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.

 

Stop Making this About Clinton.

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
so short sited focus on the past play right into the elites hands .
Learn from the past and use that to Make a better future .
Clinton Trump Obama a horse of a different color
You are the Government and they are You now take a long look would you rather just keep complaining for the next 4 years or acutly change things ?
trump is who we have now lets MAKE HIM do the job . Stop complain about what you dont like and make the Government = YOU do what you do like .
the Bush Hillary Obama Trump bash fest is wasting time we could be changing our country for the better .
But people would then having nothing to complane about and the reality show would end .




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Trump is the most polarising politician in living memory


Actually I'd say Hillary and Obama are. Obama demonized the police departments for taking down criminals and Hillary with her Deplorable comment labeling anyone that didn't support her as racists.




“What about Clinton”

They come about in some variation in just about every debate had about Trump and his antics. During the election cycle leading up to election of last year the comparison between the two political figures was fair and just. There was a choice (a word I use loosely) to be had, Trump or Clinton, that is what the debate was essentially about. However that debate has now passed, the debate of Trump vs Clinton is over, Trump won it.

As such then it is becoming very annoying when in the course of debate the issue of Clinton is brought up. The Clintons are not in the oval office, Trump is, it is Trump how now faces the scrutiny that comes with sitting at that table, not the Clintons.


Yea facts tend to destroy false arguments. I'd be upset too if I supported that criminal to find out just how terrible of a person she really is. I guess her flip-flopping to garner votes has finally caught up to her. Liars will be pointed out as liars, time to get over it. If you don't like others tactics in debate then don't engage them is my recommendation.




The truth is that it Clinton no longer matters, the entire political dynasty of the Clintons is now over. Trump destroyed them. Yet the only ones strangely who keep the Clintons relevant and current are actually Trump supporters who are still obsessed with comparing them to Trump.



Oh she matters because her foreign policy is still causing havoc in a few places around the world.




Trumps actions and the actions of the Clintons are two separate issues, Trumps collusion with the Russians for example is a separate issue from Hilary’s piss poor handling of her emails.


Please link proof of Trumps collusion with the Russians. As far as I know this is just propaganda only believed by the left.




If you truly support Trump and want to fight his corner then that is fine, but when you are doing this by turning everything into Clinton issue you are not actually doing anything to defend Trump only taking attention away from him for a fleeting moment. There are some very serious questions and debates to be had about Trumps dealings with the Russians, starting to ask off-topic questions of the Clintons during these debates only shows weakness in your arguments. It demonstrates that your on the ropes so you defect the blows by trying to make the issue Clinton.


There are some very serious questions, but the Russians aren't it. The questions I have is why is it so bad that we supported and voted for a man with the same message for the past 30+ years? You want to complain about Russians, which there isn't really any proof of. Yet are ok supporting candidates that flip-flop year to year whenever the tides change. Collude in their own ways, hence Bernie being cheated, and circumvent the laws. Plus, how many other countries are hacking to effect our elections? Why is that never mentioned from the left?




Being anti-trump does not make one pro-Hilary, it does not even make someone a Democrat supporter or a leftist liberal.

I guess the whole point I am trying to make is that Trump supporters need to actually start engaging in the debates about Trump and stop distracting by trying to turn everything into a discussion about Clinton or left vs right and dismissing anything they don't like as fake news.

The issue is Trump, not Clinton


Well you being from the UK, I'm unsure why your opinion should even matter. Don't you have your own issues to deal with? How about you debate the way you want and we will debate our own way. If you don't like fake news being dismissed as fake news, then maybe they should tone down the propaganda. I'd also argue that the real issue is the left not doing anything but obstructing policy without trying to do right by the American people themselves.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
It has to be pointed out that Hillary was our alternative.

To avoid Trump, we had to have Hillary. So yes, for many of this, it *is* about Hillary. Trump is precisely how much we didn't want her. Consider how much you revile Trump and realize that many of us dislike Hillary that. much. more.

There really was no choice. No viable third party candidate who could pull it off. So don't come back and say we didn't have to vote for either of them. Yes, we did. If we wanted to have a voice, that was our realistic choice. Either him. Or her.
edit on 21-7-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Ok so, just for some balance...Obama destroyed the Bush dynasty yet he and all of his and Hillary's minions blamed and pointed their fingers at him for years rather than taking responsibility for the economy, Iraq, Syria...lord the list is long...so I fail to see how your well written op is a relevant comparison.

