estimates by analysts vary.

Do you have access to his tax returns or financial statements? If so, please share.




Enjoy your fantasy.

TheRedneck


When in doubt, be an ass. Stick with that.





edit on 7-11-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

OK, I want to be clear on your position here...

The companies in question are not sole proprietorships. They are incorporated. No one "owns" the companies in question; they own shares of stock in them.

You define divesting as selling off an asset (I actually disagree but that's semantics).


Actually, I don't define it that way. If you look at the link, you will see that I was quoting the Investopedia explanation of divesting (sell off the asset.) You can check other sites; it's the same definition.


So are you saying Trump should have divested, as in sold off all of his stock in the companies he built? If so, does that apply to all elected politicians?


All previous presidents have done this. Remember Jimmy Carter and his peanut farm that he sold?


What about trusts that contain stocks? Must they be divested before a person can run for office? What about trusts containing a stock portfolio that cannot be liquidated? Does ownership of such a trust disqualify a person from running for office?


There are different laws and practices for different types of offices and I don't even pretend to know all of them. However, I am very familiar with divestment for the presidency as it's come up several times within my lifetime. There were questions about Romney when he ran and ditto for Clinton; both would have had to get rid of a number of properties if they were elected.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I can't help you there. I can only lead you to the water; I cannot force you to drink.

Actually - I've changed my mind. We both know I'm never gonna drink

The past few years have been a lot of things Red - but fascinating is somewhere at the top of the list

I've been around long enough to know that people all experience, see, feel, think, believe and want different things. I never thought I would ever witness something like this situation we're all in now. How is it possible?

I'd appreciate a reply missing the snark - if you're up for it

:-)
edit on 11/7/2019 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


Actually, I don't define it that way.

I defined "divestment" as "relinquishing control." Being elected to an office should not require one to take a vow of poverty... practically every politician owns houses (many multiple houses) and stocks/bonds. Being elected to a national office does not prevent one from possession of that which they have worked for up to that point.

The issue is if the official in question is purposely using his/her office to profit at the expense of their duties. For instance, if Senator Joe Blow is on a committee that controls foreign aid to Somewhereistan, and all of the officials from Somewhereistan are staying in a hotel chain that Joe owns, instead of other hotels that offer similar rooms cheaper, one could say that Joe is taking advantage of Somewhereistan diplomats. If those diplomats were to stop staying in Joe's hotel and suddenly Joe voted to cut off their aid, it would become pretty obvious that Joe was using his office for profit.

But if Joe is offering rooms for the going rate and the diplomats stayed there by their own choice, it is a simple exchange of service for pay... no gift was given, and no emolument occurred. If Somewhereistan diplomats are staying in other hotels and still receiving aid, then there is obviously no conflict.

It all depends on the intention and any requirement to utilize a particular service. I am still waiting for some evidence to come to light that Donald Trump has used his office for profit... so far there has been none. As a matter of fact, he donates his salary back to the Treasury.


All previous presidents have done this. Remember Jimmy Carter and his peanut farm that he sold?

Yeah, about that...

The truth is NO previous Presidents have done this. They have all tried to make it look like they did, and the other politicians and the media always told us they did. But exactly how, then, did they all retire wealthy after 4 or 8 years? The Presidential salary is impressive, but not that impressive! What you say, if true, would mean that Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter... all would have left the White House as upper middle class citizens on a fixed income. None of them did. They left as wealthy individuals with tons of resources at their disposal.

Imagine for one moment if your job required you to give up any and all business interests you owned, your home, your retirement, everything so you could work there for 8 years and make a decent salary. Would you take that? Would anyone? The very idea that a President or any other official should surrender everything he has in order to accept the position is ludicrous.


There are different laws and practices for different types of offices...

OH, HELL NO!

I am not playing that game. If it's good for one, it's good for the other. That right there is the single biggest problem I have with the far left right now: there is somehow this belief that laws only apply to those they want them to apply to. No. Not in a million years. Never.

We either treat everyone equally, or get ready for that civil war. There is no third alternative. Choose wisely.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

It's not that I cannot reply without the 'snark' but rather that it gets tiresome trying to hold a decent conversation today. I reply to snark with snark... don't start no snark, won't be no snark and all that. BTW, I saw your post before you edited it... pretty snarky...

This happened because you asked for evidence that Trump was "not a monster." I gave an anecdotal but true story of how the Trump administration has actually personally helped me. Now, even if the person who handled the issue was not Donald Trump (I am sure they weren't), they were hired by Donald Trump and are executing their duties under policies implemented by Donald Trump. Their actions reflect on Donald Trump, just as surely as dissatisfaction with Amazon would/should reflect on Jeff Bezos. Bezos hired the people running Amazon and implemented the policies they work under.

