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

The Unjustified Hatred of Donald Trump

page: 22
120
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Being angry at the behavior of others is not hating them, nor is it unjustified. No wonder I need to speak semantics with you. Your arguments are irrelevant, your ad hom is paltry.




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: daskakik

Being angry at the behavior of others is not hating them, nor is it unjustified. No wonder I need to speak semantics with you. Your arguments are irrelevant, your ad hom is paltry.


Be fair Les...Semantics is your rut of attack in all things with all posters...

It will be more entertaining when you come up with more material.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That's the damnedest thing, there were people like that running in the race! There were people like that supporting other candidates! The shame of it is, there are probably people like that handing out fliers right now for one of the third party people who would be better leaders for the US than either Trump or Hilary!



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

That's the damnedest thing, there were people like that running in the race! There were people like that supporting other candidates! The shame of it is, there are probably people like that handing out fliers right now for one of the third party people who would be better leaders for the US than either Trump or Hilary!


I don;t think there was anyone running like that - except maybe Dr Carson. As for the people 'handing out fliers', by which I assume you mean the normal person in the street, this is just not realistic. Besides, who is really so pure, that they wouldn't look just as bad after the media had finished with them.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Be fair Les...Semantics is your rut of attack in all things with all posters...

It will be more entertaining when you come up with more material.


I can agree to that. Semantics is important, after all.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Star for honesty



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I say they are semantically different but logical applies equally to them and you keep arguing semantics..



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you think it was realistic for working people during the Second World War, in the UK, to think that when they were done with the war, the future would contain a National Health Service, where previously there had been only private care? Do you think they had the slightest realistic notion, that together they could come together and create a welfare program which would literally save millions of lives?

Do you think it was a realistic dream for the people of this country, back a few hundred years, that matters might one day be decided by popular vote, rather than by the whim of a reigning monarch?

Was it realistic for the Americans who fought the war of independence, to expect not only to win, but on the back of that win, give rise to one of the most successful nations on the planet? I do not think any of those things appeared realistic to the people involved. I think those people were relying on it happening anyway, despite how ridiculous it must have seemed at the time, and they were right to rely on that, because it just so happens that believing in a thing more than those who oppose it, tends to see that it comes to pass.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It doesn't apply equally. I never made the argument you claimed I have. If your imaginary argument is logically consistent with your other imaginary argument, that has nothing to do with my arguments.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

Do you think it was realistic for working people during the Second World War, in the UK, to think that when they were done with the war, the future would contain a National Health Service, where previously there had been only private care? Do you think they had the slightest realistic notion, that together they could come together and create a welfare program which would literally save millions of lives?

Do you think it was a realistic dream for the people of this country, back a few hundred years, that matters might one day be decided by popular vote, rather than by the whim of a reigning monarch?

Was it realistic for the Americans who fought the war of independence, to expect not only to win, but on the back of that win, give rise to one of the most successful nations on the planet? I do not think any of those things appeared realistic to the people involved. I think those people were relying on it happening anyway, despite how ridiculous it must have seemed at the time, and they were right to rely on that, because it just so happens that believing in a thing more than those who oppose it, tends to see that it comes to pass.


What does that have to do with a person's character. Do you think Clement Atlee was a noble and good man without flaws?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I made it. And you just refuted it based on your opinion. If you say it isn't than that is that.

Talking to you is always the same and I don't even enjoy you fake intellectualism.
edit on 28-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No I do not.

However, what I do think is that given:

a) People in the "free" world, have a great more data about those who seek to be elected, than they have ever had before.

b) Owing to the population size of most "free" nations having grown immeasurably since the time of Mr Atlee, the responsibility placed upon voters to do a bang up job of choosing leaders has grown also.

c) More people than ever have the ability to reach millions by stating their layout for a new way to do politics, using the World Wide Web, using social media machinery, using tools they use for lesser things every day...

...it is perhaps time, that we stopped relying on the system to provide candidates for these things, and started selecting them based on more pure motivations, better metrics than are currently used, and I think that there were people who would have been happier with that than anything else, running in the US elections. They aren't now, but they were, and I think that sort of distributed, uncontrollable, limitless pool would have appealed to not only the people who would have been voting, but to certain candidates who failed at the primaries.

I think it would be beyond great to see here in Britain as well.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
believing in a thing more than those who oppose it, tends to see that it comes to pass.


Trump 2016 in a nutshell.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

No I do not.

However, what I do think is that given:

a) People in the "free" world, have a great more data about those who seek to be elected, than they have ever had before.

b) Owing to the population size of most "free" nations having grown immeasurably since the time of Mr Atlee, the responsibility placed upon voters to do a bang up job of choosing leaders has grown also.

c) More people than ever have the ability to reach millions by stating their layout for a new way to do politics, using the World Wide Web, using social media machinery, using tools they use for lesser things every day...

...it is perhaps time, that we stopped relying on the system to provide candidates for these things, and started selecting them based on more pure motivations, better metrics than are currently used, and I think that there were people who would have been happier with that than anything else, running in the US elections. They aren't now, but they were, and I think that sort of distributed, uncontrollable, limitless pool would have appealed to not only the people who would have been voting, but to certain candidates who failed at the primaries.

I think it would be beyond great to see here in Britain as well.


We're not far apart on that. I would like to see a complete overhaul of the election process in the UK. Firstly I would like to see an end to career politicians and the closure of all routes to getting rich from politics. It should be a public service - once complete you go back to the private sector. The only way to remove corruption is to remove the money.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I made it. And you just refuted it based on your opinion. If you say it isn't than that is that.

Talking to you is always the same and I don't even enjoy you fake intellectualism.


I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, as usual. And I don't care what you enjoy or not. Yet here you are, making irrelevant arguments, engaging in fallacy, and basically wasting time. Do you want to keep going?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: daskakik




I made it. And you just refuted it based on your opinion. If you say it isn't than that is that.

Talking to you is always the same and I don't even enjoy you fake intellectualism.


I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, as usual. And I don't care what you enjoy or not. Yet here you are, making irrelevant arguments, engaging in fallacy, and basically wasting time. Do you want to keep going?


Seriously. Read his post history and you will realise you WILL be here all night talking about nothing unless you stop.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I would back you to the hilt on every part of what you just said.

It needs cleaning up something fierce.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You said you didn't make that argument. How hard is it to understand that it is my argument?

Me not liking your writing style is me saying that I don't know why I even bother. It didn't require a reply from you.
edit on 28-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I rather think that with regard to Trump, it is more like "Believing wrong is right and that evil is good, will eventually make it happen" which is rather a different concept.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




You said you didn't make that argument. How hard us it to understand that it is my argument?

Me not liking your writing style is me saying that I don't know why I even bother. It didn't require a reply from you.


Really hard given the nonsensical way you wrote it.

I don't care whether you like my writing style or not. A reply is what you get.







 
120
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join