Uh the economy recovered very well under Obama after exploding during George W. Bush's term. It took awhile, as such recoveries are apt to do, but things were certainly better by the end of Obama's term.

Did you forget that the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 was before Obama?


Uhhh , I dont think anyone is talking about the economy,,,
I believe it is about the polarization of the US
Barack . is that you again ?

That poster literally talked about the economy.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Obama destroyed the Bush dynasty yet he and all of his and Hillary's minions blamed and pointed their fingers at him for years rather than taking responsibility for the economy

Perhaps read the posts you respond to more thoroughly?

What do you not get about the first half of that statement about Dems blaming Bush for everything ? That is a direct relevance to polarization of this country. In fact , some of the first examples .

Perhaps a better than selective reading comprehension on your part? A little knowledge of the time frame ?
Youre not from around here , er ya ?

What do you not get about economic criticisms being warranted?
What do you not get about the successful economic recovery meaning Obama took responsibility for the crisis?

Are you saying truth and action are polarizing?
edit on 7Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:37:03 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Ok so, just for some balance...Obama destroyed the Bush dynasty yet he and all of his and Hillary's minions blamed and pointed their fingers at him for years rather than taking responsibility for the economy, Iraq, Syria...lord the list is long...so I fail to see how your well written op is a relevant comparison.

Uh the economy recovered very well under Obama after exploding during George W. Bush's term. It took awhile, as such recoveries are apt to do, but things were certainly better by the end of Obama's term.

Did you forget that the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 was before Obama?


Uhhh , I dont think anyone is talking about the economy,,,
I believe it is about the polarization of the US
Barack . is that you again ?

That poster literally talked about the economy.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Obama destroyed the Bush dynasty yet he and all of his and Hillary's minions blamed and pointed their fingers at him for years rather than taking responsibility for the economy

Perhaps read the posts you respond to more thoroughly?

What do you not get about the first half of that statement about Dems blaming Bush for everything ? That is a direct relevance to polarization of this country. In fact , some of the first examples .

Perhaps a better than selective reading comprehension on your part? A little knowledge of the time frame ?
Youre not from around here , er ya ?

What do you not get about the blame being warranted?

Are you saying truth and reality are polarizing?


In politics "truth" and "reality" are often very subjective.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The issue is Trump, not Clinton

Wrong.

We have Trump, because there was no Republican candidate worth voting for.
We have Trump, because the DNC ran the most polarizing political figure in history.

Hillary had no record to run on. She failed as a Senator. She failed as SoS.
Her husband was a philandering POS who couldn't keep his tools on the bench while in office.

The DNC gave us Trump. They gave him to the world on a silver platter.

And remember ... Trump is a Democrat. A tiger can no more change his stripes, than can a zebra or a Trump.

And you're not even an American with a voice to post a legit complaint about America's politics. Focus on Brexit. When you get that done, come back and we can talk.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Recall, this was the remark I responded to:

Obama destroyed the Bush dynasty yet he and all of his and Hillary's minions blamed and pointed their fingers at him for years rather than taking responsibility for the economy


That the financial crisis happened in 2007-2008 is not up for debate - that was under Bush.
That the economy recovered under Obama from the end of Bush's term is not up for debate - the economic metrics are there to show it.
That Obama's administration, for lack of a better word, 'manned up' and improved the economy is not up for debate.

Seems like his team took responsibility for fixing the economy, if not for causing the problem.
edit on 7Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:43:10 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Ok so, just for some balance...Obama destroyed the Bush dynasty yet he and all of his and Hillary's minions blamed and pointed their fingers at him for years rather than taking responsibility for the economy, Iraq, Syria...lord the list is long...so I fail to see how your well written op is a relevant comparison.

Uh the economy recovered very well under Obama after exploding during George W. Bush's term. It took awhile, as such recoveries are apt to do, but things were certainly better by the end of Obama's term.

Did you forget that the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 was before Obama?


Uhhh , I dont think anyone is talking about the economy,,,
I believe it is about the polarization of the US
Barack . is that you again ?

