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.

 

Elizabeth Warren: The People's Champion

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I am a registered "unaffiliated" voter, and yes - (as largo said) we get disenfranchised.

How so? You get to vote in elections just like someone who has a party affiliation.

You have no say on who each party gets to put forward because you aren't part of that party. So obviously you shouldn't have a say in that. People outside of the parties shouldn't have any say in who that party puts forward.

You still vote in elections the same as everyone else.
So I'm not seeing the disenfranchisement .


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 9/9/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
That interview was completely scripted...did you think it was ad hoc? Why don't you watch some of her interviews when she was running for office when she froze like a deer in the headlights or just talked about something else instead if answering the question...

Propaganda at its finest.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Illegal immigrants make more than minimum wage on average and don't pay income taxes, so I'm not sure where you got your information from....

a reply to: Dfairlite


edit on 9-9-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
How is any voter in the US disenfranchised??? That's literally impossible.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: 2ndthought

I think you need to practice what you preach, you're buying Bolshevik propaganda, hell the term Bolshevik in reference to communist revolutionaries is a piece of propaganda, they were a vocal minority of the socialist-scene in Russia around that time, Bolshevik means "Majority".

initially the revolution of 1917 simply removed the autocratic czar from power, and established a provisional government made up of members of the Duma (parliament equivalent)

The "Bolsheviks" took over in a coup soon after.

it's worth noting that there was extensive western intervention in russia in the early 1920's, America, Britain, and to some degree France and Italy, sent over units to support the "white" army in it's fight against the "red"-army. The white army was led mostly by conservatives (favoring landowners or nobility, with the extreme wanting a return to autocracy). The green army and the blue army hated both sides, the greens were mostly pissed off farmers, and the blues were anti-bolshevik socialists.

The communists, despite the often brutal and savage regime, weren't really all that worse than the czar was. It's real problem was never outgrowing it's isolationist and paranoid tendencies. Which is understandable given the trauma that was Operation Barbarossa, and it's history of western relations in general.

Vietnam was mostly interested in it's independence. It fought first against the Japanese in ww2, then against the french in the 1950's, then against the Americans/South Vietnamese (who they saw as a bunch of corrupt puppets), then against the Chinese and Cambodians; (it was the Vietnamese that overthrew pol-pot; an ally of china at the time, Vietnam was funded by the soviets).
.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The Liberal Fascism graphic is the cover of a book, copy written material, so should have sourced it better.




In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...


The first half of the book is pure history, up to FDR and Hitler. As the book moves closer to the present day, through the 1960's, it becomes more republican but still largely historical. Liberal Fascism is definitely more Republican than Libertarian.

The roots of Progressivism in the 1800's, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR's New Deal are presented mainly from an historian's point of view.

I don't remember if Herbert Hoover's New Deal (Hoover started the New Deal style of government) is covered in this book or not.
edit on 9-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

As far as feeling 'disenfranchised' - am I the only person who realizes that the 3rd party candidates get no "debate time"?
That they don't have 'primaries'?

I wrote a thread a few weeks ago about Mr Wigs' experience trying to go vote....

there were "non-partisan" issues on the ballot - but, as he understood from the 'monitor' or whatever she was - the lady checking in voters ----

she said, "No, you can't vote now."



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Illegal immigrants make more than minimum wage on average and don't pay income taxes, so I'm not sure where you got your information from....

a reply to: Dfairlite



Care to cite some sources on that? Just curious in the name of honest debate...



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqCFxg2ez44

If you can listen to that without laughing, you have a lot to learn.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Well, I watched/listened to it. I'm not laughing. So - what is it I need to learn?
I still think she makes very good points.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
- am I the only person who realizes that the 3rd party candidates get no "debate time"?
That they don't have 'primaries'?

Why would a nonparty have a primary? The reason for primaries are for the people within parties to pick who they want to represent them in elections. If you want to vote in a primary, then you have to belong to a party. Nonaffiliated have no reason to have a primary and no right to tell people of a party who they should have representing them in an election.

If an unaffiliated candidate wants to be part of a debate, they have to get a certain number of signatures to be part of it. It's up to them to go get the signatures and work the streets. It's not going to get handed to them.

Again .. no disenfranchisement.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

It's pretty common knowledge to anyone who has even slightly looked into illegal immigration:

Wiki


PEW studies on unauthorized immigrants estimates that the average household of 3.1 persons earns about $36,000 per year.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Your point once again is nothing but propaganda that might as well be a sound bite from Fox News. You should work there.

Most progressives and people seeking social and economic justice are not seeking any kind of communist society. And every time that you try to bring up the McCarthy-esque spectre of communism anytime someone calls out the powers that be or big business excesses and corruption, you come across to critical thinkers as either a shill or totally brainwashed. You can't actually believe that someone like me calling for an end to corporate/special interest ownership of our government actually translates to a call for a communist revolution. That is insane and you know it.


originally posted by: 2ndthought

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Seriously, you right wingers need to stop being brainwashed into calling anybody who fights for labor rights or calls out big money "marxists."

