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: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
The DNC made this "about Clinton" the day they shoehorned her into the nomination. The most vile career criminal/politician on the planet. You may believe Trump to be a career criminal, but he's NOT a politician which makes him 50% better than her. So there.




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Poor logic on your part too. How can a thread about deflecting from discussions relating to Trump using Hillary not play to the motives of other posters?


It would only apply if you were talking about the motives of the ones doing the deflecting. That is not how you are approaching the issue. You are using the motives of others as the deflection itself.



As for the OP's point, I am not proving it, I am dismissing it and denying the request.


Deny it all you want. You are doing exactly what the OP stated.


I have already talked about the motives of why people bring up Hillary on more than one occasion in this thread.
You seem to be having trouble - again. I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson by now.


Such arrogance.

Anyway, pure deflection, as the OP stated.

Trying to highlight the hypocrisy does not address the topic at hand. It deflects from it because it allows you to bypass the original premise, which would be about Trump, and place the focus on other members.

That's what you and others like to do.

Edit: I see others have picked up on your narrative. So much for being anti-propaganda, huh? You created your own.


Just wondering, but why can't the discussion be about both? Why shouldn't it? Just because someone committed a crime years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't and couldn't be held accountable....hence the statute of limitations differences for each crime.

My problem with making it about one versus the other at this point is that one has provably committed a crime and played it off as if they were too dumb to understand, yet held one of the highest positions in government and was a runner up for POTUS...while the other has yet to have been proven to have committed any crime at all and is being chastised by the Democratic party and MSM.

One has $hat all over the American people for decades while the otger got rich because of laws the first one helped pass.

One is a career politician who has had major influence on our country and where we are today in terms of economics and foreign policy while the other was never in politics.

One got rich off our tax dollars while the other got rich by building a business.

While I am sure BOTH have had shady dealings, one has been proven to have done such while the other has yet to be proven to have done anything the accusers claim.

In this respect, you can't argue one without the other being involved as what we are dealing with is a country that the Clintons have had a hand in shaping for 30 years in 2 of the highest offices in the US Government and Trump who has been in for 7 months of nothing but "resistance" And attacks at every turn and likely currently has the same attempt at destroying him as Clinton did to Bernie....again proven it was done to Bernie.


If you like, we could keep bringing up Iran-Contra, when the Reagan administration proved they were traitors, just like Trump, by selling arms to the Iranians, then illegally funneling the profits to drug smugglers in South America, who established to drug cartels that plague us to this day. Oh, and did I mention defying congress by providing arms to the contras, despite the laws passed to prevent exactly that?

Sure, we could do a lot of comparisons between Trump being a Traitor and past US presidents....



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Poor logic on your part too. How can a thread about deflecting from discussions relating to Trump using Hillary not play to the motives of other posters?


It would only apply if you were talking about the motives of the ones doing the deflecting. That is not how you are approaching the issue. You are using the motives of others as the deflection itself.



As for the OP's point, I am not proving it, I am dismissing it and denying the request.


Deny it all you want. You are doing exactly what the OP stated.


I have already talked about the motives of why people bring up Hillary on more than one occasion in this thread.
You seem to be having trouble - again. I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson by now.


Such arrogance.

Anyway, pure deflection, as the OP stated.

Trying to highlight the hypocrisy does not address the topic at hand. It deflects from it because it allows you to bypass the original premise, which would be about Trump, and place the focus on other members.

That's what you and others like to do.

Edit: I see others have picked up on your narrative. So much for being anti-propaganda, huh? You created your own.


Just wondering, but why can't the discussion be about both? Why shouldn't it? Just because someone committed a crime years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't and couldn't be held accountable....hence the statute of limitations differences for each crime.

My problem with making it about one versus the other at this point is that one has provably committed a crime and played it off as if they were too dumb to understand, yet held one of the highest positions in government and was a runner up for POTUS...while the other has yet to have been proven to have committed any crime at all and is being chastised by the Democratic party and MSM.

One has $hat all over the American people for decades while the otger got rich because of laws the first one helped pass.

One is a career politician who has had major influence on our country and where we are today in terms of economics and foreign policy while the other was never in politics.

One got rich off our tax dollars while the other got rich by building a business.

While I am sure BOTH have had shady dealings, one has been proven to have done such while the other has yet to be proven to have done anything the accusers claim.

