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.

 

Donald Trump exposed: Ties to the mob, lack of wealth and more.

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: muse7

Thank you for this. Show him for who he really is..A liar and a cheater.


Name a single candidate is either party who isn't. It's like a requirement. The list of who isn't would be much shorter. But I'm sure whoever someone is supporting is on the short list, the others are the problem.


Bernie Sanders.


Crazy how people on this site support Sanders so much but we all know what socialism and socialist governments do to our privacy.


Was it socialism that took away our privacy and individual liberty since 9/11? Was it socialism that gave us the Patriot Act?


No, that was a Bush. guess who is currently running against Trump for the nomination?


It was Bush, but he was progressive and socialist, and even totalitarian when he abused his powers just like Obama does, and the Clinton family for certain. And Bush did that under a big flag of freedom and liberty for all, with less freedom and not quite as much liberty, either.

Bush doesn't compare to the extreme left wing extremes that Obama and 88% of congress and Senate all pretend not to be, but he was so progressive he would have been shipped direct to the USSR for further training, if their communist party had still been there. He demands praise for eroding our freedoms just like Obama and is much like him in the Narcissist personality arena. They walk around, above the law, and have been spoon fed most of their life, so accounting for the things they did, was never really in their curriculum..




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So since Bush did a bad job he must be a progressive socialist?
Care to elaborate? Would his running mate Dick Cheney be the same?

Who is the 12% of congress that is ok, or is that just some random stat you made up.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: muse7

Thank you for this. Show him for who he really is..A liar and a cheater.


Name a single candidate is either party who isn't. It's like a requirement. The list of who isn't would be much shorter. But I'm sure whoever someone is supporting is on the short list, the others are the problem.


Bernie Sanders.


Crazy how people on this site support Sanders so much but we all know what socialism and socialist governments do to our privacy.


Right, like the "Socialist" government of Bush Jr., when he got everyone to pass the Patriot Act? Or maybe the centrists and conservatives during the Cold War, who were all for domestic surveillance, anti-communist purging, and cointelpro to disrupt any counter-culture, including mass infiltration and surveillance of peaceful domestic groups.

Were those the "socialist" movements in government you meant?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: muse7

Thank you for this. Show him for who he really is..A liar and a cheater.


Name a single candidate is either party who isn't. It's like a requirement. The list of who isn't would be much shorter. But I'm sure whoever someone is supporting is on the short list, the others are the problem.


Bernie Sanders.


Crazy how people on this site support Sanders so much but we all know what socialism and socialist governments do to our privacy.


Was it socialism that took away our privacy and individual liberty since 9/11? Was it socialism that gave us the Patriot Act?


No, that was a Bush. guess who is currently running against Trump for the nomination?


It was Bush, but he was progressive and socialist, and even totalitarian when he abused his powers just like Obama does, and the Clinton family for certain. And Bush did that under a big flag of freedom and liberty for all, with less freedom and not quite as much liberty, either.

Bush doesn't compare to the extreme left wing extremes that Obama and 88% of congress and Senate all pretend not to be, but he was so progressive he would have been shipped direct to the USSR for further training, if their communist party had still been there. He demands praise for eroding our freedoms just like Obama and is much like him in the Narcissist personality arena. They walk around, above the law, and have been spoon fed most of their life, so accounting for the things they did, was never really in their curriculum..


Wow.

Bush was NOT a progressive, by any means. He was far right wing, which virtually everyone across the world besides a small minority in the Republican Party would state. This is the kind of right wing delusional thinking that makes the world think ya'll are crazy.

His support of pro-rich, pro-corporation policies were NOT progressive. His support of cutting more taxes for the rich was NOT progressive. His militarism, invasion of Iraq, and institution of torture, and hyper-nationalism and appeal to religion are ALL signs of far right wing ideology. Ask any political scientist...



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You might have it backwards again.

Very confusing.




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think it's a given at this point that the office is occupied by sad sacks of crap that get flushed every several years and regardless of a d or a r people think we're crazy.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
That all happened when he was a Democrat.

Now he's a Republican, he'll never do any of those things .... right ?

If you believe anything Donald Trump says, you're a bigger chump than he is.

There was a recent poll that suggests that if Ben Carson and Donald Trump were the only two candidates, Carson would lead Trump by over 20 percentage points among Republican voters.

Maybe we're going to end up with Sanders / Carson as the campaign for President ?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You might have it backwards again.

Very confusing.



In fact, Quetzalcoatl has it just right: right wing being the descriptor for those who politically support the wealthy, the elite, corporate overreach, military overreach, and most other authoritarian policies.

Bush II was firmly "far right." In every sense of the word.

Donald Trump, or rather, the character "The Donald" that he portrays, is a potent social commentary on the state of general Republican braggadocio, ignorance, and corruption in this country.

He's actually not a character, more of a caricature.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Bush was NOT a progressive, by any means. He was far right wing, which virtually everyone across the world besides a small minority in the Republican Party would state. This is the kind of right wing delusional thinking that makes the world think ya'll are crazy.

His support of pro-rich, pro-corporation policies were NOT progressive. His support of cutting more taxes for the rich was NOT progressive. His militarism, invasion of Iraq, and institution of torture, and hyper-nationalism and appeal to religion are ALL signs of far right wing ideology. Ask any political scientist...


Bush was actually NOT far right wing. Not even as far right as the Evangelical Christian TEA Party movement. The Republican Party has moved way further to the right than it ever was under Bush.

And remember, many of the things Bush did were at the direction of Dick Cheney. Certainly things like the invasion of Iraq and the massive transfer of taxpayer money to the banks were Cheney policies, not Bush policies. Bush was simply the rubber stamp.

