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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Sanders and Trump similarities. A thought Should Sanders be robbed of his nomination.

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:17 AM
a reply to: TorqueyThePig
"Fully Automatic" means you pull the trigger of that firearm; holding firm in place fires as many rounds as your magazine holds. We could argue about the status of the 'Revolver' (low tech).
edit on 24-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian


Obama expanded the definition of Domestic terrorist to include most people. Under his watch and the reason it is being seen as problematic internationally is because it overstretched beyond even this definition into the realm of illegality.

It is meant to target NON citizens suspected of terrorism and citizens suspected of the same, but under SPECIFIC criteria.

Trump's main focus and one that has brought him much criticism is that he is focusing on people with Islamic extremist ideologies and real terrorists as per the original intent of the law.

He is showing preference to our people only by extending the protections afforded under the US constitution and bill of rights ONLY for US citizens, which some deem unfair or hateful.

In short, he wants to use the law without the provisions added by way of executive order as made by Obama.

These executive powers are not part of the law or the constitution and as such diametrically opposed to Trumps platform.

THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE WHAT MAKE THE LAW TARGET US CITIZENS. UNLESS YOU CAN FIND THE NEFARIOUS PART OF THE LAW YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH AND LIST IT. That is why I posted what I did. What exactly is the problem you have with it in its basic form without Obamas executive orders that make the negative aspects possible?

Because as I showed it is not a problem as is. The issue comes with its focus that currently is OUR PEOPLE. I explained WHY this is (executive orders expanding definition)

I can explain, but not make you have greater critical thinking skills.

Here is a source that is HIGHLY critical of the patriot act but explains the issues with it since you fail to understand the subject all together.

The Patriot Act expands all these exceptions to the probable-cause requirement. Section 215 of the act permits the FBI to go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order to search for "any tangible things" connected to a terrorism suspect. The order would be granted as long as the FBI certifies that the search is "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities [spying]." But the FBI would not need to meet the stronger standard of probable cause.

The Patriot Act now authorizes this court to issue search orders directed at any U.S. citizen who the FBI believes may be involved in terrorist activities. Such activities may, in part, even involve First Amendment protected acts such as participating in non-violent public protests.

In Section 215, "any tangible things" may include almost any kind of property--such as books, documents, and computers. The FBI may also monitor or seize personal records held by public libraries, bookstores, medical offices, Internet providers, churches, political groups, universities, and other businesses and institutions.

The Patriot Act prohibits third parties served with Section 215 orders such as Internet providers and public librarians to inform anyone that the FBI has conducted a search of their records.

Section 216 of the Patriot Act extends pen-trap orders to include e-mail and web browsing. The FBI can ask Internet service providers to turn over a log of the web sites a person visits and the addresses of e-mail coming to and from the person's computer.

Another area of concern is Section 213 of the Patriot Act. It authorizes so-called "sneak- and-peek" searches for all federal criminal investigations. When applying for a search warrant, officers may show that there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification . . . may have an adverse result." If the judge approves, then the FBI can delay notifying a citizen about the search for a "reasonable period." Thus, the FBI may search a citizen's home or business in secret. The FBI says these searches may be necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or to keep from jeopardizing an ongoing secret investigation.

NOW the common grievance:

The courts are just beginning to review the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. In the first major legal challenge to the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit in July 2003 against Section 215 searches. The suit argues

that these searches violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.

In a report called "Unpatriotic Acts," the ACLU warned that American freedom was endangered by the Patriot Act:

Section 215 is likely to chill lawful dissent. If people think that their conversations, their emails, and their reading habits are being monitored, people will feel less comfortable saying what they think--especially if they disagree with government policies.

In a Washington Post opinion piece, Heather MacDonald, a writer at the Manhattan Institute, defended the Patriot Act. She countered the ACLU by stressing that Section 215 requires a court order. She said there was no reason for anyone to feel "afraid to read books" or "terrified into silence." "Were that ever the case, it would be thanks to the misinformation spread by advocates and politicians, not because of any real threat posed by" the Patriot Act.

It will be quite some time before cases like the ACLU lawsuit will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The basic question that the court will have to answer is: What is the proper balance between national security and protecting individual rights?

section 215 using expanded definitions of what can be classified as domestic terror activities include things like being constitutionally minded, having too much cash or gold, being a veteran and so on.

THAT is the issue.

Under Trump as per all those "hateful" quotes you guys love to throw around without context, he would go after known terrorist and suspected terrorists specifically radical Muslims.

