It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Leaving the Conservative movement after decades....

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:57 AM

originally posted by: spinalremain
a reply to: nwtrucker

Trump supports China.

Don't support this guy. He buys from China, then cries foul.

No body makes clothes in the US anymore. Even if You go to one of those expensive shops and look at a 8000 dress You will see that it is made in Vietnam.

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:10 AM

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: nwtrucker

The only thing I don't understand, is your support of Trump.

If Trump was against free trade and the outsourcing of American jobs, why does he have his "Trump" line of apparel produced in China & Mexico?

Do you honestly believe that he can't make a profit producing $60 neck ties with American labor?

Why does he utilize the foreign worker visa program to find employees for his businesses?

Why does he even willing to go to the point of hiring illegal immigrants on his construction sites?

In establishment politics, you have those who are bought out and those who buy them.

IMO, Trump is a buyer who has never looked out for anyone other than Trump. That's why he thinks it's perfectly fine to utilize Imminent Domain to enhance his private business and profit margins.

Did I mention the fact that you would be hard pressed to find a bigger narcissistic, egotist personality than Donald Trump.

For me, the questions are, which candidate is not bought out by special interest money?

Which candidate is not a special interest buyer?

Which candidate is not preaching one business philosophy while practicing another?

Which candidate does not go on the special interest speaking circuit?

Answer; Bernie Sanders!

No thanks. I won't vote for a guy that was a looser up until His 40's then He went into office. I want someone that has worked in the REAL world and doesn't suck on the tax payers tit. Do You actually think Hillary or Sanders can relate to a middle class father whom is struggling in a job market that was destroyed by the government? You people think the fix for everything is the government and I can assure You there has never been a government in History that has served mankind.

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:36 AM
a reply to: aorAki

Just because You call Rossie O'donnel a fat slob doesn't mean You are a misogynist. I have yet found a man that finds Her attractive or anything but annoying. As far as Megyn She asked for it with Her crappy attitude. The media is supposed to have a neutral stance so the watchers can be informed and they have been anything but informative. Every time Trump has done a debate they have asked gotcha questions while asking them Democrats softball questions or policy questions. I don't know about You but I watch a debate to become informed not to see childish fighting or mud slinging. The hats I don't know about but I do know the ones that You buy on Trumps website are made and distributed in My home town of Lafayette LA. Anyone can slap campaign verbage on a hat but that doesn't mean Trump did it or condoned it.

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 08:40 AM

edit on 23-3-2016 by saintdopeium because:

edit on 23-3-2016 by saintdopeium because: I'm dumb sometimes.

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 08:46 AM

originally posted by: jkm1864
a reply to: aorAki

Just because You call Rossie O'donnel a fat slob doesn't mean You are a misogynist. I have yet found a man that finds Her attractive or anything but annoying.

I don't believe that Trump is a misogynist. I would also insult anyone that attacked me. Particularly someone that happened to be a fat pig, but that comment from you sounds a bit sexist. Women don't exist only to be recognized as attractive or not.

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:15 PM

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: nwtrucker

Why do you believe libertarians are drug addicts?

As I responded to an earlier poster, that comment was partially in jest. I do believe the early attempts to establish the Libertarian Party we're likely valid efforts.(My speculation only).

From my perspective, it was ill thought out, and since, has morphed into a collection of anarchists and no small percentile of individuals that use legalizing of pot-and eventually/inevitably of other mind-altering chemical agents. (Personal vested interests)

As far as the more intellectual side, the concept of Laissez-Faire for individual freedoms and stout defense of the Constitution-thus protecting those individual freedoms- as contradictory and certainly not resonating with the general public.

First which 'Constitution' are we going to 'defend'? The original or the current? Some areas of 'roll-back'? How? In any form, the Constitution allows for laws. Laws restrict. Period. Freedoms are 'lost'....or willfully given up. When some other party is in power, assuming a hypothetical Libertarian win sometime if the future, they will exercise the right to re-introduce or add new 'laws', thus negating any The Libertarian agenda actions.