In this respect, you can't argue one without the other being involved as what we are dealing with is a country that the Clintons have had a hand in shaping for 30 years in 2 of the highest offices in the US Government and Trump who has been in for 7 months of nothing but "resistance" And attacks at every turn and likely currently has the same attempt at destroying him as Clinton did to Bernie....again proven it was done to Bernie.


If you like, we could keep bringing up Iran-Contra, when the Reagan administration proved they were traitors, just like Trump, by selling arms to the Iranians, then illegally funneling the profits to drug smugglers in South America, who established to drug cartels that plague us to this day. Oh, and did I mention defying congress by providing arms to the contras, despite the laws passed to prevent exactly that?

Sure, we could do a lot of comparisons between Trump being a Traitor and past US presidents....


Indeed - there is so much to not like about US Presidents behaviour in the past. Thanks for making the point that what is happening now is nothing more than business as usual - even if any of the allegations were proven.

You cracked it - pointing out the hypocritical reaction now is precisely the reason past behaviour is brought up for context.


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



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I believe there is a new term coined for exactly for this situation that has been floating around some conservative blogs. It is called "Whataboutism". People will deflect from what their preferred politician does in order to highlight the misgivings of an opposing politician. Yes, the current polarization of politics has gotten even some of the best folks to have a complete lack of rational thought and reasoning.

I will offer this... politics have ALWAYS been polarizing. Read some of the first few years of this nation's Senate arguments and you will learn that certain subjects (slavery) were banned from debate on the floor because of bad behavior. There were even gentlemens duals over disparaging remarks made between leaders (Hamilton/Burr). I believe our current polarization is a mixture of other elements. Increasingly, we have a culture war within society that is being codified into law and many, many folks disagree with this. Another element would be the availability of jobs so that one may provide for their family. This list could go on and on about the disagreeable things I believe our government does to us, but that is for another thread.

In the end, I agree that we should hold all of our representatives, senators, presidents, and bureaucrats to ONE standard. Not several standards that may apply depending on sex, race, religion, or political affiliation.
edit on 21-7-2017 by bmullini because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Just wondering, but why can't the discussion be about both?


Because one is relevant and the other is not.

To bring up Hillary in a discussion about Trump's actions serves no other purpose than to deflect.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
The DNC made this "about Clinton" the day they shoehorned her into the nomination. The most vile career criminal/politician on the planet. You may believe Trump to be a career criminal, but he's NOT a politician which makes him 50% better than her. So there.


The election made her irrelevant once again.

Continually bringing her up in regards to Trump seems like desperately holding on to cherished scapegoats that people are afraid to let go of.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



Poor logic on your part too. How can a thread about deflecting from discussions relating to Trump using Hillary not play to the motives of other posters?


It would only apply if you were talking about the motives of the ones doing the deflecting. That is not how you are approaching the issue. You are using the motives of others as the deflection itself.



As for the OP's point, I am not proving it, I am dismissing it and denying the request.


Deny it all you want. You are doing exactly what the OP stated.


I have already talked about the motives of why people bring up Hillary on more than one occasion in this thread.
You seem to be having trouble - again. I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson by now.


Such arrogance.

Anyway, pure deflection, as the OP stated.

Trying to highlight the hypocrisy does not address the topic at hand. It deflects from it because it allows you to bypass the original premise, which would be about Trump, and place the focus on other members.

That's what you and others like to do.

Edit: I see others have picked up on your narrative. So much for being anti-propaganda, huh? You created your own.


Just wondering, but why can't the discussion be about both? Why shouldn't it? Just because someone committed a crime years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't and couldn't be held accountable....hence the statute of limitations differences for each crime.

My problem with making it about one versus the other at this point is that one has provably committed a crime and played it off as if they were too dumb to understand, yet held one of the highest positions in government and was a runner up for POTUS...while the other has yet to have been proven to have committed any crime at all and is being chastised by the Democratic party and MSM.

One has $hat all over the American people for decades while the otger got rich because of laws the first one helped pass.

One is a career politician who has had major influence on our country and where we are today in terms of economics and foreign policy while the other was never in politics.

One got rich off our tax dollars while the other got rich by building a business.

While I am sure BOTH have had shady dealings, one has been proven to have done such while the other has yet to be proven to have done anything the accusers claim.

In this respect, you can't argue one without the other being involved as what we are dealing with is a country that the Clintons have had a hand in shaping for 30 years in 2 of the highest offices in the US Government and Trump who has been in for 7 months of nothing but "resistance" And attacks at every turn and likely currently has the same attempt at destroying him as Clinton did to Bernie....again proven it was done to Bernie.