That poster literally talked about the economy.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Obama destroyed the Bush dynasty yet he and all of his and Hillary's minions blamed and pointed their fingers at him for years rather than taking responsibility for the economy

Perhaps read the posts you respond to more thoroughly?

What do you not get about the first half of that statement about Dems blaming Bush for everything ? That is a direct relevance to polarization of this country. In fact , some of the first examples .

Perhaps a better than selective reading comprehension on your part? A little knowledge of the time frame ?
Youre not from around here , er ya ?

What do you not get about economic criticisms being warranted?
What do you not get about the successful economic recovery meaning Obama took responsibility for the crisis?

Are you saying truth and action are polarizing?

Again this was about polarizing not economic. No where did I mention fault.
Careful , your ignorance is showing
Cover it up and keep it covered
No one wants to see that shiite
And with that
Game over , you never had any tokens to play , anyhow



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Why does anyone bother to post in this members threads? I mean, this member is in England. This is American politics, have zero, nothing, nada to do with British subjects. This member loves this bickering political commentary. Why? Cause ? I have zero idea. Your girl LOST THE ELECTION.....get over it and yourself. Cause neither is all that. You guys politics are as boring as your food, Germans should have bombed your arse's with cookbooks.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The OP sounds like a payed CIA operative trying to hush all the juicy news coming out about the deep state. Hillary is central to most but not all of it. Human trafficking, running drugs, selling depleted uranium, organ trafficking, SilkWays, Amalgamated bank etc, etc, etc. A conspiracy theorists wet dream. We want more!!!




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
Why does anyone bother to post in this members threads? I mean, this member is in England. This is American politics, have zero, nothing, nada to do with British subjects. This member loves this bickering political commentary. Why? Cause ? I have zero idea. Your girl LOST THE ELECTION.....get over it and yourself. Cause neither is all that. You guys politics are as boring as your food, Germans should have bombed your arse's with cookbooks.


There letter response: MOD



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Ideology is what is polarizing, not one man. Trump wouldn't be perceived as nearly as polarizing if those who cling to ideology as if it's a Titanic lifeboat wouldn't be so loud and vocal against the things that they perceive as being wrong about Trump.

The same can be said about Obama, too, and Clinton, and a few before that. It's the atmosphere of ideology that is to blame, not the single individual. Yes Trump can be polarizing, for sure, but that's simply because he's assertive with his plans and goals, regardless if they appease everyone. Obama was the same way, but the words just sounded nicer because he delivered them better. Hillary, on the other hand, is a female version of Trump...neither are nice to listen to.

I guess that what I'm saying really doesn't matter in the end, and it only plays on one part of your OP, but I really wish that everyone could see through the fabricated boogeyman and realize that it is the polarizing nature of our ideologically driven society that produces people like Trump and Clinton, and not the other way around.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Actually, Obama was the most polarizing....hence all the riots and stuff....remember those...every week.

I'd say the polarizing going on now is the media. And every Dem in the news pushing the Russia crap that STILL hasn't been proven.

Either way....freedom of speech and all that so just because you think Trump does what you say he does isn't a reason for me to believe you are correct, nor a reason to continue to be pissed that HRC is guilty as hell of mishandling top secret data yet plays dumb and gets away with it....


What are all these riots you are talking about? Don't you remember the Nixon through Reagan ye

It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"



and by 1971 protest bombings had spread across the country. In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972 the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day. Because they were typically detonated late at night, few caused serious injury, leading to a kind of grudging public acceptance. The deadliest underground attack of the decade, in fact, killed all of four people, in the January 1975 bombing of a Wall Street restaurant. News accounts rarely carried any expression or indication of public outrage.

Text




And the violence actually grew more deadly as the number of underground groups dwindled and grew more desperate; the deadliest year for underground violence was 1981, when eleven people were killed in bombings and bank robberies gone bad.


Source

The last full on riot I recall was Baltimore riots. In all, twenty police officers injured, at least 250 people arrested, 285 to 350 businesses damaged, 150 vehicle fires, 60 structure fires, 27 drugstores looted, thousands of police and Maryland National Guard troops deployed, and with a state of emergency declared in the city limits of Baltimore.

Source

No one killed (except for Freddie Gray, which kicked it all off).

