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.

 

The taboo subject none of the candidates have dared to broach....

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

We digress.

The thread was sincerely intended to be beyond, or at least not limited to, a partisan viewpoint.

You haven't really commented on the meat of the thread....




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: nwtrucker

I view your take as fairly conventional: Two parties each trying to out best the other but willing to take up the growth of power that the other has assumed. That is OK as far as it goes, but there is the deeper level that many of us malcontents are finding to be true. Basically, it is not simply partisan politics anymore where it once was. Things that Obama have done are along a whole new spectrum in keeping with a different world view beyond our old ideals of "individual freedom" and nationalism. Leaders of both sides know this. No better example than the Republicans taking charge of the House and doing nothing but talking. They are allowing the plan to unfold. And if they achieve the win in the next presidential election, which is extremely doubtful, they will merely advance the program if not as Obama's rapid rate.

The eventual management tool installed by bits and pieces will be the NWO. It gathering cloak is precisely evidenced with the EU and continuing efforts to put the UN in control of universal laws that more or less negate national boundaries. True, certain wars with unstable, radical elements of the world--meaning some entire countries--will have to be subdued as they simply do not fit with a united world view. That job will principally fall to the US as has been the case even as it dwindles in wealth. The writing is on the wall, folks, high above common concerns about Russia, China and the Middle East. If you can't see it, you aren't looking high enough because the "finger has writ."



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

That aspect is also fairly obvious to many.

The reason I didn't go there in this thread is I believe there is nothing that can be effectively done to prevent that from coming to fruition without addressing our own house first.

If one surveyed the general public, based on their current knowledge/interest in things political-and it is increasing proportionate to the rate that politics is infringing on individual financial survival- I'm betting a balanced Federal gov't would destroy those that support a NWO scenario.

While the GOP Establishment appears to be supporting the same NWO, it is possible that it's more along the line of keeping a foot in both camps whilst regularly putting wet finger in the air to test the winds...

In a more practical sense, many, if not most could be swung back. Especially with sufficient grass-roots 'encouragement'. They are politicians, after all.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TonyS

I can't argue your points.

I will say one thing for Trump, he has broken the P.C. rule and given more wiggle room for the other candidates to respond in kind or disagreement. Also, I'm not convinced Trump doesn't fully understand the mechanism you refer to.

I really can't figure this guy out. He is certainly outside the box...a wild card, self-financed....and above all, he can't be labeled as 'bought', certainly not 'controlled', LOL.

I can think of nothing more alarming to the good ole boy network than someone who is beyond predictable.

I take a no small pleasure in that aspect of it.....



One one point I'd have to take exception. Don't kid yourself that Trump hasn't been bought. I watch a fair bit of CNBC on a daily basis. Its the "business and wallstreet" channel, Kramer, et al. I've seen at least two expert guests on that show describe Trump's path to wealth and riches. He did it the old fashioned way, he leveraged it, paid himself handsomely from his "corporations" and then absolved himself of the "debt" bomb when he had the corporations file for bankruptcy. As one guy pointed out, Trump owes his soul to the Banks and they watch his every move, daily, and very carefully.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Noted...



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
A little OT... But when I read the OP my first thought was VP Cheney's stance that he was the fourth branch of government.

That claim just floored me being I always thought that it was the VPs job to inquire of the health of the POTUS daily and to tiebreak the senate.

Dangerous if you ask me

But yea. Checks and balances seem to be going in the same dirre
direction as the constitution itself. Worked around any way possible. Both sides enjoy the perks while the common man pays the price...



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Actually Executive power has been substantially reduced under this administration. Biden has worked very hard to undo the power grabs that allowed Cheney to essentially run the country from his office and Obama has given up some power as well. All of this ceding of power was instead given back to the legislative branch. Congress has a greater share of power right now than they've had in 100 years. The judiciary is in roughly the same place as it's been for at least that past 50 years and possibly longer and is by far the healthiest of our 3 branches right now.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




I think you are right. We need representatives for the people to make sure government is executed in the peoples interest. NOw....where shall we house these representatives? LOL


It's destined to get bad when the house & senate aren't average citizens and most are way out of touch. The Legislative branch should work as the citizens oversight branch, but you see how well that's working for us. If you call that "representation" I have to argue that revolutions were fought for less than what were dealing with now.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
Yea, me too. I was just talking with my wife the other day about how they're appointed and not elected by us commoners.
A president could theoretically "stack the deck" pretty easily if 4 to 5 vacancies occur during his term.


Aside from the fact that Congress acts as oversight and typically extracts massive concessions in exchange for confirming a Supreme Court justice.

The president is not powerful enough these days to force anything through a deadlocked congress.

Congress has always wanted the president to be a figurehead while they control the real power, the President has always wanted to be a king.

We have leaned too far towards the former. We have essentially not had a president for the past 6 years because nothing can be enacted. That implies Congress is the one with too much power right now.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I think you are right. We need representatives for the people to make sure government is executed in the peoples interest.

NOw....where shall we house these representatives? LOL


Do it online. Create digital meetings for members of Congress rather than having to physically gather. Increase the members of the House so that we can return to 1 rep per 20,000 people. Divide congressional power so that each of those now 16,000 members of Congress each have a very narrow area of influence so that buying people off becomes difficult and expensive.

Doing so would also weaken political parties as there would simply be too many people to keep in line.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

A very interesting concept......



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

What you omit in that assessment is the fact Obama has utilized both quasi-legal and outright illegal means to by-pass that grid-lock that is the current Congress.