If you like, we could keep bringing up Iran-Contra, when the Reagan administration proved they were traitors, just like Trump, by selling arms to the Iranians, then illegally funneling the profits to drug smugglers in South America, who established to drug cartels that plague us to this day. Oh, and did I mention defying congress by providing arms to the contras, despite the laws passed to prevent exactly that?

Sure, we could do a lot of comparisons between Trump being a Traitor and past US presidents....


I guess we could, but I don't see anyone from that era on MSM weekly calling for resistance and pushing that narrative.

The reason these things come up are because the DNC can't understand that they lost and lost in a massive way. They could be the bigger party here and instead of just spewing vitriol and hatred and resistance, they could attempt to understand WHY they lost, not only the Presidential run, but also the House and Senate. The Russians certainly didn't influence every single seat they lost right?

And what exactly does what they are doing right now accomplish to help the US? They just can't move on and try to do what's best for the people....ghey have to continue the futile charge and continue to waste our money on all fronts. Their campaign here in GA cost them $30million and they lost. I can think of a LOT better ways to spend $30MM than on TV and Radio ads. They touted that as a referendum on Trump and look what happened...they lost.

You have their highest positions and longest elected officials making crazed claims on national TV. You have our former FBI director looking like a total buffoon because of Clinton. You have Lynch telling him to not call it an investigation. I can go on and on, but to separate Clinton from Trump is easy....she was actually guilty of a real crime and not prosecuted at the recommendation under duress (by Lynch) of Comey. Trump has yet to have any piece of evidence of any crime hes accused of come out...absolutely nothing, yet the Dems just can't let go and are stalling our current administration on being able to do anything to actually right this ship.

Let ACA fail.....i would guarantee it would be blamed on Trump somehow. Then how do you have a conversation without bringing up Obama or Clinton?



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: underpass61
The DNC made this "about Clinton" the day they shoehorned her into the nomination. The most vile career criminal/politician on the planet. You may believe Trump to be a career criminal, but he's NOT a politician which makes him 50% better than her. So there.


The election made her irrelevant once again.

Continually bringing her up in regards to Trump seems like desperately holding on to cherished scapegoats that people are afraid to let go of.


The hypocrisy of the radical left made her relevant once again. Always best to use examples when highlighting such hypocrisy.


You'll eventually learn that you don't get to set the parameters of a conversation or debate.
edit on 21/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   


Indeed - there is so much to not like about US Presidents behaviour in the past. Thanks for making the point that what is happening now is nothing more than business as usual - even if any of the allegations were proven.

Yup, they did up Nixon right. The forgot the rules with Iran Contra, and gave out immunity for testimony, so too many folks never went to jail.

However, this time they are remembering the crimes of the past. Flynn will get no immunity. He may get jail. Manafort's check is pretty much cashed also. We will wait and see how many of the Trumps do time.

But this is not business as usual, at least to me. This is treason. It comes along every generation or so, usually along with a republican president. Nixon, Reagan, Bush II.

In my book there is only one punishment for treason. I think you know where I am coming from.


edit on 21-7-2017 by TacSite18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Just wondering, but why can't the discussion be about both?


Because one is relevant and the other is not.

To bring up Hillary in a discussion about Trump's actions serves no other purpose than to deflect.


How is she not relevant? MSM is still doing polls on her approval rating.

There are still current reports of new documents about her being turned over to the FBI... 7000 new Clinton Docs of which the article states :

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News after the hearing that they expect to begin receiving those documents in three months, once the State Department determines whether the Weiner documents are government or personal records.


Now how does it take 3 months to turn over 7K docs when they went through 650K emails in 8 days?

There are definitive reasons WHY she is still relevant and they are because she either keeps herself in the news with resistance speeches or is tied to every single scandal in DC right now.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I guess we could, but I don't see anyone from that era on MSM weekly calling for resistance and pushing that narrative.

So the MSM drives what we discuss here? I didn't know that they affected you and ATS so deeply.


The reason these things come up are because the DNC can't understand that they lost and lost in a massive way.

I am always amazed at how the alt-right can read minds so well. Or is this the usual straw-man argument that has been floating around?


And what exactly does what they are doing right now accomplish to help the US?

About the most important thing that any good American can do - protect our constitution from manipulation, corruption, and outright treason.


she was actually guilty of a real crime and not prosecuted at the recommendation under duress (by Lynch) of Comey.

