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.

 

We should vote for who will help the country not our own ideology

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Very nicely worded OP BTW.

Who are you for now and have you changed your mind?

I am not for anyone now, nor, of this bunch, will I ever be and nothing has or could change my mind. As a result, barring some weird change, I won't be voting in the 2016 Presidential election; I will cast votes in the State and local level races however.

This election reminds me of the opening lines of "A Tale of Two Cities"; it was the worst of times and the best of times. Its the "worst" in that at least in previous elections the choice between one of "two" best evils seemed relatively close or narrow in terms of where they sat on the scale of "evil", (incompetence really). Its the worst of times in that in this election, the two parties candidates sit at the extreme edge of incompetence scale. So, it doesn't really matter who wins because regardless of who does win, buyers remorse will set in within 6 weeks of inauguration and Congress will be bombarded to stop anything the President elect wants to do. I call that the "Oh Hell NO" factor.

If there's any good news coming out of this election it lies in two areas. First, I'd guess that who ever is elected will sit for only one term. Bernie's too old to sit for a 2nd term and Hilary is barely healthy enough to make this campaign tour; she certainly won't have the stamina for a second run after 4 years in the White Hut. Trump would anger everyone so much he wouldn't stand a chance of a 2nd term; the Cuban Brothers, Cruz and Rubio.........probably the same although they are young enough to run a 2nd campaign.

The second area of good news is that after this election produces whatever sorry result it produces, we'll have 4 years to see what the Parties have to throw at us in 2020. My guess.....keep an eye on who is selected to be the Keynote Speaker at the Democrat Convention. Now this is good news in the respect that 1) we'd best guess that the next Democrat choice will be significantly left of center and therefore 2) we'll get a chance to timely evaluate what businesses and industries will be chosen as winners and losers in the economic landscape going forward.

What we have to remember is that at this stage of US economic and social development, the US Government more and more chooses, (through the power of the purse and regulations) what businesses and industries will be the winners and who will lose. Under Obama, the chosen "winners" have been Tech, Solar and oddly enough, Rail. The losers, obviously, have been the Oil Companies, the Coal Companies and the Pipeline Companies.

So for those of you who have a 401K or retirement plans into which you're making investments, I'd look to see the following: further deterioration and decimation of the Oil & Gas industry, (there's talk of RICO law suits against the Majors like Exxon for criminal pollution of the planet through CO2 emissions they were aware of and tried to cover up); oddly enough, I believe we'll see further regulatory attack on the Big Banks, (JP Morgan, Citi Bank, etc.); the Coal companies will be further destroyed; Agri business may start to take a big hit as the government seeks to take even more agricultural lands out of production; and finally, I fear for the Utilities as I keep an eye on Government decision to further raise electricity rates with an eye toward rationing of electricity. The WINNERS going forward will be companies like Tesla Motors, Google (Alphabet), First Solar/Solar City (although I think the model will be different in that the Solar companies will be steered toward building out solar for the Utilities and away from distributed residential roof top installations. A new winner is going to be suppliers of security and particularly security surveilance and traffic control/monitoring industry. The new economy will hire the former burger flippers to daily watch TV screens of every street corner and so we'll see an economy emerge of "The Watchers" and then of "Those Who Watch The Watchers".

Enjoy your election but remember.........revolutions and social change don't happen over night; it takes years to make a difference, not one election cycle.




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Funny.

I have never met democrat that didn't like taxes.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Slanter


Especially the middle class/unions that have IRA's,401's and pensions invested in Wall Street.

That so called income gap would increase exponentially with Sanders.



Not to mention the silent millions that were fined this year for not having health insurance. LOL Dems really looking out for the little guy with a regressive tax type as usual.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That was a Herbert Walker quote. That he changed his mind at.

And some people don't like to be hypocritical and say things like its a mental illness problem in the US and then defund mental health centers.

Personally I am an independent. This would be the first time I vote for a democrat. Usually I vote for people like Ron Paul.

I just am not a drama queen and know Sanders can't pass any of this stuff.

Which is great. We don't need any of these candidates passing stuff.

What he would do is show its possible to win an election without taking bribe money and hey would be speaking about cleaning up the lobby power including unions.

So that's enough for me in this group of rejects.
edit on 12-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Puppylove

I just like seeing the mental gymnastics neo goes through to defend his hyperbole and strawmans.


Since when have you not like hyperbole and strawmans ?

Your voting for Sanders right ?

That's all he says.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So when are you going to tell me why Bernie being Jewish matters with him running for President?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flatfish

Funny that their Flat.