When he was Governor of Texas, Bush was actually right of center, not far right. And he remains right of center when you see him interviewed about many topics today. He's NOT a supporter of the far right wackiness of the TEA Party.

Obama is really just right of center right now, not even left wing anymore. However, the TEA Party is so far right that even center right policies seem Socialist by comparison.

While Obama certainly isn't as far to the right as Reagan, Thatcher, or Bush, he's definitely NOT a "far left liberal" as FOX NEWS and many other GOPers like to paint him.

Even many of the policies of Margaret Thatcher would be denounced by the TEA Party if they actually took a look at what she did while Prime Minister. She's not the shining example of Far Right Conservatism that they all hold her up to be.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
That all happened when he was a Democrat.

Now he's a Republican, he'll never do any of those things .... right ?

If you believe anything Donald Trump says, you're a bigger chump than he is.

There was a recent poll that suggests that if Ben Carson and Donald Trump were the only two candidates, Carson would lead Trump by over 20 percentage points among Republican voters.

Maybe we're going to end up with Sanders / Carson as the campaign for President ?


Not a chance but fun to speculate



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

No of course Mr. Obama is not leftist. He has never been while a US Senator or as President.

Obama is a centrist, and he has governed that way.

However, that doesn't change the rhetoric, or the far right drift of the Republican Party.

Extremists see things in terms of "black-and-white" only.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: xuenchen

In fact, Quetzalcoatl has it just right: right wing being the descriptor for those who politically support the wealthy, the elite, corporate overreach, military overreach, and most other authoritarian policies.



The "Left" is equally guilty.

Perhaps even more so.




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Different statement.

Different thread.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You might have it backwards again.

Very confusing.



In fact, Quetzalcoatl has it just right: right wing being the descriptor for those who politically support the wealthy, the elite, corporate overreach, military overreach, and most other authoritarian policies.

Bush II was firmly "far right." In every sense of the word.

Donald Trump, or rather, the character "The Donald" that he portrays, is a potent social commentary on the state of general Republican braggadocio, ignorance, and corruption in this country.

He's actually not a character, more of a caricature.


That would be rather short sighted considering the top 1% has continued to consolidate wealth at amazing speeds over the decades regardless of democrats, republicans, right wing, left wing. The same top 1% are funding both parties and so on. Is there a problem, yes. It's short sighted to think that this favor driven pay to play system only describes right wing or is only embraced by one side.
edit on 6-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You might have it backwards again.

Very confusing.



Really? There is absolutely nothing "left-wing" about Bush. Like I said, nobody but a small minority in the US thinks so.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Your post is a bit muddled ... but if you're saying that left and right are mostly unimportant in professional politics, I agree with you.

The descriptions,however, are not.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

Bush was NOT a progressive, by any means. He was far right wing, which virtually everyone across the world besides a small minority in the Republican Party would state. This is the kind of right wing delusional thinking that makes the world think ya'll are crazy.

His support of pro-rich, pro-corporation policies were NOT progressive. His support of cutting more taxes for the rich was NOT progressive. His militarism, invasion of Iraq, and institution of torture, and hyper-nationalism and appeal to religion are ALL signs of far right wing ideology. Ask any political scientist...


Bush was actually NOT far right wing. Not even as far right as the Evangelical Christian TEA Party movement. The Republican Party has moved way further to the right than it ever was under Bush.

And remember, many of the things Bush did were at the direction of Dick Cheney. Certainly things like the invasion of Iraq and the massive transfer of taxpayer money to the banks were Cheney policies, not Bush policies. Bush was simply the rubber stamp.

When he was Governor of Texas, Bush was actually right of center, not far right. And he remains right of center when you see him interviewed about many topics today. He's NOT a supporter of the far right wackiness of the TEA Party.

Obama is really just right of center right now, not even left wing anymore. However, the TEA Party is so far right that even center right policies seem Socialist by comparison.

While Obama certainly isn't as far to the right as Reagan, Thatcher, or Bush, he's definitely NOT a "far left liberal" as FOX NEWS and many other GOPers like to paint him.

Even many of the policies of Margaret Thatcher would be denounced by the TEA Party if they actually took a look at what she did while Prime Minister. She's not the shining example of Far Right Conservatism that they all hold her up to be.


His hyper-nationalism, appeal to religion combined with that, militarism, torture, most def were related to far right thinking. I disagree that those were not far right wing.

I agree 100% that Obama and the Democrats are not true left wing. They are in fact center or even center right, on a global scale. This is something that the US media really doesn't represent. To most Europeans, the Democrats aren't liberal at all. And to a full on marxist leftist, they are right wing.
edit on 6-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Many of them within the Left are also guilty, depending on the topic. I agree with many on ATS that most of the Democratic elite are sold out too. Most of them supported the Iraq War under Bush and also the continuing of domestic surveillance. They also seem to be in bed with the military-industrial complex and corporate funders.

This is exactly why most of the Democrats aren't really left at all. I see most such people as faux liberals.
edit on 6-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Your post is a bit muddled ... but if you're saying that left and right are mostly unimportant in professional politics, I agree with you.

The descriptions,however, are not.



I'm saying on a large scale especially when it comes to things like wealth consolidation there isn't a bit of difference is what the policies implemented lead to. That is but one area but a lot of times we see the same end result.

In that case the descriptions are meaningless and do nothing more than perpetuate the myth there is a difference when in general, many results say the opposite. I simply used the support of the wealthy because you pointed that one out.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Oh no, organized crime?

How's that any different than say Hillary, Obama, or a Bush being in the pocket of the big banks, they are all just organized crime too, they're just better at it.




top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join