(As a side note, that is part of my distrust of Cruz. His soap-box orations on Constitution and Christianity. For me, at first admirable. Now? Very safe platforms for garnering political support without stepping on TPTB toes.)

As effective solutions, all the 'political parties are obsolete. Too restrictive and agenda orientated for effective governance. In the case of the Libertarian Party, even if it did evolve into a better articulated and promoted group, it would be too little, too late, IMO.

Action is needed immediately. With Obama's raising the Executive Branch's power, the fastest changes will come from that branch. Trump is the least constrained, both by political ideology and campaign donation, and therefore offers the best hope for immediate and pragmatic actions.

There's a good chance this won't work. There's almost no chance 'business as usual' will change anything.....

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 10:23 AM

originally posted by: nwtrucker
First, I left the Democrats during the Reagan era. Became more and more a Republican, slowly became frustrated over the years with that organization and moved further right, generally supporting the Tea Party. ( I had a hard time relating to Libertarians. It's hard to talk to people who have a buzz on.)

Now I'm in Trump's camp. Don't even know what to call it. The none of the above party?? The middle finger salute group?? Trumpettes? Trumpeters?

Leaving the conservative movement largely due to the betrayal by it's leaders for their personal gain, I retain SOME of the purported 'values' used to ensnare us.

I leave behind the obvious flaws, first and foremost, "Free Trade". It's a fraud. It doesn't work to anyone's benefit other than apolitical Corporate leaders-not all of them- and foreign our expense. To this day, Rush and the rest of the 'Conservative' pundits promote 'Free Trade' as a mainstay of the Conservative movement. If free trade is fundamental to 'conservatism' I'm done with it.

Like it or not, the new party is forming as we speak. Granted, it's motivated by a bunch of pissed-off people, but sobeit. It needs articulation. It is supported more on the right than the left, but has support across the political spectrum.

Irrespective of whether Trump wins this election or not, the momentum will continue into the next election cycle.

Off the top? I'd say a mixture of both. Social programs work on small scales. State, city and county levels....voted in by their constituents. NOT imposed on those states where they do not desire those solutions. Basic education, local services, hospital, police, infrastructure....all are social solutions....and more importantly, workable. A basic tenet of the my version of Conservatism has been "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Guess what regional socialism worked, therefore I call label it as a conservative tenet!

National socialism? Garbage! It's a tough call to label which is the worse, national socialism or 'free trade'??? (Yes, both likely source from the same people, but that doesn't really matter at this point.) Intellectually nuking both is paramount to this new group/party.

Naming this movement isn't important at this point and we will not agree on everything. The idea fight will have to be borne.

No doubt, the screaming, hair-pulling will follow this thread. All the reasons 'why not'. Too bad. This movement will not go away. As the attacks increase from the Establishment right to the belated entry by the protest mechanism/industry, increasing the pressure has resulted in increased support! Based on this, I step out and say OK. Get' er done.

Some restraint would be appreciated....thoughts?

Well that was quite a bit to talk about. I'm just going to comment on the free trade aspect. I myself have been all over the board on various issues. I have some libertarian views and some socialist views with a mix of many others. I can't put myself into a box. While I lean left on a lot of issues I will never call my self a Democrat. I despise wallstreet and I despise spending what we don't have. A proper, effective and fair social saftey could easily be achieved by tweaking spending. By some estimates we could do it all for less than the current budget. Get rid of the pork, the overpriced MIC that rapes the US taxpayer for things that could and should cost quite a bit less. In other words weed out the corruption. I know, I know. It's a very very tall order.

