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: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think those double standards work both ways though, they will always exist and its not really the issue I am discussing.




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
OP, do you really mean "stop highlighting the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump"? You seem a little upset that whenever the attacks on Trump come, the Clintons, or Obama or democrats have done the exact same thing. It's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of a poster attacking Trump, when you look through their post history and find not a word of criticism about Obama, Clinton et al doing the same thing.

I am afraid you are just going to have to live with it, or alternatively stop being hypocritical.

But for now, in answer to your OP title - no thanks, I decline your proposal.

edit on 21/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Trump is the most polarising politician in living memory, most of us thought that it cold never have gotten worse than George. W. Bush but the people of America have proven the rest of us wrong by electing the embodiment of the elite, Donald. J. Trump to the highest office.


How about the last administration? You didn't find that more polarizing than Bush? I think after 911 the people came together, but 8 years under Obama and his cronies is what created the polarization we see today. Obama's my way or the highway was OK with you but Trump now isn't? GIVE ME A BREAK!! lol

Trump walked into a well evolved polarization and we see it with the left not even accepting him as their president for a start. We saw it with the left calling him the worst president in history BEFORE he even took office. Trump did not create BLM, 99%ers and a dozen of other anarchist/radical left groups..Obama did...

STOP blaming the right for everything when the left was large and in charge the last 8 years and screwed it all up...geez...



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think those double standards work both ways though, they will always exist and its not really the issue I am discussing.


I see that it is.

People will defend anything under the guise of partisanship.

Many of us are just pointing it out in others.

If I'm being hypocritical, then I hope someone points it out.

If others are being hypocritical, I certainly will "illuminate" their errors.




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Trump is the most polarising politician in living memory, most of us thought that it cold never have gotten worse than George. W. Bush but the people of America have proven the rest of us wrong by electing the embodiment of the elite, Donald. J. Trump to the highest office.


How about the last administration? You didn't find that more polarizing than Bush? I think after 911 the people came together, but 8 years under Obama and his cronies is what created the polarization we see today. Obama's my way or the highway was OK with you but Trump now isn't? GIVE ME A BREAK!! lol

Trump walked into a well evolved polarization and we see it with the left not even accepting him as their president for a start. We saw it with the left calling him the worst president in history BEFORE he even took office. Trump did not create BLM, 99%ers and a dozen of other anarchist/radical left groups..Obama did...

STOP blaming the right for everything when the left was large and in charge the last 8 years and screwed it all up...geez...


I am not sure how much more polarising one can get than Hillary Clinton...



I challenge anyone to find a more divisive political speech since Hitler (and maybe even including Hitler).



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


So racial tensions improved under Obama? LGBT relations improved? Republican Democrat relations improved? US Foreign relations improved?

There wasn't a week that went by without racial relations and tensions being brought up.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




t's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of a poster attacking Trump, when you look through their post history and find not a word of criticism about Obama, Clinton et al doing the same thing.


Obama veto's 9/11 bill
Government assasination of americans under Obama
Obama's War Crimes
Obamas failing policy in Syria

I also have written out against spying programs and was also involved in threads regarding Hillary's emails and the Benghazi mess.

So what were you saying?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

You know a the thread was not about Trump being polarising, which he is. He might not be on ATS but for the rest of the world he is very polarising.

However the thread isn't about that, the idea behind the thread is about people using Hilary to deflect and distract from Trump.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Trump is the most polarising politician in living memory, most of us thought that it cold never have gotten worse than George. W. Bush but the people of America have proven the rest of us wrong by electing the embodiment of the elite, Donald. J. Trump to the highest office.


How about the last administration? You didn't find that more polarizing than Bush? I think after 911 the people came together, but 8 years under Obama and his cronies is what created the polarization we see today. Obama's my way or the highway was OK with you but Trump now isn't? GIVE ME A BREAK!! lol

Trump walked into a well evolved polarization and we see it with the left not even accepting him as their president for a start. We saw it with the left calling him the worst president in history BEFORE he even took office. Trump did not create BLM, 99%ers and a dozen of other anarchist/radical left groups..Obama did...

STOP blaming the right for everything when the left was large and in charge the last 8 years and screwed it all up...geez...


I am not sure how much more polarising one can get than Hillary Clinton...



I challenge anyone to find a more divisive political speech since Hitler (and maybe even including Hitler).


Not to mention the continued call by all dems for "resistance".....but yeah, that's not polarizing at all right?

It's like the entire Democratic party against Trump, constantly and consistently polarizing every one of their sheep against working on anything together.

Simply the call for resistance is polarizing by definition.

Maybe call for cooperation instead....I mean the polarization is what lost them the Presidency, House AND Senate....

