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

Black Church burned in honor of TRUMP

page: 14
126
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Q33323
a reply to: MagicCow

Do you get paid for saying silly things? I hear Hillary's trolls make at least $12/hour. Bernie's folks got paid $15/hr.
CONFESS!


I hear if you are a women you only get paid $10




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
FALSE FLAG.


Why would Trump supporters torpedo the Trump campaign by doing this?

This is straight out of Hillary's brownshirt playbook.


This is the new problem for ATS. Instead of posing a possibility, you say it is certain. So, let's go with something simple; Occam's razor says the simplest conclusion is usually correct. So, what is the simplest conclusion here? A, a group of racists, in the deep south (gasp there are a lot of racists in the deep south) burned a church. These racists are Trump supporters (gasp, most white racists are). Or, that there was a conspiracy to make Trump look bad by burning a church. Seeing as youbsay false flag, it would mean this action was sanctioned by higher ups, so you just kissed an opportunity for something more logical in that maybe some Hillary supporters did this on their own. So, of the three choices presented, what is the simplest one?


No longer valid that we now know for sure that Hillary directing covert attacks against other candidates to incite violence is a reality, not a theory. Therefore, using your logic, it's more likely it was the DNC as opposed to a group of Trump fans who couldn't help themselves, so burned down a church a week before the election, knowing it could damage his election bid.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



No longer valid that we now know for sure that Hillary directing covert attacks against other candidates to incite violence is a reality, not a theory.


If it was a reality, there would be proof. Where is that proof?

Oh, are you referring to those edited videos from Project Veritas? They are known hoaxers.



Therefore, using your logic, it's more likely it was the DNC as opposed to a group of Trump fans who couldn't help themselves, so burned down a church a week before the election, knowing it could damage his election bid.


Earlier in this thread I linked to another story that occurred earlier this year in which the "n" word was spray-painted on public property. Therefore it is much more likely that there are some idiots in the area that like to act out based on their racists ideals.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



No longer valid that we now know for sure that Hillary directing covert attacks against other candidates to incite violence is a reality, not a theory.


If it was a reality, there would be proof. Where is that proof?

Oh, are you referring to those edited videos from Project Veritas? They are known hoaxers.



Therefore, using your logic, it's more likely it was the DNC as opposed to a group of Trump fans who couldn't help themselves, so burned down a church a week before the election, knowing it could damage his election bid.


Earlier in this thread I linked to another story that occurred earlier this year in which the "n" word was spray-painted on public property. Therefore it is much more likely that there are some idiots in the area that like to act out based on their racists ideals.


All proven. No need to re-litigate the disgusting DNC tactics now out in the open.
The church burning was more likely organised by Hillary's campaign.

edit on 4/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



No longer valid that we now know for sure that Hillary directing covert attacks against other candidates to incite violence is a reality, not a theory.


If it was a reality, there would be proof. Where is that proof?

Oh, are you referring to those edited videos from Project Veritas? They are known hoaxers.



Therefore, using your logic, it's more likely it was the DNC as opposed to a group of Trump fans who couldn't help themselves, so burned down a church a week before the election, knowing it could damage his election bid.


Earlier in this thread I linked to another story that occurred earlier this year in which the "n" word was spray-painted on public property. Therefore it is much more likely that there are some idiots in the area that like to act out based on their racists ideals.


All proven. No need to re-litigate the disgusting DNC tactics now out in the open.
The church burning was more likely organised by Hillary's campaign.


Not proven in the slightest. PV refuses to release the unedited footage and so we have no context in which those conversations took place.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If you can't prove it then you're talking out of your ass. It was PROBABLY a bunch of dumb drunk racist southerners like it usually is...

Not a certainty, but I think Vegas would put the odds on that.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Not proven at all. He's linking proof of paid protesters (which has been proven on both sides and has been proven to be isolated and not party wide ON BOTH SIDES) to this church burning. Arson is not a tactic performed or condoned by either side.

Again, it was very likely the dumbest, drunkest, most casually racist people you've ever had the displeasure of experiencing.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



No longer valid that we now know for sure that Hillary directing covert attacks against other candidates to incite violence is a reality, not a theory.


