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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Media Outraged After Trump Tricks Them To Cover Endorsements From Military Heroes

page: 9
96
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nikola014
I don't hate either of them.

I do though, have a distaste for politicians. Unfortunately we are doomed to have them as our leaders. The greater part of my distaste is due to the distortions which are involved with politics. No politician tells the truth. No politician can be trusted because their "job" is an impossibility.

The idiocy of the birther nonsense goes beyond the pale.

Possibly, and if so it is right up there with same bs about Cruz. IF untrue, Obama birther was disgusting. In light of his actions supporting the narrative that made people believe he was hiding something major (thinking of Islam's command to lie to the infidels now), maybe not so pale after all.

When a bad situation is brewing up the poop storms like the racism committed by the Dems and their KKK friends, that is now falsely pushed on decent conservatives, I stand up and take notice. More, I attempt to apply the Due Diligence that was so eloquently stated by those with Thomas Jefferson at our founding here in the USA.
edit on 17-9-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth
So, no birtherism from Clinton.
Just Trump. Until yesterday.
We're clear on that?


No. Like I said, if the reports are true her campaign was investigating the issue, pushing the birther claim to reporters and leaving the option open when questioned on it. I find the subversive nature of her approach less appealing than Trump just plainly saying it and asking for truth.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



I find the subversive nature of her approach less appealing than Trump just plainly saying it and asking for truth.

What was subversive? Were Democrats secretly not voting for Obama because Clinton secretly implied that he was not legally qualified to be President? Or was it Trump who did that?


edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth
So, no birtherism from Clinton.
Just Trump. Until yesterday.
We're clear on that?


No one appreciates your thoughts on so many things Phage as i do when you make me realize I am right and you are stretching it. I love it when you are right and I learn something, which is more likely in a science setting and for me anything new there is fun. You can't say you haven't seen the MSNBC video's posted about the Clinton campaign pushing that narrative yesterday or the day before by UKTruth?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


You can't say you haven't seen the MSNBC video's posted about the Clinton campaign pushing that narrative yesterday or the day before by UKTruth?

Actually, I can say that.

Can you not see the irony of that statement on a site which decries the validity of the "MSM?" Unless, of course, it supports your paradigm.

UKTruth has said that there is no overt evidence that the Clinton campaign promoted the birther nonsense. So, it's all a secret. Was Trump just a sucker then?

edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman


You can't say you haven't seen the MSNBC video's posted about the Clinton campaign pushing that narrative yesterday or the day before by UKTruth?

Actually, I can say that.

Can you not see the irony of that statement on a site which decries the validity of the "MSM?" Unless, of course, it supports your paradigm.






Ah, then your point of view makes more sense. You need more input.

ETA

My paradigm is wherever the truth leads like with the data for the science discussions we have had.
edit on 17-9-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

UKTruth has said that there is no overt evidence that the Clinton campaign promoted the birther nonsense. So, it's all a secret. Was Trump just a sucker then? Fooled by the Clintons?

edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth



I find the subversive nature of her approach less appealing than Trump just plainly saying it and asking for truth.

What was subversive? Were Democrats secretly not voting for Obama because Clinton secretly implied that he was not legally qualified to be President? Or was it Trump who did that?



I would call asking a reporter to go to Kenya to investigate whether Obama was born there to be subversive. Sending out pictures of Obama in Muslim dress - yep, subversive. Replying to a question on what her position is on the issue, with 'as far as I know' to leave the issue open when she had a chance to close it down... yep, subversive.

Trump said what he thought - he had doubts and wanted proof. His doubts were proven to be wrong (probably).

Clinton more or less, but not fully, disavowed the birther movement, whilst investigating its veracity behind the scenes. What else would you call that, if not subversive?

Ultimately, Trump is right, the whole birther movement gained massive traction as the news swirled around the Clinton v Obama campaigns of 2008.
edit on 17/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I would call asking a reporter to go to Kenya to investigate whether Obama was born there to be subversive.
I would call it due diligence before expressing anything speculative in public.
Silly me.

edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

I would call asking a reporter to go to Kenya to investigate whether Obama was born there to be subversive.
I would call it due diligence before expressing anything in public. Trump, on the other hand...


Really? We disagree.
If the whole question is so outrageous as Clinton now tells us, why investigate it? This is not about due diligence at all. People are not upset with Trump because of a lack of due diligence!
The complaint is the assumption that a black man could have some legal issues in terms of taking office. That is why people are upset about the birther movement, especially the black community. Clinton bought into it enough to investigate and pass round pictures of Obama to emphasise his 'otherness' , instead of just brushing the whole notion aside.