Maybe the OP meant alienation?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



OP, do you really mean "stop highlighting the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump"? You seem a little upset that whenever the attacks on Trump come, the Clintons, or Obama or democrats have done the exact same thing. It's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of a poster attacking Trump, when you look through their post history and find not a word of criticism about Obama, Clinton et al doing the same thing.


I think your post is a great example of what the OP is talking about. When the attacks on Trump come, instead of people actually addressing the issue, they deflect with Hillary, Obama, etc.

Instead of you actually addressing the issue of using Hillary as a deflection in Trump conversations, you deflect to the motives of the poster attacking Trump. Which, of course, is not the issue whatsoever.

Even though some members may be inconsistent in holding everyone to the same criticism, that does not mean the criticism of Trump is unfounded or unreasonable.

But instead of addressing that, deflection is needed and their motives become that deflection.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Xtrozero

You know a the thread was not about Trump being polarising, which he is. He might not be on ATS but for the rest of the world he is very polarising.

However the thread isn't about that, the idea behind the thread is about people using Hilary to deflect and distract from Trump.



Or using Hillary to highlight the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump - that would be a more accurate portrayal. There is no need need for deflection as there is nothing to deflect from other than propaganda and media sensationalism. That only needs mockery not deflection.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Xtrozero

You know a the thread was not about Trump being polarising, which he is. He might not be on ATS but for the rest of the world he is very polarising.

However the thread isn't about that, the idea behind the thread is about people using Hilary to deflect and distract from Trump.



I want to pay less in taxes and have Obamacare repealed.

So Trump is at least trying. The cowardly republicans in congress are the ones I have issues with.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



OP, do you really mean "stop highlighting the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump"? You seem a little upset that whenever the attacks on Trump come, the Clintons, or Obama or democrats have done the exact same thing. It's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of a poster attacking Trump, when you look through their post history and find not a word of criticism about Obama, Clinton et al doing the same thing.


I think your post is a great example of what the OP is talking about. When the attacks on Trump come, instead of people actually addressing the issue, they deflect with Hillary, Obama, etc.

Instead of you actually addressing the issue of using Hillary as a deflection in Trump conversations, you deflect to the motives of the poster attacking Trump. Which, of course, is not the issue whatsoever.

Even though some members may be inconsistent in holding everyone to the same criticism, that does not mean the criticism of Trump is unfounded or unreasonable.

But instead of addressing that, deflection is needed and their motives become that deflection.


Just getting to the real motive.

Like I said - perfectly reasonable to question why such apparent crises were not so critical in the past. I'll continue to highlight those double standards thanks, and there is really nothing you can do about it apart from jog on. The days of liberals dictating speech and terms of a debate are long gone.

edit on 21/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Xtrozero

You know a the thread was not about Trump being polarising, which he is. He might not be on ATS but for the rest of the world he is very polarising.

However the thread isn't about that, the idea behind the thread is about people using Hilary to deflect and distract from Trump.



Or using Hillary to highlight the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump - that would be a more accurate portrayal. There is no need need for deflection as there is nothing to deflect from other than propaganda and media sensationalism. That only needs mockery not deflection.


This is the flaw in your line of thinking.

Its only hypocrisy if the person accused of the hypocrisy has been supporting Clinton, as I said in the OP most of the time most people who oppose trump also opposed Clinton, particularly on ATS. You all make the assumption that anti-Trump. equals pro-Hillary.

sometimes there will be hypocrisy at play.

But come on, if I write a thread about Trump tweeting some rubbish then by page two posters are already asking "what about Hilary....?" how is that not deflection or distraction.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



OP, do you really mean "stop highlighting the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump"? You seem a little upset that whenever the attacks on Trump come, the Clintons, or Obama or democrats have done the exact same thing. It's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of a poster attacking Trump, when you look through their post history and find not a word of criticism about Obama, Clinton et al doing the same thing.


I think your post is a great example of what the OP is talking about. When the attacks on Trump come, instead of people actually addressing the issue, they deflect with Hillary, Obama, etc.

Instead of you actually addressing the issue of using Hillary as a deflection in Trump conversations, you deflect to the motives of the poster attacking Trump. Which, of course, is not the issue whatsoever.

Even though some members may be inconsistent in holding everyone to the same criticism, that does not mean the criticism of Trump is unfounded or unreasonable.

But instead of addressing that, deflection is needed and their motives become that deflection.


Just getting to the real motive.

Like I said - perfectly reasonable to question why such apparent crises were not so critical in the past. I'll continue to highlight those double standards thanks.


I know. You will continue to do just as the OP stated. You will deflect because you have no will or desire to actually address the criticisms against Trump, nor engage in rational debate.

Hillary, Obama and the rest are easy targets to aid in such deflection. In this case, the motives of others that wish to discuss Trump issues are the deflection.



thanks, and there is really nothing you can do about it apart from jog on. The days of liberals dictating speech and terms of a debate are long gone.