In addition, the grid-lock that is Congress cannot be accurately described as a "Congress with too much power". A grid-locked Congress can be labeled as powerless which from my view is more accurate in that it affects virtually no influence on the other two branches.

In any event, that cannot be described as too much power any more than the Judicial refusing to take up an issue or a President who is ineffective. All three branches have their weaknesses, the legislative seems to have suffered the longest.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Nucleardoom

I question whether I'd want an average citizen as a Senator or a member of Congress. The whole concept of a representative republic is having someone locally known, who as an individual and perhaps his family tradition was trusted and admired.

He then represented those same locals in subjects and issues that were beyond the average citizen's understanding, knowledge or experience. Their local track record stood them in good stead in issues that required representation, if not expertise.

I look at the 'average' out here and all I can say is "thanks, but no thanks"....



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The total number? Perhaps so. The scope of the executive orders, the magnitude of their influence? No way.

Then there's the 'memo' route used specifically on immigration issues, directly to ICE, DHS, et al that are followed without question and treated as 'executive orders' by his appointees thereby avoiding executive order liabilities that put Obama at risk.

Yes this is not new, the degree of it is. It is the mechanism that's the issue of this thread. Not any one party as both are culpable.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

What you omit in that assessment is the fact Obama has utilized both quasi-legal and outright illegal means to by-pass that grid-lock that is the current Congress.

In addition, the grid-lock that is Congress cannot be accurately described as a "Congress with too much power". A grid-locked Congress can be labeled as powerless which from my view is more accurate in that it affects virtually no influence on the other two branches.

In any event, that cannot be described as too much power any more than the Judicial refusing to take up an issue or a President who is ineffective. All three branches have their weaknesses, the legislative seems to have suffered the longest.


A gridlocked Congress exerts a lot of power. Without Congress writing laws the other two branches can do little other than to work with what is already on the books. Most of what the Executive is supposed to do is to act as a mediator to Congress and make the various sides compromise. Congress has ceased to be about passing laws however, instead they're going in with a mandate of obstruction and shutting down the process. Threatening government shutdowns, not passing debt ceiling increases, and filibusters are not what makes for an effective Congress. The people realize this too, for the most part we hate the entire group. It seems like just yesterday to me that the 2006 Congress was polling at a 2% approval rating.

Basically, Congress is exerting their power by causing nothing to happen. This has happened in the past too but with a different branch, such as Grover Cleveland who took the view that the job of the President was to stop bad things from happening. He did so basically by shutting all but the very best legislation down with the veto under the principal of limited government. Cleveland saw great political success by doing so, as many of our Senators and Representatives have but in hindsight it was seen as disastrous, in the case of Cleveland it directly lead to his successors having less power and the same will happen to Congress most likely.

I think the big problem with have with the presidency is that we're electing a President based on their opinions on the issues. Everyone has opinions and having an opinion, even a popular one doesn't make someone qualified. What separates a good executive from a bad one is the ability to lead and make people work together, not the ability to have an opinion. This is why I care so much about the details of a presidents plan. I want to hear how they'll make their ideas happen. Trump for example has relied his entire life on controlling paychecks and dictating what people do, he has never been the type of CEO that makes things happen based on the merit of his ideas. In contrast Fiorina who also has a business career relied heavily on being able to make people work together despite having unaligned goals.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Completely concur on Fiorina. One impressive lady. She has moved to the top of the list in my books.

Your point is well taken re Congress. Even though I can empathize with the concept of less legislation isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Then I would say that implying Congress has too much power carries the corollary that somehow their power should be reduced? That throws out the balance concept completely. Who decides? At what point/degree of cutting that power.

Does the other two branches also receive similar treatment in a similar scenario? I think not.

There is the reasonable argument that the grid-lock is representative of the split in the average citizens' views and that grid-lock was wisely allowed for until consensus was achieved via the voting public.

It's hard to argue against the fact that Obama has worked around that grid-lock most effectively and continued with his agenda unabated.

So much for "too much power" in Congress. Blocking legislation is as much a duty as writing it. As is the President's duty to veto as well as sign those that do reach him.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
So much for "too much power" in Congress. Blocking legislation is as much a duty as writing it. As is the President's duty to veto as well as sign those that do reach him.


Know what's even better than blocking legislation? Reading it. They don't even do that these days.

If I were president one of my top goals would be a bill to reform the writing of legislation (excluding international treaties). +1% majority vote needed to pass something for every page in the bill past 5 or 10. That would keep things focused, and it would keep things small enough that there's actually time to read them.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan






posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Excellent points OP...Perhaps Trump is thinking that too, just executive order it back to (??) "Hell I can have a phone and a pen too!"

This is another reason it's troubling how far Rand Paul has dropped recently off the radar screen...



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker


That is the loss of balance between the three branches of the federal Government.




Here is the crux of this...As the government becomes more partisan and more "divided" each branch of power will begin to test their constitutional authority.

Now ...read the above again and remove all political allegiance from that truth.

The same will happen whoever is in the WH and the same will happen for each branch of Gov....regardless of political affiliation, it is purely a result of divided government not working and partisan camps trying to get their agenda done.

Yes..the WH has tested their bounds in the past 8 years..and Pres. GWB tested those bounds as well.

Yes...the Supreme Court has handed down some decisions expanding their influence beyond just "interpretations" of the law and constitution.

Yes..Congress has tried repeatedly to expand their authority in Foreign Policy and relations etc.

Each branch is competing for more power...and that will continue until old fashioned compromise returns to DC and partisanship begins to wane.

Again...swap out the parties in WH, Congress etc. and it will still continue.

It is a phenomena of divided government and extreme partisanship, not political ideology.
edit on 21-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join