Your response, instead of acknowledging that yes, the Trump administration did something good for an average person, was more along the lines of "so maybe there's one good apple in that bunch, but I still think Trump's a monster." That's paraphrased, but the meaning is there.

That is bias. Period. At that point, I knew I was dealing with someone who would never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, accept anything good as being possible for Trump. I also knew beyond any doubt that you would twist anything said, any factoid reported, any argument, no matter how valid or true, to prevent you from ever, under any circumstances, giving one shred of credit to Trump.

In that circumstance, what would you have me do? Oh, sure, you would love it if I responded like a little whipped puppy... but that's not going to happen. No, I will respond with exactly the same type of bias you hold for my position. And yes, I will include "snark" in direct proportion to your "snark." That's just how it works in life.

So, if you want to back up and try an actual conversation wherein both parties listen to each other, fine... repost your reply to my anecdote without the bias. I honestly don't think you can do it, but if you should prove me wrong in that, I will accept my error and engage you in a more civilized manner worthy of ATS.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



It's not that I cannot reply without the 'snark' but rather that it gets tiresome trying to hold a decent conversation today. I reply to snark with snark... don't start no snark, won't be no snark and all that. BTW, I saw your post before you edited it... pretty snarky...

It does get tiresome. I was replying in snark to your snark, I was sure you saw it but decided I wanted to go different way. So - I changed course


Your response, instead of acknowledging that yes, the Trump administration did something good for an average person, was more along the lines of "so maybe there's one good apple in that bunch, but I still think Trump's a monster." That's paraphrased, but the meaning is there.


Maybe you didn't really read what I wrote?

Naw Red - I was curious to hear which facts the Dems were ignoring. Like I said elsewhere - I don't believe in monsters. I do believe in misinformation - and teams

Nice story though regardless. Maybe Obama did someone a good turn here or there? Bush, Clinton? I'd like to believe we're all capable from time to time


See? when I said nice story - regardless? That was not snark. I meant that

So - I had to try



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


See? when I said nice story - regardless? That was not snark. I meant that

Fair enough. I read it as sarcastic, but I see where it may not have been and I accept your alternative explanation. Let me reword my reply.


Naw Red - I was curious to hear which facts the Dems were ignoring. Like I said elsewhere - I don't believe in monsters. I do believe in misinformation - and teams

Nice story though regardless. Maybe Obama did someone a good turn here or there? Bush, Clinton? I'd like to believe we're all capable from time to time

It is my experience that a certain group of "Democrats" (which is more a group of "never-Trump" establishment politicians backed up by the media) regularly ignore facts. For instance, how much air time did CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBD/etc. give to the fact that Donald Trump signed Prison Reform into law? I would say that demonstrates a certain amount of compassion toward those who have been the target of overly ambitious prosecutors.

I have a hard time believing that my situation is unique. There is nothing special about me that would in any way cause my situation to be less than regular. It was perpetrated by my lack of employment opportunities combined with unexpected illness during that period. during the time span from 2008 through 2016 unemployment was at a relative peak, and illness does not discriminate based on employment status.

Therefore I would expect that there have been quite a few people in a similar situation, and I see no reason why their requests would receive a different response than mine. But the media has not reported this yet... I wonder why not? I would not expect them to report on my personal story, as I stated, but if that story is repeated across the public arena I would expect them to be reporting on it.

There are two examples; there are many more. Like the fact that large sections of the southern border wall are built or under construction... how many times have we heard someone on here claim otherwise? Like the fact that crime in these areas where the wall exists has dropped significantly? I have not yet heard a single Democratic politician state that Trump is helping people obtain legitimately-sought Social Security benefits, nor that Trump signed the Prison Reform Act, nor that the southern border wall is under construction and already showing results.

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

I also am sure someone could, if they searched enough, find plenty of instances where Obama did something compassionate. I will admit I consider him an inept and corrupt President, but that still doesn't make him a "monster" to everyone else. Like you, I have a hard time believing in "monsters."

Unless I see a story on Hillary Clinton... but that's for another thread.

(Better?)

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




(Better?)

Yes sir :-)

That did me a lot of good

I don't like Trump - it's true. I don't think he's a monster. I do think he's out of his depth. I'll just leave it at that

I don't like what's happening in this country, but it's not going to improve by making it easier for all of us to think less. Pointing a finger at one person and pinning it all on him absolves a lot of people of responsibility

I don't kid myself into thinking that you see this the same way I do, but I think we're all in real trouble Red, and it's better to talk it out than to not

So - thank you. It's a start

:-)




top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join