True. You can't force someone to stick to the topic. It is human nature to change the topic when the initial topic is not in your favor.
edit on 21-7-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Xtrozero

You know a the thread was not about Trump being polarising, which he is. He might not be on ATS but for the rest of the world he is very polarising.

However the thread isn't about that, the idea behind the thread is about people using Hilary to deflect and distract from Trump.



Or using Hillary to highlight the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump - that would be a more accurate portrayal. There is no need need for deflection as there is nothing to deflect from other than propaganda and media sensationalism. That only needs mockery not deflection.


This is the flaw in your line of thinking.

Its only hypocrisy if the person accused of the hypocrisy has been supporting Clinton, as I said in the OP most of the time most people who oppose trump also opposed Clinton, particularly on ATS. You all make the assumption that anti-Trump. equals pro-Hillary.

sometimes there will be hypocrisy at play.

But come on, if I write a thread about Trump tweeting some rubbish then by page two posters are already asking "what about Hilary....?" how is that not deflection or distraction.


It depends what you write about. If it's something like divisive language as you mentioned then no person who lived through the last 8 years and especially the campaign season of 2016 can attack Trump without expecting the hypocrisy to be highlighted.

If it is something specific to Trump then sure.
edit on 21/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



OP, do you really mean "stop highlighting the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump"? You seem a little upset that whenever the attacks on Trump come, the Clintons, or Obama or democrats have done the exact same thing. It's perfectly reasonable to question the motives of a poster attacking Trump, when you look through their post history and find not a word of criticism about Obama, Clinton et al doing the same thing.


I think your post is a great example of what the OP is talking about. When the attacks on Trump come, instead of people actually addressing the issue, they deflect with Hillary, Obama, etc.

Instead of you actually addressing the issue of using Hillary as a deflection in Trump conversations, you deflect to the motives of the poster attacking Trump. Which, of course, is not the issue whatsoever.

Even though some members may be inconsistent in holding everyone to the same criticism, that does not mean the criticism of Trump is unfounded or unreasonable.

But instead of addressing that, deflection is needed and their motives become that deflection.


Just getting to the real motive.

Like I said - perfectly reasonable to question why such apparent crises were not so critical in the past. I'll continue to highlight those double standards thanks.


I know. You will continue to do just as the OP stated. You will deflect because you have no will or desire to actually address the criticisms against Trump, nor engage in rational debate.

Hillary, Obama and the rest are easy targets to aid in such deflection. In this case, the motives of others that wish to discuss Trump issues are the deflection.



thanks, and there is really nothing you can do about it apart from jog on. The days of liberals dictating speech and terms of a debate are long gone.


True. You can't force someone to stick to the topic. It is human nature to change the topic when the initial topic is not in your favor.


I am perfectly on topic - unless you think we should take the thread as a directive and comply, responding with agreement. I reject your premise of deflection.

..and yes, the hypocrisy of the attacks on Trump will be highlighted with examples where it didn't seem to matter before. At least you seem clear on that.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Thank you for your comments.

I think a lot of the time there is a lack of political maturity and that is part of the problem. I was a big fan of Obama, but as you can see above I did speak out against his flaws. The problem seems to be that Trumps supporters refuse to acknowledge any of his flaws and when faced with them thats when the distractions start.

I think another member said that he was supporting Trump because he wanted healthcare reform and lower taxes. Fair enough, that is a valid reason to support Trump. Now you can still support Trump and acknowledge his flaws. For example it would be reasonable I think to say something to the effect of that although yes Trump has tweeted some dumb stuff and has questionable links with the Russians that for you its more important what he is doing with healthcare.

At least that way people are acknowledging his flaws, but they don't seem to to that, they just go on the attack.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: introvert

Thank you for your comments.

I think a lot of the time there is a lack of political maturity and that is part of the problem. I was a big fan of Obama, but as you can see above I did speak out against his flaws. The problem seems to be that Trumps supporters refuse to acknowledge any of his flaws and when faced with them thats when the distractions start.

I think another member said that he was supporting Trump because he wanted healthcare reform and lower taxes. Fair enough, that is a valid reason to support Trump. Now you can still support Trump and acknowledge his flaws. For example it would be reasonable I think to say something to the effect of that although yes Trump has tweeted some dumb stuff and has questionable links with the Russians that for you its more important what he is doing with healthcare.

At least that way people are acknowledging his flaws, but they don't seem to to that, they just go on the attack.


Plenty of Trump's flaws have been highlighted, by Trump supporters. The hysterical over reactions to business as usual, however, are bound to be met with a challenge of why the same circumstances did not merit the same reaction in the past.

If you would like to be "politically mature", stop peddling media narratives and look at the bigger picture before diving in with the attack threads and posts against the President.
edit on 21/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Plenty of Trump's flaws have been highlighted, by Trump supporters


Cool so if that is so true care to link to your threads calling him out for his flaws???



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join