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.

 

Panicking Mitch McConnell Says GOP Will Help Hillary Beat Trump If He Wins The Nomination

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: ketsuko


The only way we do that at that point is to stand together and rebel, really rebel, not just refuse to vote for the anointed candidates.


I'm thinking sit-ins and protests. "Singing songs and carrying signs". Unarmed. They can fill the jails up with us.
NO VIOLENCE.

We've had threads before asking military and LE whether they would take up arms against American citizens in such an event if ordered to, and they (mostly) said no.

Of course, I remember Kent State, sooo, it would make me a little nervous. If we brought arms, then they would have to also. Killing begets killing. No guns.



Those in power would much rather trample those without the means to defend themselves rather than those with the means.

The thing is, the military would definitely stand with those citizenry who want to restore the constitution. It wouldn't be the people against the military. It will end up the people against DHS, CIA, FBI, and those other alphabet agencies... and possibly foreign troops or entities.

I'm 100% with Ketsuko on this one. Bearing arms doesn't necessarily mean shots have to be fired. It just means that the government will think twice about unleashing K9's, fire hoses, gas, etc etc.
edit on 2/28/2016 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace
At this point in our history it would seem that a military coup is the most likely "revolution" we'd see. At no time since the Clinton administration has the possibility been higher. Clinton's utter disdain of our military has been surpassed by the present occupant of the White House. Even Clinton didn't have the audacity to believe himself some kind of military tactics expert.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Being realistic about things, your faction does not have a voice anymore, they tried to take over the Republican party and it seems they're going to take the party down with them instead. You in all likelyhood will not be seeing the changes you wish to see for a long time.

Trump is going to be the Republican nominee, and that means either an authoritarian centrist in Trump/Hillary or an authoritarian leftist in Bernie will be President. The Democrats WILL win numerous seats in the Senate simply by virtue of what block is up for election which leaves the House. Even if you do well, you're going to be talking about a minority faction in a minority party and that doesn't equal much representation at all. And the Supreme Court will not be conservative leaning for atleast the next 15 years as none of the potential presidents are going to nominate conservatives to replace Scalia or the looming replacements of Ginsberg, Breyer, or Kennedy.

Peaceful change of the type you would like to see is at a minimum 2 decades out.
edit on 28-2-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: desert

No, future (or wishful) dictators are very seldom purely left or right ... they always have to project leftist ideas (that they are against the "misused' power of the government even while they are lusting after it).

At the core of every revolutionary beats the heart of a frustrated policeman.

Trump is no different. His disdain for the common people is self-evident. He demonstrates on a daily basis that there is nothing he can't say, nothing he can do that will turn the tide of the populist, racist, xenophobic zeitgeist aside that he has apparently agreed to embody.

I am astounded at one level that those who have whined for nearly a decade that our current President is such a tyrant are stumbling over themselves to elect a real one.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Have you listened to Mr. Trump?

Do you think his plans, vague as they are, would result in "smaller" government?

He promises to start issuing Executive Orders on Day One.

Because, as he notes, he doesn't need Congress for that.


I heard Mr. Trump say that he will dissolve the Department of Education and the EPA. Best of all, Mr. Trump will try to unhook Obama-Roberts Care from the gov and put healthcare back into the economy.

The difference between intentions and results keeps me from trying to remember what politicians say. I remember no speeches of Obama except a promise of transparency and 5 days to review legislation, followed by "We have to pass it to see what's in it."

Mr. Trump is an outsider to politics and has shown excellent ability in management and negotiation. I think he wants to be a historically revered President.

The Republicrat Leviathanites will probably not step aside.

I don't know what anybody can do to shrink government. Maybe we will find out.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

And how would he do these things that you find so appealing?

Would it be by exercising the power of the President? (In the case of the Department of Education at least). How is that in any conceivable way a "smaller government"? I'm sure if he dissolved the Congress by Executive fiat, you'd find that working toward "smaller government" as well? Dios mio.

Trump is not an "outsider" to politics by any stretch of the imagination ... he's been playing politics for years, he's just never bothered to run for office. It's always been more efficient to buy politicians than to be one.