The constitution he would respect he would limit to US citizens and no one else. That means that the protections and securities would not cover the families of terrorists in the US. He would not use the executive powers Obama created since his focus is on RADICAL Islam. Cold and mean I know.

NOT US citizens, hence the premise for intercepting OUR communications could not be extended, unless we are participating or sympathetic to out right terrorism.

You can sooth say and divine his words, but that is what he is saying and why he gets flak for it.

It is kind of mean, but that is not the point. It is in the spirit of the original law as presented. Inherently it has NOTHING specifically advocating for general spying and WHY the neocons sought to expand it, and settled to use executive orders through Obama.

The abuses come from the expanded definitions that target everyone else.

now is when you respond with more "but why"

and I turn on the news and see dead Belgians.

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

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: CrazyWater

In the mean time , Innocent People are being Slain for the Simple Fact their Killers Believe their God is telling them to Murder them in his Name . When Animals go Mad , they are Put Down for the Safety of the rest of their kind . Your Idea that the answer to the Global Terrorist Threat is to have " a man with a steady hand and measured but firm response to conflict. " is so ambiguous , that I fail to see your Logic behind saying that .
edit on 24-3-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: spelling

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:21 AM
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I know what a fully automatic firearm is.

I think we are just interpreting each other's information incorrectly.

No worries, have a good day!

edit on 24-3-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: =)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:36 AM
a reply to: TorqueyThePig
If I were you I would delete the prior post NOW.
edit on 24-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:40 AM

edit on 24-3-2016 by TorqueyThePig because: Not that it matters because my salary is privately funded, but wouldn't want people to develop a false impression.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:43 AM

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I'm not worried as they are government issued and for my job.

I am at work and on a lunch break.

This post needs to GO as well; what are you doing posting on this site during your lunch break? Post during Working hours if a government employee (waste our money). State or Fed employed?
edit on 24-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:43 AM

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: CrazyWater

Still not OUR PEOPLE he would go after in this context.

Obama was popular and everyone liked his mannerisms.

He sold authoritarian ideology under the guise of extreme leftist ideologies (progressive, self label)

Say he didnt.....LOL

Obama leans neoliberal though not as far as the Clintons who aren't that far removed from Reagan or the Bushes in many regards. Trump has been moving in the same circles for years and believing that he's some how anti-establishment because the GOP leadership didn't appreciate him picking up where the Koch's left off is willful ignorance at best. He's moving the country further to the authoritarian Right because in their heart of hearts, there's a chunk of people who desperately crave a patriarchal authority who will "rule" like a king. It's the same mentality that makes people fawn over Putin as he amasses tens of billions of dollars in personal wealth.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:58 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Trump has not been in the same circles. He is private sector not affiliated with government contracts or switch hit jobs.

This is all interpreted nonsense not relevant to his actual platform.



So you are psychic now and can divine beyond FACTS, sure.

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

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:02 AM
a reply to: tadaman

Holy. Just admit that no such thing exists. You're backtracking, talking in circles, beating around every bush you can find, bending over backwards like it's the director's cut of The Exorcist to avoid a very simple request that followed a very pointed comment by you.

There is no lack of comprehension, you're being coy because you have nothing to substantiate your argument let alone refute the statements I quoted from Donald Trump.

Stop dodging.

You said:

"He wants to dismantle domestic spying, like the patriot act makes possible by targeting US citizens."

This couldn't be any simpler. Where are you getting that from? When was anything like that ever said? I don't know how to make this any simpler. There's no need to have a debate on where authority for surveillance comes from or how it could be deauthorized or if anything needs to be done. You made a statement about what Trump wants.

Where did Trump actually say that he wants to do anything to limit surveillance? Let alone "dismantle it?"

This is definitely a put up or
kinda situation and you're all over the map trying to avoid addressing it head on.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:05 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

I provided verifiable sources. You throw opinion around and myself into the mix when responding.

WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS? I gave you mine, you respond every time with the same old argument.

Its BS

Try, give me something beyond your opinion and baseless claims.

I explained my argument, you have NOT EXPLAINED YOURS IN THE SAME DETAIL. Yours has nothing to back it up beyond your sage opinion.

You can disagree but at least back it up with something beyond a mere quote you divine intent from.

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

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:20 AM
The main thing to note is

Trump is paying his Own way, and always has.

