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.

 

Bernie Sanders. Worse than Isis?

page: 18
13
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Congress already has the Constitutional right to wage war. A Constitutional restriction on preemptive war would also restrict Congress as well. That would remove any option to preemptive strikes....

An exercise in futility...




Congress has the Constitutional right, but in practice they've given it to the Executive branch. The last time Congress declared war was WW2. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, and all the rest were done using the Executives right to commit troops for x days, followed by periodic continuing resolutions that don't have any value because if they're not passed the President can simply recommit troops.




posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Then how does changing the Constitution against preemptive action alter that whatsoever?



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

Then how does changing the Constitution against preemptive action alter that whatsoever?



I don't think you understand what preemptive action is.

Preemptive action is when you go attack somebody because of something they might do in the future, and it can be based on completely arbitrary reasons, assuming any reasons are given at all. Iraq is an example of this, we used falsified intelligence to lie to the rest of the world about invading largely because Bush wanted to attack them. We were so eager for a fight that we even jumped the gun and attacked earlier than agreed upon with the rest of the world.

What is not preemptive is when you have intelligence that someone has a plan to harm you, and that they have the means, opportunity, and desire to carry it out. An example of this would be joining the European theater in WW2 because the Germans would have eventually come for us.

Currently the President can commit troops anywhere in the world for any reason he/she wants. That is not a good thing, if it requires the consent of Congress politics get brought in and it becomes much tougher to attack someone unless there is a very, very good reason.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Your hubris is amusing...


I think it's you who doesn't understand the definition of preemptive:

"Undertaken or intended to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence." More left 'redefining' is see....


"We used falsified intelligence and lied to the rest of the world". Ah, finally, the truth of your political leanings is clear to see...


That same 'intel' was quoted By Gore, Bill and Hillary, Reid and Pelosi...until they flipped. You know it. This isn't exactly a secret. Neither is the fact we gave them those WDMs.

Next, one doesn't telegraph an attack date to the 'world'...LOL. That show even more of your leanings/understandings...


Finally, yes it is a good thing that the President can use military force for a limited time. I suppose it's merely a co-incidence that it tends to be Republican Presidents that exercise that right....

Stay in the classroom , it's safer there...



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Iraq happened because we falsified intelligence and everyone knew electing him meant war, I remember it quite clearly. It was one of his biggest campaign issues and his former staffers have admitted that Bush's agenda from day 1 was to find a way to justify an attack against Saddam. 9/11 actually slowed him down a bit until they had Powell fall on his sword.

As far as telegraphing an attack date goes, if you're giving an ultimatum, an ultimatum which is eventually going to be used to justify your attack against others yes... you do give until the time specified, to do otherwise weakens your political standing which it ended up doing to us in Iraq.

When exercising military force, both parties use it and probably an equal amount but I would lean towards Democrats using it more in the past few decades. Obama has used it extensively with bombing campaigns, he tried to use it in Syria, Clinton used it in several places. Bush in comparison kept it a bit more focused.

Finally when it comes to nailing down my political viewpoints did you ever consider that rather than being on one side or the other, that perhaps I disagree with both of them? I'm not a fan of binary thinking, nor do I like having political parties come up with opinions and solutions for me.
edit on 23-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I don't think he is worse than ISIS. Yes he is a socialist and he means well. On of the many reasons he is getting a lot of bad attention is because of the liberal media who want Hillary in. Why they are attacking Bernie is because he can take a lot of votes away from Hillary. The powers that be want Hillary in no matter the cost. It doesn't surprise me that the so called black lives matter that interrupted Bernie speach were probably paid actors supported by the Clinton campaign.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: PMTVMedia

That's an interesting idea I hadn't considered.

My point was his disparaging the founding of the nation as racist based. The comparison to Isis is restricted to the potential end result of promulgating that misconception. The eventual destruction of the U.S..

I also believe he knows full well that that comment is, at best, a distortion. That makes him not that honest, in my books.

A career politician is unlikely to qualify for 'sainthood' any time soon. Not worse than the rest, but certainly no better...



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Oh yes, I've considered your statements in previous posts that you disagree with both sides in some issues. Yet, when one applies "look, don't listen", I have yet, at least in any direct communication between thee and me, to find a single eg where you didn't side with the left viewpoint. I have nothing else to go on other than your points you make.

As far as falsified intelligence goes, you ignore the points I made.

As assertions without proof have no merit, dismissing them without proof is equally valid.

Each time you make a point, for example the Koch Brothers, I rebut with Soros et al, you then backpedal and add those to your list. Each time you backpedal after addressing the individual on the right/far right.

I really don't know if your a deep GOP Establishment/ Rockefeller supporter or an outright Democrat. It doesn't really matter as the difference between the two is semantical at best.

I do have you pegged, however, in this case close is sufficient.


edit on 23-9-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't usually add Soros to the list because I see little point in repeating over and over that both sides are bad. They are both bad, though I admit that I see the right as being a little worse right now, largely because of the extremists that have taken over the party, in the past I have seen the left as worse such as when they defunded our troops body armor and bullets in a bid to increase the number of casualties in Iraq to get an electoral victory. Moderation is much better than extremes.

If you want an example of where I disagree with the left, here's one that I wrote earlier today. I disagree with their idea of coddling everyone and creating excuses for people being unable to finish tasks.

Or here and here where I'm arguing in favor of Big Pharma to give them more drug protections rather than less.

If you want another, I have no problem with students being given a moment to pray in schools.

Another is that I have no problems with us having a strong military, but I think the concept of a military buildup can be taken too far. The ability to maintain defense and invade a single country is a very good spot to be in, if you go larger than that in order to invade two countries you're paying for double the military that you need unless you're always invading someone which means constant war and the expense of constant war, and if you have less than that you have no ability to act unilaterally.
edit on 23-9-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Sorry, you back-pedal. I've seen your M.O. numerous times.

The list is far longer of Billionaires supporting the left. None are as up front about their support either.

That was merely an example, however. I don't where your coming from. I do know where you aren't and that's the conservative right.

Yes, you are very talented. Frankly, I see us as adversaries, which isn't a big deal. I'm am used to it...




top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join