And opinions vary widely on his abilities in business. Inheriting 200 million dollars and control over some of the most expensive real estate in New York didn't hurt by any means.


edit on 29-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: -s



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

And how would he do these things that you find so appealing?

Would it be by exercising the power of the President? (In the case of the Department of Education at least). How is that in any conceivable way a "smaller government"? I'm sure if he dissolved the Congress by Executive fiat, you'd find that working toward "smaller government" as well? Dios mio.

Trump is not an "outsider" to politics by any stretch of the imagination ... he's been playing politics for years, he's just never bothered to run for office. It's always been more efficient to buy politicians than to be one.

And opinions vary widely on his abilities in business. Inheriting 200 million dollars and control over some of the most expensive real estate in New York didn't hurt by any means.



I don't see that I have a choice. I think Trump is interesting and that he will win. The net result will be more national gov credibility, because he is acting a the national government level.

Smaller and less centralized government is better. Many smaller governments facilitate faster evolution of desirable government by competition. Folks can move to the gov they like best. Maybe there needs be a few different types of gov to accommodate different philosophies of life. Before smaller governments can naturally develop, the big gov has to weaken and hopefully wither away.

Donald Trump is gifted enough to construct or adapt many ad hoc solutions. I don't know what will happen after that.

Smaller government is always better government.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Trump is not an "outsider" to politics by any stretch of the imagination ... he's been playing politics for years, he's just never bothered to run for office. It's always been more efficient to buy politicians than to be one.


Good point, that changed somewhat recently. Both candidates are going to be given a billion dollars this campaign cycle. In Trumps case, he has the infrastructure to charge his campaign for a pretty big chunk of that billion dollars and personally profit off of it. Much like he does now, where his businesses host his campaign rallies that charge his campaign for the space.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

"the net result will be more national government credibility because he's acting at the national government level"

What? Trump will be "credible" because he's acting as President? Didn't work for Obama, did it?

Small government is better? Okay.

You're proposing the Presidency of a man that thinks he can change laws at will and rule by fiat.

Smaller government can also be a direct-to-street totalitarian nightmare. Such is the ill logic of truisms.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate



I heard Mr. Trump say that he will dissolve the Department of Education and the EPA. Best of all, Mr. Trump will try to unhook Obama-Roberts Care from the gov and put healthcare back into the economy.


WOW! I hadn't seen that reported. That would be fabulous but I also remember Reagan promising to dismantle the Dept. of Education.
And didn't all the Republicans running for office last cycle promise to dismantle that unConstitutional prop-up of the health insurance industry? Guess it's just too lucrative for BigPharma, one of the top group of donors to Congressional candidates? And too tempting to Big Brother to be able to peek into every citizen's health care records and prove to the subjects of the Cult of Authority that peons have no right to privacy---even in their doctor's office and no right to self-determination of the health care they will receive?
If the Donald can take the feds out of education and out of the health care industry and let health care go back to being a profession---I would think about voting for him for a second term.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

By shift I just meant how much freaking out by the establishment there's been because Donald, energetically backed by supporters, has been shaking things up and doing so well in the polls much to the upper echelon's chagrin. The freaking out part really seemed to take off in a huge way after he was interviewed by Alex Jones.

I'm paying attention because I'm always interested in trends and always (desperately) looking for signs of encouraging shifts in the mass consciousness.

I know I used to be registered as an Independent years ago but it's been so long I can't remember the year. I'd have to think more about it. Usually, my interest in politics is very slim.

I hope that cleared up what I meant.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Just shows you how scared the establishment is and desperate they are to not lose their 'power'

Trump's obviously doing SOMETHING right, or he wouldnt have the numbers he has!



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

"the net result will be more national government credibility because he's acting at the national government level"

What? Trump will be "credible" because he's acting as President? Didn't work for Obama, did it?

Small government is better? Okay.

You're proposing the Presidency of a man that thinks he can change laws at will and rule by fiat.

Smaller government can also be a direct-to-street totalitarian nightmare. Such is the ill logic of truisms.