As to free trade. Anybody who is patriotic and even a nationalist, not a nativist, will all agree it's bad. Our countries industrial capacity as well as economy has been dismantled piece by piece. We should all be pissed. Hell, Bernie, the opposite in many ways of Trump, is firmly against free trade as well. The problem is that the ruling oligarchs, a club which Trump would like to belong to but probably never will(after all he is, or claims to be a billionaire), will never ever let free trade die. They went through too much trouble since the late 40s to let that happen. You can thank a Democrat appointee by the name of Paul Adolph Volcker for all of that. He virtually destroyed America's industrial base by making credit absurdly expensive. This is why I have a problem with both major parties. They're all vultures. They basically implement the same types of policies. In the end the Oligarchy wins and we lose. It's been rigged from the start to herd the cattle. We need to break this two party system and that is the only good that I personally see in Trump. He will likely split the Republican party into at least two factions. I wish Bernie could do the same for the Dems. We then might have a chance at some sort of political normalcy.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:08 PM
a reply to: s3cz0ne

Well said. The only point I'd make is the assumption that wealth automatically causes a lock-step support for a specific 'program' or agenda.

Being merely a trucker, there are many in the same income class as myself that hold completely different political views. One only has to see the divergence between the Koch Broths and Soros and Co.

Trump is either a complete liar or has sincere
intentions. I would give him a chance to prove himself out, one way or the other. The alternative is more of the same....Well shall see.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 03:37 PM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Trump is either a complete liar or has sincere
intentions. I would give him a chance to prove himself out, one way or the other. The alternative is more of the same....Well shall see.

Or both a liar and sincere.......

and there is an alternative besides Trump: that alternative is called Bernie.
Clinton does not have the nomination wrapped up yet.

edit on 3/24/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 04:20 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Bernie is an alternative for those that believe broad-scale socialism is workable. I do not.

I, for one, have zero intention of allowing free university, at MY expense, for further indoctrination and eventual far higher income potential than I have. From the numbers I've seen, total cost of all his 'freebies' totals higher than the current national debt.

He is slick, I will give him that. But no more. Certainly not the Presidency.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:52 PM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Would you also cut off "free" public education for K-12? The plan is just to extend that FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) for four more years. There's no obligation to GO TO COLLEGE for anyone. Just - if they want to.
They can still drop out at 16 or whenever.
Or be home-schooled.

Oh, and by the way - the "expense" would be covered by a tiny fraction of a percent of taxes on Wall Street SPECULATION trades.
Not by you.

edit on 3/24/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:38 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Really? How many students enroll each year in colleges each year? Times four years....or more? Now enter in the potential and likelihood of Mandated/controlled content and curriculum. The title nine mechanism is a perfect example.

How about cancelling student loans debt?...or compensation for slavery? How much more?

I'm much more concerned with viable jobs, the debt, and state rights. I'd put that money to infrastructure before freebies.

Beyond that, I do not believe in federal socialism. State level? OK. If voted for by the people of that state. The 10th? Remember that? Those that don't want it equally deserve not having it enforced on them. That, sir, is real diversity. National Socialism is enforcement and approaches fascism.

edit on 24-3-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: nwtrucker

That, sir, is real diversity. National Socialism is enforcement and approaches fascism.

I'm a "ma'am", thanks very much. And you are misunderstanding Bernie's platform. The only "socialism" he is proposing is that already practiced in Canada, Australia, and many countries in Europe (Scandinavia, UK, etc.). (EDUCATION and HEALTH CARE)

It works. You insisting it doesn't work does not change the fact that it DOES WORK where it is intelligently implemented.

How does it go..????? You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to invent your own facts.

edit on 3/24/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 08:46 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Apologies for the 'sir'.....

I didn't mention 'workability' whatsoever. Fact.
I have familial and personal knowledge of the Canadian system and it has no shortage of flaws. Living 100 yards from the Canadian border, I watch streams of Canadians coming for medical services in Bellingham that are delayed beyond any reasonable time up north.

All systems have advantages and flaws. Fact.

Your egs are smaller population nations. I prefer choice over a system that restricts, limits and outright dictates what I can or cannot get.

Avoiding the point I made about State by State choice doesn't negate that diversity I prefer. Freedom of choice. Simple.

If you want intelligent input on the subject, google Ben Carson's views and solutions. I feel he'd make a wonderful Surgeon =General of the U.S..

P.S. No "facts" invented whatsoever. Other than your saying it, that is.....

edit on 24-3-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in