Her campaign of 2008 is as guilty as Trump is on the actual point people are angry about... and her campaign did it first.
edit on 17/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If the whole question is so outrageous as Clinton now tells us, why investigate it?
Because it would have been an opportunity to legally disqualify her opponent. It turned out it was nonsense and so discarded by the campaign.


People are not upset with Trump because of a lack of due diligence!
Actually, they are. Among other things.



The complaint is the assumption that a black man could have some legal issues in terms of taking office. That is why people are upset about the birther movement. especially the black community.
I can't speak for the black community (that doesn't seem to stop Trump) but you really can't see the undertones?



edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

UKTruth has said that there is no overt evidence that the Clinton campaign promoted the birther nonsense. So, it's all a secret. Was Trump just a sucker then? Fooled by the Clintons?


Phage you ARE brushing facts aside. Ahh damn, i expect much more out of you when facts are so obvious. This isn't a solar flare ufo claim kind of issue my good man.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Please provide the facts. I'm all about facts.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

I would call asking a reporter to go to Kenya to investigate whether Obama was born there to be subversive.
I would call it due diligence before expressing anything speculative in public.
Silly me.


Yet there are those "BS"NBC and other videos with the talking heads saying, in 2008, that the Clinton campaign was pushing it. That is all we have to go on prior to the R's, period. If that is not enough, i agree to disagree with you. Don't be willfully ignorant on these posts that have been here all week, please. THAT was your facts you needed to understand the situation for what it appears to be for a bunch of us on ATS.
edit on 17-9-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

If the whole question is so outrageous as Clinton now tells us, why investigate it?
Because it would have been an opportunity to disqualify her opponent. It turned out it was nonsense and so discarded by the campaign.


People are not upset with Trump because of a lack of due diligence!
Actually, they are. Among other things.



The complaint is the assumption that a black man could have some legal issues in terms of taking office. That is why people are upset about the birther movement. especially the black community.
I can't speak for the black community (that doesn't seem to stop Trump) but you really can't see the undertones?




I understand the complaint - the first black man about to lock up the Democratic nomination and then the first black President and all through the 9 -10 years there are questions about his birthright. The core complaint here is one of implied racism. It really isn't about due diligence.

But look, I'll leave it there as we're not going to agree. I appreciate the discussion, though. It's good to have a debate on it without arguments and name calling. Quite rare on the political boards.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Manipulated?

LOL!

We're actually exactly the opposite, we're amused by it!

We know exactly what he did, and we also love that the media fell for it.

This was great!
edit on 17-9-2016 by poncho1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage


The complaint is the assumption that a black man could have some legal issues in terms of taking office. That is why people are upset about the birther movement. especially the black community.
I can't speak for the black community (that doesn't seem to stop Trump) but you really can't see the undertones?



I don't know Trump's relation to the black community, but you don't have to be a member of a community to speak about their rights, what you believe they want and what you believe they need. We do that all the time for people outside our gender, religion, race, even species when it comes to fiction, all without being a member of the communities under question.

I don't think you need the approval of a group to speak in favor or against that group. Whether its representative or not, does not depend on the group's wishes or desires, but on reality. IF you speak the truth about the group, then it is representative. A parent does not need a child's consent to speak on their behalf and represent them. OF course I'm not implying a child parent relation, just giving an example. An external arbitrary authority can also choose an arbitrary individual to stand as representative for a particular group(e.g. assign a lawyer for example). Even an individual can decide to take on that role, I do not think you need permission, what you do will determine whether you're in the right or in the wrong.
edit on 17-9-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Here is 11 things the media won't tell you about hillary inventing the birtherism.

www.dailywire.com...





1. Birtherism was Birthed In a Hillary Clinton Campaign Memo

In 2007, a full year before anyone would know the name Orly Taitz, Hillary's chief campaign strategist Mark Penn would craft a wide-ranging strategy memo that included questioning the very American-ness of then-Senator Barack Obama, who was even then seen as Hillary's chief rival for the nomination.

The Atlantic:

[Penn] wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”


Then it goes all the way to 11!




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
So ... what I'm reading here ... the Clinton campaign considered going after Obama's citizenship, didn't, and fired a rogue staffer that tried it in 2008?

Who was one of the major proponent of the idea after 2008 until yesterday again?

Oh yeah.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... what I'm reading here ... the Clinton campaign considered going after Obama's citizenship, didn't, and fired a rogue staffer that tried it in 2008?

Who was one of the major proponent of the idea after 2008 until yesterday again?

Oh yeah.


So they did then - the Clinton campaign had to fire a staffer for going after Obama. They also investigated the claims pushing the story to an editor who followed up by sending an investigator to Kenya.
They didn't dismiss the claims at all. It was the people around Clinton who were fuelling it in 2008.

Trump was correct - started by the Clinton campaign, though Trump did take it much further.
edit on 17/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
96
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join