It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: HoldMyBeer
No, he's just another politically biased fool looking for any opportunity to blame the "big bad liberals" while letting conservatives off for doing exactly the same, and worse. He completely ignores the fact that REPUBLICANS are just as self-serving, just as greedy, and damaged American economy just as much as any other politician.
Funny how he completely ignores the fact that BUSH was POTUS when the economic trouble happened, what exactly did he do to prevent it? To change it? To stop it? Oh yes, he paid out billions upon billions of your $'s to corporate buddies and bankers, with almost no oversight at all.
Tell me, where is all the condemnation for Bush? Surprisingly the average Republican seems to be so selective in their anger at politicians they conveniently forget his entire time in office, the bailing out, the Patriot act, 2 wars and thousands dead. While you're all screaming about "evil Obama" for daring to push through sensible laws to try to prevent the mass murders of innocent kids, you all ignore the fact that Bush destroyed plenty of your rights and freedoms, opened the floodgates of mass surveillance, bailed out the evil bankers and sent thousands of Americans into two fruitless wars.
Even though the economic problem was a culmination of decades of unravelling of sensible restrictions and laws on bankers (which the Republicans supported too btw), Bush did nothing to prevent or mitigate the catastrophe, he added to it.
I would be willing to agree with the sentiment talked about in that piece (the anger people feel for politics in general and the knee-jerk desire to break the system), but he's wrong in many respects. This is not at all about middle America raging against the "political elites", this is about a right-wing Conservatism feeling increasingly desperate as the country moves on and tells them that their traditional, backward, authoritarian, privileged way of life is no longer acceptable.
Sure, a lot of Americans are fed up with a political class running the show, but they're not stupid enough to want to support the most vile and extreme politician as a result of that disillusionment.
The Republican party is dead, their following is dissipating, what's left is an extreme core of backward thinkers who are terrified of their control slipping away and the country evolving without them. They're angry about BLM, they're angry about immigrants, they're angry about same sex marriage, they're angry about gun control, they'll use their "disillusionment" of politicians as an excuse for what they really think and feel, because to do otherwise forces them to admit that they're really just ignorant people who support an ignorant politician, to the detriment of their own country.
This is nothing new. We've been seeing this conservative extremism growing for several years now. There have been numerous examples of it over the last three of four years alone - shootings by Conservatives of black Americans, protestors, armed men patrolling outside Mosques, the Oregon standoff, the shooting of innocent people at a family planning clinic...
You'll all want to refuse and deny it of course, but it's absolutely clear that the US government was absolutely right to describe right-wing extremism as a bigger threat to the US than Daesh.
No, I don't think all Trump supporters are fascists, Nazis and racists, I certainly don't think they're all right-wing extremists, but they are most certainly ignorant. No sensible and sane person could possibly accept the things he wants to do without being an ignorant fool. It's really as simple as that. If you believe what he says about refugees, immigrants and Muslim Americans, you are an ignorant fool, no debating over semantics will change that.
“Instead of providing low-interest loans to multi-national companies that are shipping jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we should be investing in small businesses and worker-owned enterprises that want to create jobs in the United States and lift Americans out of poverty and into the middle class,”Sanders policy director
The most important reason, however, that the Export-Import Bank’s charter should not be reauthorized is that it is neither morally correct nor constitutional for the federal government to use general taxpayer money to promote the economic welfare of specific groups.
originally posted by: desert
In the old days (1980s?), there could have been a compromise. Not today, as Republicans would not vote for Bernie's using govt money to help citizens.
Buried in this document, however, is a surprising revelation about the role two supposedly impartial jurists have played in these extended fundraising solicitations: “Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.”
originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Willtell
What's interesting is that campaigning Ronald Reagan never told the American people exactly what he would do to bring down inflation. That ended up being unemployment and "trickle down" economics with its tax cuts and deregulation. After 1980, all his voters wanted were family values and to win the culture wars (ultimately wedge issues).
By letting the Koch brothers spread their extremist right wing propaganda and take over an entire party without dispute, the GOP allowed trickle down to vacuum up wealth upward to the 1% and never return wealth to the 99%. And destroy govt to boot, which is their path to "drowning govt in a bathtub"!
The GOP has, in effect, sold out to an unlimited supply of Koch money. They sold out their party and their country, which they claim to love.
When it comes to authoritarianism, Trump supporters are also distinct in their attitudes from the followers of the other Republican candidates for president. Support models for Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush that are run among likely Republican primary voters and include the same set of independent variables tested for when analyzing Trump find that authoritarianism has no effect on support for Trump’s opponents.
The difference between the predicted authoritarian support for Trump and all other Republican candidates is readily apparent when combined into one chart (Figure 2). When looking at this chart, it is important to remember that authoritarianism is only a statistically significant variable for Trump. Thus, while the difference between the predicted value of Trump’s support among authoritarians and non authoritarians is statistically meaningful, any variation in support across the authoritarian scale for the other candidates is not.
On most of these questions, Trump voters exhibit statistically significant and substantive authoritarian attitudes. For example, Trump voters are statistically more likely to agree that other groups should sometimes be kept in their place. They support preventing minority opposition once we decide what is right.
A devastating, top-to-bottom defeat in 2016 might force the party's conservative pragmatists, and the few moderates, to move more aggressively to take back control of their party. That would require a divorce from the Freedom Caucus Republicans, and a long period of readjustment to become competitive beyond red states.
we have to try to change the campaign finance system, enlarge the electorate, change the nature of the House through redistricting and maybe even push for more substantial changes (like multi-member or at-large districts) and create a new public square. All of these are long-term battles. None is a panacea. The future still looks pretty grim.
If the next U.S. president is a joint GOP-Koch favorite like Marco Rubio, he will eagerly sign into law radical budgets shrinking federal domestic programs that the Koch-supported Speaker of the House, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has already drafted into congressional bills. If the new president is a loose cannon like Donald Trump, he may go off script but is likely to accept much of this far-right agenda. Trump lacks his own policy cadre, and his national campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was previously the highly successful director of AFP-New Hampshire and will be able to draw appointees and ideas from the Koch network. Finally, if the new president is Democrat Hillary Clinton, she will have a guerrilla war on her hands. Democrats are in the minority in Congress and in most state governments, and Koch leaders and their well-organized allies are working through a radicalized GOP to enact policy changes that will be hard to reverse. The Koch brothers and other dark-money oligarchs may have to put up, now and again, with unruly grassroots populists and occasional Democratic victories. But they have the entire Republican Party in their grasp. They are patient and determined—and in it for the long haul.