If it was a reality, there would be proof. Where is that proof?

Oh, are you referring to those edited videos from Project Veritas? They are known hoaxers.



Therefore, using your logic, it's more likely it was the DNC as opposed to a group of Trump fans who couldn't help themselves, so burned down a church a week before the election, knowing it could damage his election bid.


Earlier in this thread I linked to another story that occurred earlier this year in which the "n" word was spray-painted on public property. Therefore it is much more likely that there are some idiots in the area that like to act out based on their racists ideals.


All proven. No need to re-litigate the disgusting DNC tactics now out in the open.
The church burning was more likely organised by Hillary's campaign.


Not proven in the slightest. PV refuses to release the unedited footage and so we have no context in which those conversations took place.



All proven. See I can do that too.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Pilatus12
Funny how they don't even know who did this and if it said vote Hillary nobody would think Its a race thing. I suspect an insider job from the Hillary camp. After all obamas been pushing hard these last 2 days to get the black vote out there. Maybe adding fuel to the fire and blaiming a trumpster

I suspect the the Klan or other like minded folks who are in HIS CAMP! start there first then work around to camp Hillary.
note not a Hillary supporter.


just out of curiosity, how would the Klan doing anything tie to Trump? Did he order them to do it? Did he ask them to do it? Is he in the Klan?
T

See, you are not making sense, much like the entire OP. It doesn't really matter to Trump who did this or why. It matters to the local community and the church. Hell, for all we know YOU did this, and if that were the case, would it be ATS's fault or yours?

I swear, common sense must be way out of your price range.

They endorsed him just now did they not?? I am not saying that they are the guilty party here, and in my statement before I said It is very unlikely Trump ordered them to do any such thing, but given his refusal to denounce earlier crap by his supporters , they think that such behavior maybe ok, but if I were looking for suspects I'd start with them first, burning of black folks churches is a time honored thing among them, and the vote Trump tag was not meant to intimidate black folks into voting Trump but maybe a signal saying to like minded folks we are baaaaaaack!!!
edit on 4-11-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
a reply to: UKTruth

If you can't prove it then you're talking out of your ass. It was PROBABLY a bunch of dumb drunk racist southerners like it usually is...

Not a certainty, but I think Vegas would put the odds on that.


Of course, we can both say 'probably' and have differing views.
Hillary's proven subversive tactics are now well known worldwide though, so I'm going with the most likely explanation.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



No longer valid that we now know for sure that Hillary directing covert attacks against other candidates to incite violence is a reality, not a theory.


If it was a reality, there would be proof. Where is that proof?

Oh, are you referring to those edited videos from Project Veritas? They are known hoaxers.



Therefore, using your logic, it's more likely it was the DNC as opposed to a group of Trump fans who couldn't help themselves, so burned down a church a week before the election, knowing it could damage his election bid.


Earlier in this thread I linked to another story that occurred earlier this year in which the "n" word was spray-painted on public property. Therefore it is much more likely that there are some idiots in the area that like to act out based on their racists ideals.


All proven. No need to re-litigate the disgusting DNC tactics now out in the open.
The church burning was more likely organised by Hillary's campaign.


Not proven in the slightest. PV refuses to release the unedited footage and so we have no context in which those conversations took place.



All proven. See I can do that too.



Yes, you can do that, but you're being intellectually dishonest.

You are forming an opinion based on highly-edited information that came from a source known for perpetuating hoaxes. They were even taken to court over such actions in the past.

Therefore, your approach is highly illogical and to say it is proof of anything highlights your flawed, partisan thinking.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



No longer valid that we now know for sure that Hillary directing covert attacks against other candidates to incite violence is a reality, not a theory.


If it was a reality, there would be proof. Where is that proof?

Oh, are you referring to those edited videos from Project Veritas? They are known hoaxers.



Therefore, using your logic, it's more likely it was the DNC as opposed to a group of Trump fans who couldn't help themselves, so burned down a church a week before the election, knowing it could damage his election bid.


Earlier in this thread I linked to another story that occurred earlier this year in which the "n" word was spray-painted on public property. Therefore it is much more likely that there are some idiots in the area that like to act out based on their racists ideals.