What ever success Trump has will be ascribed to the power of the Presidency. TPTB can't lose on that.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: desert
I am astounded at one level that those who have whined for nearly a decade that our current President is such a tyrant are stumbling over themselves to elect a real one.


Since Obama is perceived as a tyrant, I attribute Trump's popularity to a condition called Authoritarian Envy, with its attendant feelings of inferiority and defensive or compensatory behavior. ..... desert hangs out her Pop Psychologist shingle and laughs



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: HomerinNC
Just shows you how scared the establishment is and desperate they are to not lose their 'power'

Trump's obviously doing SOMETHING right, or he wouldnt have the numbers he has!


What "power" are TPTB going to lose?

The last eight years have proven, fairly conclusively, that the POTUS has no real power.

Also ... let's pursue that logic just a bit ... Clinton is "leading the polls" on the Democratic side ... that means, by your logic, that she is "doing something right"?



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Gryphon66


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: desert
I am astounded at one level that those who have whined for nearly a decade that our current President is such a tyrant are stumbling over themselves to elect a real one.


Since Obama is perceived as a tyrant, I attribute Trump's popularity to a condition called Authoritarian Envy, with its attendant feelings of inferiority and defensive or compensatory behavior. ..... desert hangs out her Pop Psychologist shingle and laughs


Exactly.

It's not that the Right wants less government ... they just want to be in control of it.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Ah.

Got you. Sorry for being dense ... that is exactly what you said.




posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I don't know why this is news. The GOP establishment has been capitulating to the Democratic party and selling out its base for the last several years now. This seems to be their standard operating procedure.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: tweetie
Funny I should look at this reply and find exactly what my Beloved remarked this morning after reading a story in the local paper. Chuckling, he said, "The Donald has them tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth."
Joe Gerth of the liberal Courier-Journal (Louisville) was reaching so far it was hilarious, quoting every source he could scour up because Moneybags Mitch isn't saying anything. www.courier-journal.com...



Now, McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader with among the best poker faces east of the Pecos River, isn’t saying anything about the presidential primary other than somebody, anybody, in his opinion, would be better than Barack Obama.


Former staffers, former aides, his biographer...all party hacks saying what party hacks are expected to say when feeling threatened. Rand Paul got similar treatment when he ran against Moneybags' pick for Senate.
I'm waiting for them to reTweet the guy who parks his car...or his dog walker.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm a little slow at figuring things out, so I finally straightened out in my head last year what the heck is going on with the GOP. Traditionally, the Republican Party was and still is the party of the wealthy (as GW Bush said, the Haves and Have-Mores) and big business, corporations, Chamber of Commerce. But there are two strains in the GOP now.

The traditional strain indeed is not completely against the functions of govt, as long as they can reap financial gain from them. Not content with govt contracts, some want privatization (all the money for functioning as govt goes to them, not just a contract). Some further along the continuum want to control govt via lobbyists and campaign money needed so large, that Congresspeople must spend more and more time soliciting "donations" and are beholden to big business. The ultimate prize is when businesses can write legislation (via lobbyists conveying corporate needs in writing). .... a note here, the below faction loves to write legislation through their group ALEC, so at times the strains infect each other

The other strain is the Koch/Libertarian group. From 1% in 1980, they have become megapohnes to spread their ideology to where it is now mainstream GOP. This strain wants to do away with govt functions completely (except for military), so govt no longer serves as a buffer between corporations and citizenry. This strain is aided by John Birch Society true believers.

Both strains needed voters to elect their sympathizers into office, and they found their mark in those Have Less party members, brought into the party over issues other than purely economic (or recently disguised as economic self-interest). The K/L/JBS faction has much power now in the GOP.

What I find interesting is the K/L/JBS supporters I know (family, friends, acquaintances), almost all are receiving some form of govt assistance. Of course, they believe that THEY are entitled to it but certain others are not. I also have a sneaking suspicion that psychologically some are not comfortable with that assistance and so rebel against it whenever they can. One last observation, some of the most authoritarian followers I know are in need of some structure in their lives and so depend on this outside strongman to provide that structure.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join