THAT Is a tried and true manipulation/propaganda technique BY big business and the military-industrial complex for a century now.

Fox News is that you?! Good to see you've joined ATS


originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

She is still a hack piece if she doesn't expose the Central Banking Oligarchs.

She can blame wallstreet all she wants but the Federal Reserve is where the true power lies.

THis is more Marxists type rhetoric to further demonize the free market for destablization in order to push their Socialist Marxists agenda.

Now u know why the Central Banking Oligarchs love to bankroll Marxists to power. It helps further enslave the country in debt through socialism to the globalists bankers.


I suggest you study the Russian Revolution of 1917. You know. The one where low class labor rights people overthrew the Csarist government? The one where those same labor people not just called out big money, but destroyed it.

Yeah, study that revolution and see how well it worked out for them. And don't think that 'we'll do it different'. As with all revolutions of that type, it'll devolve to the point where the oppressed become the oppressors.


edit on 10-9-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Sorry, unfortunately for your book, both Mussolini and HItler were considered far right wingers and fascism is not a progressive nor liberal system. Virtually all historians agree with that.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Liberal Fascism graphic is the cover of a book, copy written material, so should have sourced it better.




In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...


The first half of the book is pure history, up to FDR and Hitler. As the book moves closer to the present day, through the 1960's, it becomes more republican but still largely historical. Liberal Fascism is definitely more Republican than Libertarian.

The roots of Progressivism in the 1800's, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR's New Deal are presented mainly from an historian's point of view.

I don't remember if Herbert Hoover's New Deal (Hoover started the New Deal style of government) is covered in this book or not.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It may be that you want to discuss her fiscal policy. At the same time, if she is intelligent or truly progressive on that but blindly pro-Israel for example, then that can be very problematic for many people.

This is actually my general problem with the Democratic Party. I realized that i agree with much of their views on domestic issues. But when it comes to foreign policy, those Democratic elite party up with them Republicans real quick and support the general imperial US foreign policy. Obama literally said 10 minutes ago that we will be targeting much more ISIS/ISIL in Iraq AND Syria AND funding AND arming rebels even MORE. The goal is to knock out Assad amongst other goals.

So, I'm getting to the point where it doesn't matter if Warren or Obama support more domestic social and economic justice if they still support a murderous and insane foreign policy. That can't be ignored.

Green Party baby.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Okay, so far, of the participants, I've heard a couple of people saying they listened to her;

but

A) they don't believe her.
Fair enough. I don't trust anyone in politics either.

B) they are pointing out other issues, such as Israel and Monsanto.
Fine. Neither of those are the issue I wanted to address - or that SHE addresses in this interview

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.

So -
can anyone join jacobe001 and myself (and sheepslayer and Lyx, et al) in addressing HER POINTS IN THIS INTERVIEW?

Pretend it's someone you never, ever heard of. Pretend you don't know what her "political affiliation" is at all - and just address the POINTS SHE MADE.

Can you all do that?
Can we not focus on just THIS issue??

The ownership of Washington by money and power, at the expense of the regular American families

Just that ONE thing? Please?




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Yes, I am a former Democrat.

I've been studying foreign policy, including development and security, as well as traveling and working in development abroad.

Obama, and others like Clinton or Kerry are still just imperial administrators and totally down with intervention, whether that is overt or covert. They will gladly fund and arm civil wars, in itself a war crime, to keep US global hegemony.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


However, I said (to their chagrin) that given the current state of the Democratic party, with it being aligned with the military-industrial complex, she will not be given the spot to run.


Really, are they aligned with that? Well - yeah, I guess some of them are.

Personally, I am against the Military/Industrial Complex.
If she is aligned with that, then....well - so much for my support.

I am very much an anti-interventionist peacenik.

I wish Jesse Ventura was serious about running, actually.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Sorry, unfortunately for your book, both Mussolini and HItler were considered far right wingers and fascism is not a progressive nor liberal system. Virtually all historians agree with that.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Liberal Fascism graphic is the cover of a book, copy written material, so should have sourced it better.




In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...


The first half of the book is pure history, up to FDR and Hitler. As the book moves closer to the present day, through the 1960's, it becomes more republican but still largely historical. Liberal Fascism is definitely more Republican than Libertarian.

The roots of Progressivism in the 1800's, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR's New Deal are presented mainly from an historian's point of view.

I don't remember if Herbert Hoover's New Deal (Hoover started the New Deal style of government) is covered in this book or not.


Left and Right devolve from the French Revolution. The Left wanted changes, the Right wanted to keep the status quo.