For the last 5 years I hear LEfT wingers tell me how 'smart' they are.

To date I Still haven't seen it proven.

Hell if I had a nickle every time someone touted their so called 'intellectual' superiority.

I would be an evil billionaire that needs to lose 90% of my income because some senile old WHITE guy says so.


Seeing how that seems to be a consistent occurrence for you over the past 5 yrs, maybe the real problem lies with your inherent inability to recognize truth and/or proof.

Here's an example; No one is even talking about a 90% tax rate except for other right-wingers who are spreading lies and on top of that, the only POTUS in American history to ever impose such a tax rate was a Republican.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am still waiting for a valid explanation of why its 'ok'

To take the property away from them evil rich people.

After all Sanders says that is right as rain.

And being Jewish doesn't matter to me.

Every other thread about Jews/Israel they are the 'spawn of Satan' for the last 5 years.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Still waiting for you to explain how Sanders would take away property. I mean the reality of it not just the hysterics.

Congress would have to do that.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am still waiting for a valid explanation of why its 'ok'

To take the property away from them evil rich people.

After all Sanders says that is right as rain.

And being Jewish doesn't matter to me.

Every other thread about Jews/Israel they are the 'spawn of Satan' for the last 5 years.



OHHHH you are trying to make the false equivalency that talking negative about Israel makes you an anti-Semite. Gotcha. Still a dumb argument though.
edit on 12-2-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish




Seeing how that seems to be a consistent occurrence for you over the past 5 yrs, maybe the real problem lies with your inherent inability to recognize truth and/or proof.


Is that so ?

There is NO truth in American politics, and yet Sanders supporters hang on his every word as the 'gospel'.



Here's an example; No one is even talking about a 90% tax rate except for other right-wingers who are spreading lies and on top of that, the only POTUS in American history to ever impose such a tax rate was a Republican.


Really ?



n a 1974 article titled “Concentrated Wealth Is Causing Economic Illness,” from an unidentified newspaper that was in his papers at the University of Vermont library, Sanders is described as wanting to “make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime.” He would do that, the article said, with “a 100 percent tax on incomes above this level ($ one million per year)” and “would recycle this money for the public need.”




Sanders replied, "No. What I think we've seen, and what frightens me again, when you have the top one-tenth of 1 percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Does anybody think that that is the kind of economy this country should have? Do we think it's moral?"


www.frontpagemag.com...

Sanders is an ideologue, and his views today are no different of then.

After all he openly calls himself a socialist.
edit on 12-2-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Hey neo how would Sanders violate what you call civil rights without Congress?

Just wondering if you have an answer.

I will give it to you.

He can't.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Same way the current guy does it.

Eo's and uses government agencies to push his agenda totally circumventing congress.

What a candidate promises is NOT the same thing as once they get in to office.
edit on 12-2-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So you can use EO's to raise taxes?

Are you sure about that?

Rember the supreme Court as well?

Haven't they slapped this current guy down quite a bit?

Obama still hasn't caught up to Bush yet though in that regard.
edit on 12-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't care about 40 yr old newspaper articles or Bernie's response to whether or not a 90% tax rate is "obviously" too high.

Apparently it wasn't too high for the time seeing how America was paying for a war and seeing how America prospered under that rate, I'd say Eisenhower did the right thing.

Just the same;

Show me where Bernie has proposed anything near a 90% tax rate in his platform.

Show me where he's done anything other than deny that he would impose such a rate as POTUS.

Yourself and anyone else proposing that Bernie will do such a thing as POTUS, is pure horses#%t.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish




Apparently it wasn't too high for the time seeing how America was paying for a war and seeing how America prospered under that rate, I'd say Eisenhower did the right thing.


The lefts' sacred cows didn't exist at the levels they do today.

The sheer number programs, and they keep adding more, and a left wingers ONLY thought ?

Make some evil rich billionaire pay for.

When all they really have to do is expat, and be done with that stupidity.

Ps the value of the dollar was considerably more then than now.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Pretty much or it wouldn't be an 'option'.

OBAMA CONSIDERS RAISING TAXES BY EXECUTIVE ORDER



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Never heard Sen Sanders ask for a 90% tax on the rich, but I support such taxes if for no other reason than to get big money out of politics!

Tax the rich!

They won't go hungry!!!!



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
And on that note.

I leave this thread with a dose of Mencken.



Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35


en.wikiquote.org...

Mencken called it so many,many,many years ago.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No. It's not an option. It can't be done.




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join