All proven. No need to re-litigate the disgusting DNC tactics now out in the open.
The church burning was more likely organised by Hillary's campaign.


Not proven in the slightest. PV refuses to release the unedited footage and so we have no context in which those conversations took place.



All proven. See I can do that too.



Yes, you can do that, but you're being intellectually dishonest.

You are forming an opinion based on highly-edited information that came from a source known for perpetuating hoaxes. They were even taken to court over such actions in the past.

Therefore, your approach is highly illogical and to say it is proof of anything highlights your flawed, partisan thinking.


Dishonest heh? Read your post and try to work out where you yourself are showing quite blatant dishonesty.
Come back with an admission and we can talk, otherwise it's pointless.

I've concluded from the knowledge I have of Hillary Clinton's campaign engaging in covert agitation and organising to incite violence that the church was most likely burned down on her direction, or one of her activists.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Dishonest heh? Read your post and try to work out where you yourself are showing quite blatant dishonesty. Come back with an admission and we can talk, otherwise it's pointless.


Please show me where I was being dishonest. Sounds to me like the good ole "I know you are but what am I" tactic. This isn't grade school.



I've concluded from the knowledge I have of Hillary Clinton's campaign engaging in covert agitation and organising to incite violence that the church was most likely burned down on her direction, or one of her activists.


Yes, I know the conclusion you've come to. That's why I said it was illogical.

If you were honest, you would say that you have come to a conclusion based upon unverified information because it fits your political desires.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Dishonest heh? Read your post and try to work out where you yourself are showing quite blatant dishonesty. Come back with an admission and we can talk, otherwise it's pointless.


Please show me where I was being dishonest. Sounds to me like the good ole "I know you are but what am I" tactic. This isn't grade school.



I've concluded from the knowledge I have of Hillary Clinton's campaign engaging in covert agitation and organising to incite violence that the church was most likely burned down on her direction, or one of her activists.


Yes, I know the conclusion you've come to. That's why I said it was illogical.

If you were honest, you would say that you have come to a conclusion based upon unverified information because it fits your political desires.


No tactic. I will leave you to critique your own post and find the dishonesty.
If you can, and can admit it, then it's worth having a conversation. If not, then no point.
edit on 4/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Dishonest heh? Read your post and try to work out where you yourself are showing quite blatant dishonesty. Come back with an admission and we can talk, otherwise it's pointless.


Please show me where I was being dishonest. Sounds to me like the good ole "I know you are but what am I" tactic. This isn't grade school.



I've concluded from the knowledge I have of Hillary Clinton's campaign engaging in covert agitation and organising to incite violence that the church was most likely burned down on her direction, or one of her activists.


Yes, I know the conclusion you've come to. That's why I said it was illogical.

If you were honest, you would say that you have come to a conclusion based upon unverified information because it fits your political desires.


No tactic. I will leave you to critique your own post and find the dishonesty.
If you can, and can admit it, then it's worth having a conversation. If not, then no point.




I admit that you are making things up to divert attention from your illogical assertion.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Just hold your horses there, pardner...just because "Trump" was painted on the church doesn't mean Hillary's people didn't start the fire....Seems about right for this new breed of Clinton's propagandists.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zoyd23
Just hold your horses there, pardner...just because "Trump" was painted on the church doesn't mean Hillary's people didn't start the fire....Seems about right for this new breed of Clinton's propagandists.



Seems logical given they admitted their underhand tactics - albeit unwittingly.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
i bet you completely ignore all the violence anti trump protesters have inflicted on pro trump folks.. but as soon as some trump supporters do something you jump all over

trump isnt a #ing racist just because you say he is. nothing hes said or done says that he think white people are superior. but please prove me wrong. tell me how trump is a racist and ill systematically bury your idiotic opinions.

just because some of his supporters are misguided racists does not make him a racist.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicCow


This is pure Reichstag bullcrap. The Socialists are losing and borrowing from those they look up to for max propaganda value.


edit on 4-11-2016 by Logarock because: n



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The bombing of black churches back in the day had such an effect as to drive voters, black voters into the arms of the dems. Now dems are losing blacks......need some hair of the dog.




top topics



 
126
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join