Before that you have to go back to 1991, under Bush, when LA exploded over the Rodney king verdict. They killed people there. Much more damage also.

Those are 2 major riots from 2015 - 1991 You are not talking about riots, you are talking about some thugs trashing stuff.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: openyourmind1262




Why does anyone bother to post in this members threads?


ermmm ask yourself?



I mean, this member is in England.


Wrong but am guessing to you the United Kingdom is just England because you are ignorant.




This is American politics, have zero, nothing, nada to do with British subjects.


So I have two questions for you and I expect an answer.

1. Does freedom of speech only apply to Americans?
2. What the hell is a "British subject"?



This member loves this bickering political commentary. Why? Cause ? I have zero idea


If you Read the OP, you can read right, I mean you can kind of write so I guess you can kind of read, anyway, if you read the OP I actually tell you why, its a guilty pleasure. Thats right I actually get joy out of this.



Your girl LOST THE ELECTION.....


my girl? If you mean Hillary she was not "my girl", I hate that woman.



You guys politics are as boring as your food, Germans should have bombed your arse's with cookbooks.


ohhh did you just insult my donner kebab!!

I love thats the best you could come up with yeah those Germans should have bombed us with cookbooks.

Funny thing is talking about distractions and deflections nothing in that button mashing post you wrote actually addresses anything in the OP really.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Greven

You miss the point...my point being liberals, Obama himself and the media blamed Bush consistently for 7 years for everything...it then disappeared with the beginning of the annointed Hillary's campaign announcement.

The Op and others have been beating the leave Hillary alone drum within a month of Trumps win. Solely an observation.

Im an independent moderate


Historically, we should go on blaming the Bush administration forever. They caused, or at least presided over the greatest economic crash since the depression on 1929. Should we forget about that? Rewrite textbooks so that folks don't feel sad?

I think it kept getting brought up because alt-right types were trying to pin it in the Obama administration.

Don't bring it up, and you won't have your feelings hurt. But if you post things that are wildly untrue like "Obama ruined the economy" or "we lost our jobs because of Obama," then you will get schooled in history, and might feel unhappy.



Have a beer.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
Why does anyone bother to post in this members threads? I mean, this member is in England. This is American politics, have zero, nothing, nada to do with British subjects. This member loves this bickering political commentary. Why? Cause ? I have zero idea. Your girl LOST THE ELECTION.....get over it and yourself. Cause neither is all that. You guys politics are as boring as your food, Germans should have bombed your arse's with cookbooks.


And yet...you bother to post in this thread. LOL And you ask "why" the political bickering? It's in the Mudpit.

But instead of talking about the subject matter, you proceed ad hominem, attacking the OP, the OP's home country, and...even the food? And in case you didn't read the OP, he specifically asks why people (such as yourself) think anyone who is anti-Trump is automatically pro-Hillary? Thanks for proving his point. Take a deep breath.

And get a grip, man.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: onehuman
I think the thing with Clinton is that she has gotten away with so many crimes and people don't want to forget that or it is hard too when fingers are being pointed. No matter what happens she should still have to face the music for them. I think people are just angry about that no matter what side of the playground they play on.

It just gets fused into the conversations. If she were the president now she would be sitting on a very hot seat herself.

I don't think it is so much people trying to deflect as it is they don't feel like that chapter has been directly dealt with and come to a proper final conclusion. Sort of like a dirty stinky shoe behind the couch that someone forgot about or missed during the spring clean. The stink still lingers.


This is the thing - you have heard she is a criminal so many times by the alt-right that you believe it. Where are the convictions?

I am not a person in the public limelight, and thus have greater rights as far as libel and defamation. If you went around saying or writing that I commit crimes and get away with it I would sue your pants off of you, and win, unless you could prove it. I would own your stuff and all your money. And if you continued to libel or defame me I would own your future earnings.

Lucky for you the laws are not as strict for public persons, but there is a limit. Witness Trump suing everyone who says he is not as rich as he says (and he loses).

Call her a crook if you want - but prove it, or walk.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Stop Making this About Clinton


How about "no"? What are you, the language police?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket

See?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Actually, Obama was the most polarizing....hence all the riots and stuff....remember those...every week


No one remembers that. Because it's a lie.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join