Mussolini and Hitler and the Bolsheviks all wanted to change the system in the name of faster improvement (progressive) of social conditions. All users of bigger government are claiming to work for the greater good and are progressives and on the Left.

Today the terms right and left are strictly relative, they have no concrete meaning except in comparison to each other.

All major parties are on the left, because they all use a relatively new governmental system that is only 100 years old, and the major parties also change the government as much as they can suit their ideas. All major parties are also on the right because they want to keep the 100 year old system that has been bequeathed to them.

Everyone using the system of governance of the last 100 years is on the left. Using left and right to discriminate between totalitarians is obfuscation. All totalitarians gained and kept power by appealing to progressive ideas, all totalitarians are progressive and so are all modern national politicians.

How can you make equality without control of everything?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
That's actually also false.

On the traditional GLOBAL left to right scale, the Republican Party stands far right and the Democratic party is center right. Ask people outside of the US and Britain.

There is no mainstream leftist party in the US.

Fascism is as Mussolini said, "the combination of corporation and state." I.e. capitalism and government. It is absolutely not communism nor socialism. Fascism is traditionally considered an extremist right wing ideology.

Please don't try to redefine all of the terms. And I suggest that you get out of the Republican dialogue. Outside of the US nobody agrees with your view that all of the US parties are left wing. They are considered predominantly right wing.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Sorry, unfortunately for your book, both Mussolini and HItler were considered far right wingers and fascism is not a progressive nor liberal system. Virtually all historians agree with that.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Liberal Fascism graphic is the cover of a book, copy written material, so should have sourced it better.




In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...


The first half of the book is pure history, up to FDR and Hitler. As the book moves closer to the present day, through the 1960's, it becomes more republican but still largely historical. Liberal Fascism is definitely more Republican than Libertarian.

The roots of Progressivism in the 1800's, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR's New Deal are presented mainly from an historian's point of view.

I don't remember if Herbert Hoover's New Deal (Hoover started the New Deal style of government) is covered in this book or not.


Left and Right devolve from the French Revolution. The Left wanted changes, the Right wanted to keep the status quo.

Mussolini and Hitler and the Bolsheviks all wanted to change the system in the name of faster improvement (progressive) of social conditions. All users of bigger government are claiming to work for the greater good and are progressives and on the Left.

Today the terms right and left are strictly relative, they have no concrete meaning except in comparison to each other.

All major parties are on the left, because they all use a relatively new governmental system that is only 100 years old, and the major parties also change the government as much as they can suit their ideas. All major parties are also on the right because they want to keep the 100 year old system that has been bequeathed to them.

Everyone using the system of governance of the last 100 years is on the left. Using left and right to discriminate between totalitarians is obfuscation. All totalitarians gained and kept power by appealing to progressive ideas, all totalitarians are progressive and so are all modern national politicians.

How can you make equality without control of everything?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


On the traditional GLOBAL left to right scale, the Republican Party stands far right and the Democratic party is center right. Ask people outside of the US and Britain.

There is no mainstream leftist party in the US.


Sounds like the brainwashing has worked better outside of the US and Britain.

Anything authoritarian is Left Wing Progressive.




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
No, your Fox News Republican brainwashing is coming out full force.

Sorry to say, but there are dictators and such on both sides of the spectrum.

Stalin was a leftist totalitarian.

For your info, Hitler had a different NOT communist/socialist totalitarian system based on corporations and industry as well as elite stratification. Attacked leftists and communists. Fact. Half of the NAzi propaganda was overtly against leftists. Fact.

Franco in Spain? Right wing totalitarian, opposed by the leftists in the Spanish Civil War. Fact.

Mussolini, traditional right wing dictator, ALSO suppressed and attacked leftists and communists.

“Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right ‘, a Fascist century.”

-Benito Mussolini, "The Doctrine of Fascism"

Virtually all of the dictators in Latin America until recently were considered classic right wing totalitarian leaders, excepting such figures as Castro and a few others. Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, had right wing dictators. This is well established by countless historians.

THEY ALL RECEIVED FUNDING FROM THE US TO BE ALLIES AGAINST THE SOVIETS AND TO SUPPRESS LABOR MOVEMENTS, TO KILL COMMUNISTS, ETC. The US overthrew several democracies that were left leaning to install RIGHT WING TOTALITARIAN DICTATORS TO FIGHT OFF ANY LEFTIST TRENDS. FACT.

You need to actually learn history, not read Rush Limbaugh's private prayer journal.


originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


On the traditional GLOBAL left to right scale, the Republican Party stands far right and the Democratic party is center right. Ask people outside of the US and Britain.

There is no mainstream leftist party in the US.


Sounds like the brainwashing has worked better outside of the US and Britain.

Anything authoritarian is Left Wing Progressive.


edit on 10-9-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join