Hello ATS denizens, over the past month I have observed you being torn over the difficult decision of electing your next POTUS, as time goes by and
candidates drop left and right I have felt your pain and despair on how at the end you will be get stuck between two candidates that represent an
establishment, a candidate that wants to destroy what is America, allowing immigrants to run rampant, a candidate that is corrupt and have behave
criminally over and over again, but even so it seems its set to become the next POTUS, by now it must be clear I'm referring to Mrs. Hillary
You may think the other party may still have some hope in presenting a suitable opponent to defeat the evil individual presented by the democrats, but
lets face it they are all weak puppets, career politicians that got nothing new to offer, and of course the charismatic Mr. Donald Trump, a hero of
the people, a 1%ter by the people and for the people, he will kick the root of all American problems out of the country and he will build a yyyuuugeee
wall to prevent this scourge from ever returning, not only that, he is so great he will make those pesky mexicans pay for it, that's a man you can
respect the one and only "make America great" Trump.
Even so despite his alluring words and undeniable charisma, Mr Trump previous actions and lack of depth while addressing some vital aspects of what a
POTUS is, make some question if he is really what he represents or if not all is as orange and yuge and it seems, some even dare to say he may a plan
by TPTB so Mrs. Clinton have an easily defeatable opponent.
I have observed some of the ATSers arguments and have pondered the route some of the deep conspiratorial members would want to see America go, to not
extend this too much, you know the general idea that both political parties are corrupt, that all is fixed, that there is a evil agenda to bring the
American people down and so on.
After a struck of luck I found out there is another way, there is a third candidate that represent your deepest believe, an outsider to the madness of
establishment politicians, I would not dare to call him a hero, or right, or sane, but he seems to me what some of you dream to be a potus, with out
further ado I give you the actual real candidate Bob Whitaker
He really resonates with what you people say, have an open mind and hear some of what he says
Have an open mind and tell me if what he says does not resonate with what is sputtered day in and day out on these boards
So consider picking one of you, I am not saying to vote for him, I am not saying I support him, Some may say this post is Satirical (that was the
intention) but i'm not really good with anyways. The only thing I am saying is, if you really examine what you say, the closest candidate to your
message is Whitaker
edit on 27/2/16 by argentus because: removed trollbait -- statement which calls those who disagree as racist
The Constitutional adherence certainly should resonate with many Americans. The "Diversity is a codeword for white genocide" really doesn't resonate
with anything I personally believe in. In fact, it seems like the antithesis in what my core beliefs are.
Any candidate that sinks his or her resolve and support in a particular skin tone, in fact, is my enemy. That perception is reinforced (to me) by
your embedded video.
Wow. "Diversity is a code word for white genocide", huh?
Just for everyone reading this thread, that phrase and the theory that goes with it come directly from white supremacist websites.
Just google "Diversity is a code word for white genocide neo nazis" and you'll see articles promoting it on different neoNazi sites. There are similar
links with kkk-related sites. Thankfully ATS forbids direct links to hate sites, otherwise I'd link to several of them right now to prove my point.
I mean thanks for poisoning the well without refuting any of the claims. I made a thread that hit on this recently. There are racist groups who
acknowledge the affects of cultural marxism but that does not make their claims invalid. I can link to several black activist who speak out about the
destruction of black identity and culture due to the same reasons that Whitaker claims.
I am really interested in seeing how you refute his claims of one sided FORCED multiculturalism.
ETA: I dont endorse the guy because I have never heard of him ( he may be a racist for all I know) but I do acknowledge that there is some truth to
edit on 27-2-2016 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)
So pointing out facts is "poisoning the well"? LOL When a candidate who openly pushes actual neo-Nazi taking points starts getting promotion, I feel
that people need to know where he/she is coming from.
I especially do this now because I've seen too many people openly dismiss the kkk and neo-Nazis as irrelevant in modern times. They say this only
because they don't actually look into the current goals of those groups. Those groups have adapted and continue to spread their poison while "modern"
thinkers are still stuck focusing on their past goals. So yes, I'm going to point out their messages when I see them. Ironically, that's also the
point in a free press; they're supposed to vet people and do background checks on subjects.
And of course you can point out people of other demographics who say the same things. Racism & intolerance have no skin color. Duh.
Poisoning the well is when you try to invalidate information by tainting the source. You say the points he raises (you call them Nazi talking points)
are invalid because he may or may not be a neo-nazi. It is literally the very reason you have an uphill battle at times in your attempts to spread
socialism. It is easy for a detractor to attempt to invalidate any true or logical points you may make by linking it to past issues, or personal
beliefs, character or what have you. It is a logical fallacy. Regardless some of those issues are true and valid if they are not please refute them.
You might want to reread my first post. The candidate's theory and words come directly from white supremacist sites. It's not a matter of me
"calling" them neo-Nazi talking points: they are literally neo-Nazi talking points.
Google that phrase "diversity is a code word for white genocide" and "kkk/neo-nazi" and you will find numerous articles and discussions on their sites
promoting it. Why can't you acknowledge something as simple and honest as that?
And no, I have absolutely no need to refute literal neo-Nazi talking points. And claiming it's a logical fallacy for me to expose this is disingenuous
too because I'm not "linking it to past issues, or personal beliefs, character or what have you" as you claim. I'm pointing out that actual
neo-Nazi publications and members openly promote this.
And maybe you didn't notice this, but the OP even responded to my original post with this:
That was my point, what is said here about immigrants is what white supremacist candidate preach
In other words, even the OP openly acknowledges that these words are literally what white supremacists preach. So why do you have such a problem with
everyone knowing the origin of these talking points? If someone is pushing a controversial free trade bill, don't readers and voters deserve to know
who wrote/created the bill?
I would think that you as a Muslim socialist might understand what poisoning the well means when it comes to debate. Surely you have been dismissed
for being either a Muslim or socialist for those reasons when debating Islam or socialism? I would think you have to overcome misconceptions ,
actions of extremist, and disinformation campaigns even when you know what you speak is the truth.
Dismiss whatever you wish but I think you are basing that on emotion rather than logic. I know next to nothing of this candidate so I am not endorsing
him I just think that dismissing the information for the reasons you stated does not make the information false and therefore should be free for
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of AboveTopSecret.com.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.