Source please.


edit on 21-7-2017 by TacSite18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



The hypocrisy of the radical left made her relevant once again. Always best to use examples when highlighting such hypocrisy.


I think you're just making stuff up as you go along. Hillary is no longer relevant, but you have to create a narrative that she is in order to give some weight to your chosen mode of deflection.

It's also funny because it appears that you are a hypocrite pointing fingers at hypocrites.




You'll eventually learn that you don't get to set the parameters of a conversation or debate.


True. Only ATS T and C's can do that. But what we can do is point out people's deflections and their silly attempts to justify them.

If you can't handle a discussion about Trump and must resort to using Hillary as a deflection, it only serves as a reminder that you had no legitimate argument to begin with.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



How is she not relevant? MSM is still doing polls on her approval rating.


She is not relevant in regards to Trump and his actions. Therefore it is illogical to use her as a deflection when discussion matters involving Trump.



There are definitive reasons WHY she is still relevant and they are because she either keeps herself in the news with resistance speeches or is tied to every single scandal in DC right now.


That does not make her relevant when discussing Trump.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
The DNC made this "about Clinton" the day they shoehorned her into the nomination. The most vile career criminal/politician on the planet. You may believe Trump to be a career criminal, but he's NOT a politician which makes him 50% better than her. So there.


I don't think you or others are grasping what is being said. Your hate for Hillary blinds you to anything else, it seems. If Trump does something that is not considered secure (which has happened), people should not bring up the Clinton email server (which they did).

It wouldn't even matter if Hillary did it with malicious intent (which I don't think is the case.. I think she was just being stupid), was guilty as sin, and got off 100% without any repercussions. It makes no sense to bring it up in response to a completely different security situation Trump is involved in. Which has happened here.. repeatedly.

"Trump did stupid security breech thing X.."
"Who cares.. Hillary did security breech thing Y and Z!"

Makes no sense at all and is just deflection away from Trump. He should not be immune to criticism due to the transgressions of his predecessors or adversaries.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


How is she not relevant? MSM is still doing polls on her approval rating.

There you go again insisting that the MSM is the primary driver of your appreciation of what is important at ATS. What is it with the MSM that you insist that they are the be-all and end-all of your consciousness? The MSM must figure largely in your life. Poor thing. Maybe go outside and get some air. Smell a flower. See the sun.

Forget about the MSM. You are becoming obsessed.
edit on 21-7-2017 by TacSite18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I guess we could, but I don't see anyone from that era on MSM weekly calling for resistance and pushing that narrative.

So the MSM drives what we discuss here? I didn't know that they affected you and ATS so deeply.


The reason these things come up are because the DNC can't understand that they lost and lost in a massive way.

I am always amazed at how the alt-right can read minds so well. Or is this the usual straw-man argument that has been floating around?


And what exactly does what they are doing right now accomplish to help the US?

About the most important thing that any good American can do - protect our constitution from manipulation, corruption, and outright treason.


she was actually guilty of a real crime and not prosecuted at the recommendation under duress (by Lynch) of Comey.

Source please.



So....where do you get your information from exactly? Direct Government sources? MSM is ALL anyone is basing their arguments about Trump on. Clinton at least had plenty of folks in court and on record that we can read transcripts of.

No need to read minds...it is obvious. She is still pushing for "resistance".

Got any evidence of manipulation, corruption or outright treason from the Trump administration yet? I mean you must have inside government sources and surely you are not basing this claim on MSM stories right?

Source:



BURR: Let me go back, if I can, very briefly, to the decision to publicly go out with your results on the e-mail. Was your decision influenced by the attorney general’s tarmac meeting with the former president, Bill Clinton?

COMEY: Yes. In — in an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department.

BURR: Were there other things that contributed to that that you can describe in an open session?

COMEY: There were other things that contributed to that.

One significant item I can’t, I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee’s been briefed on the classified facts.

Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in an open setting is, at one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. But that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.



Transcript of Comey Testimony

Now that item he mentions that is the only other significant item that he can't talk about? Well it was alluded to in the testimony has involving Lynch as well, and here is how he was able to get out of saying it.

From his testimony a month earlier :



GRASSLEY: Okay, moving on to another subject, the New York Times recently reported that the FBI had found a troubling email among the ones the Russians hacked from Democrat operatives. The email reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation “didn't go too far.” How, and when, did you first learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?

COMEY: That's not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response. I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can't talk about it here.

GRASSLEY: You can expect me to follow up with you on that point.

COMEY: Sure.

GRASSLEY: What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?

COMEY: I have to give you the same answer. I can't talk about that in an unclassified setting.

GRASSLEY: Okay, then you can expect me to follow up on that. I asked the FBI to provide this email to the committee before today's hearing. Why haven't you done so and will you provide it by the end of this week?

COMEY: Again, to react to that, I have to give a classified answer and I can't give it sitting here.

GRASSLEY: So that means you can give me the email?

COMEY: I'm not confirming there was an email, sir. I can't — the subject is classified and in an appropriate forum I'd be happy to brief you on it. But I can't do it in an open hearing.


Transcript of Comey Testimony 2

Notice those 2 lines in both transcripts of Comey's testimony on 2 separate occasions, both on the same subject....



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe






There are definitive reasons WHY she is still relevant and they are because she either keeps herself in the news with resistance speeches or is tied to every single scandal in DC right now.


Really? Even Pee-Pee gate?
She was in the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and Trump Jr., and the yet to be disclosed 2000 other people?
She had a one-hour meeting with Putin, with no one else around except a Russian translator?
She is the reason all of Trump's folks are resigning?
Ad Nausium.....



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe





MSM is ALL anyone is basing their arguments about Trump on.

Really - no other internet sites, government resources, academic source - just the ole boob tube?


....where do you get your information from exactly? Direct Government sources?

Actually, yes. I do have direct access to many federal government resources, sources, data systems, reports, etc.


Got any evidence of manipulation, corruption or outright treason from the Trump administration yet?

Donny Jr. posted the evidence in his emails.
Leaks of Flynn talking to Spys
Leaks of Trump trying to get Comey to "let the Flynn thing go"

For starters.

I am sure our good old friend Mueller has a lost more. Following the money, don't ya know.

Trump is doomed. He is running around like a frightened child asking if he can pardon himself!

Well, he can't pardon impeachment. It will be a fine day when we see all of your beloved MSM beaming live pictures of Trump doing the perp-walk to the dock on the Senate floor. I'll take the day off to watch that.




edit on 21-7-2017 by TacSite18 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Vasa Croe


How is she not relevant? MSM is still doing polls on her approval rating.

There you go again insisting that the MSM is the primary driver of your appreciation of what is important at ATS. What is it with the MSM that you insist that they are the be-all and end-all of your consciousness? The MSM must figure largely in your life. Poor thing. Maybe go outside and get some air. Smell a flower. See the sun.

Forget about the MSM. You are becoming obsessed.


Hmmmm....Obsessed? Let's take a looky at your post history....should be all anyone needs to see to get a real understanding of obsession.

TacSite18 Post History

Interesting that you quote Maddow from MSNBC while attempting to act like you are not some MSM supporter.


originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TacSite18

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TacSite18


Did President Trump voice any "regrets" before firing James Comey? I don't recall.


Not that I recall. For all I know he enjoyed it.


OK..thanks. Then there won't be much "surprise" when President Trump fires Sessions. My guess is that he already has a replacement waiting in the wings. Who would be a GREAT Attorney General for President Trump and America?


Gary Johnson. Too stoned to steal my stuff, and he might share his own...if you get my drift.



Maddie on MSNBC just said Sessions is going to resign, so that means he'll be there till 2024.





Actually she may be right.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anywho....I guess after folks click on the link to your posts and read the quote directly from you it will surely let them know how hypocritical you are.



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth



The hypocrisy of the radical left made her relevant once again. Always best to use examples when highlighting such hypocrisy.


I think you're just making stuff up as you go along. Hillary is no longer relevant, but you have to create a narrative that she is in order to give some weight to your chosen mode of deflection.

It's also funny because it appears that you are a hypocrite pointing fingers at hypocrites.




You'll eventually learn that you don't get to set the parameters of a conversation or debate.


True. Only ATS T and C's can do that. But what we can do is point out people's deflections and their silly attempts to justify them.

If you can't handle a discussion about Trump and must resort to using Hillary as a deflection, it only serves as a reminder that you had no legitimate argument to begin with.


Of course Hillary is still a relevant discussion point - not only is she still politically active in her so called resistance, but she serves as a perfect example of left wing hypocrisy.

As such she will continue to be a reference point to call out the ridiculous propaganda being spouted by liberals. When the hypocrisy ends then no comparisons are required.

The continued attempts by liberals to control what others talk about is just a continuation of the failed tactics that have been so utterly rejected in election after election. You need a new game plan. Your current one is failing miserably.
edit on 21/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join