Bernie started when he became middle aged. And Still has people flipping the bill for him.
edit on 3/24/2016 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:25 AM
a reply to: tadaman

National Review:

“Fred Trump was one of the greatest men I ever met — and they were both strong Reagan supporters,” Stone says. “Fred Trump had been a major Goldwater backer and financier. [Donald Trump] was very helpful to Reagan, in terms of helping us secure office space, telephones, logistics. He allowed us to use his airplane to fly our petitions to Albany in order to file on time to get [Reagan’s name] on the ballot.”

Shortly after the two first met, Stone opened a lobbying practice, and Trump became one of his first clients. Stone represented Trump and his companies in currency transaction disputes pertaining to the mogul’s casinos and Federal Aviation Administration complaints about the height of his buildings. In 1988, Stone wanted Trump to run for president and arranged for him to give a speech at the Portsmouth, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, which garnered enormous media coverage. Stone says some of his friends in the state organized a short-lived “Draft Trump” movement, but within a few weeks, Trump had determined he would forgo a run to focus on his business career.

Wikipedia - Vera Coking

In 1993, Donald Trump bought several lots around his Atlantic City casino and hotel, intending to build a parking lot designed for limousines.[3] Coking, who had lived in her house at that time for about 35 years, refused to sell. When Coking refused to sell to Trump, the city of Atlantic City condemned her house, using the power of eminent domain. Her designated compensation was to be $251,000,[4] about one quarter of what Guccione had offered her 10 years earlier.

The Guardian article from the CATO Institute's David Boaz (you know, the libertarian think tank the CATO Institute)

It wasn’t the only time Trump tried to benefit from eminent domain. In 1994, Trump incongruously promised to turn Bridgeport, Connecticut, into “a national tourist destination” by building a $350m office and entertainment complex on the waterfront. The Hartford Courant reported: “At a press conference during which almost every statement contained the term ‘world class,’ Trump and Mayor Joseph Ganim lavished praise on one another and the development project and spoke of restoring Bridgeport to its glory days.”

But alas, five businesses owned the land. What to do? As the Courant reported: “Under the development proposal described by Trump’s lawyers, the city would become a partner with Trump Connecticut Inc and obtain the land through its powers of condemnation. Trump would in turn buy the land from the city.” The project fell apart, though. Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain. Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said: “Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city. Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.” Challenged by Stossel, he said that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads. But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.

NY Post (2000)

ALBANY – The state is investigating Donald Trump and the head of the nation’s largest gaming company for possible illegal lobbying, The Post has learned. Sources told The Post that the state Lobbying Commission began a “formal investigation” of Trump, the megabuilder who owns several Atlantic City casinos, and Arthur Goldberg, president of Park Place Entertainment of New Jersey, late last week. The probe, which the sources said could result in criminal charges, focuses on personal efforts by Trump and Goldberg to kill highly controversial casino-related legislation considered by the Legislature last month. Trump and Goldberg spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring prominent, politically connected lobbyists to influence the Legislature on the measure – which could have brought an Indian-owned casino to the Catskills.

New York Times (2000)

Donald J. Trump and his associates have agreed to pay $250,000 in fines and to issue a public apology because they failed to disclose to the state lobbying commission that he had secretly financed newspaper advertisements opposing casino gambling in the Catskills.

Daily Caller

Christie first met Trump in a 2002 dinner at one of the mogul’s New York hotels. The New Jersey governor told the Washington Examiner:

The chef came out, who’s the owner of the restaurant, and [Trump] said to him, ‘Jean Georges, remember the appetizer you made for me last week when I was here? We’ll take two of those. And remember that main course you made, the special thing you made for me? We’ll take two of those, too.’ And he looked at me and said, ‘Don’t worry, you’ll love it.'”

The dinner happened after Trump’s older sister U.S Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Maryanne Trump Barry asked a favor of Christie saying her little brother “really wants to meet you.” Since then Christie, Trump and their wives have had dinner a few times a year and have been friends since.


New Yorker - The Dirty Trickster (2008):

For nearly forty years, Stone has hovered around Republican and national politics, both near the center and at the periphery. At times, mostly during the Reagan years, he was a political consultant and lobbyist who, in conventional terms, was highly successful, working for such politicians as Bob Dole and Tom Kean. Even then, though, Stone regularly crossed the line between respectability and ignominy, and he has become better known for leading a colorful personal life than for landing big-time clients. Still, it is no coincidence that Stone materialized in the midst of the Spitzer scandal—and that he had memorable cameos in the last two Presidential elections. While the Republican Party usually claims Ronald Reagan as its inspiration, Stone represents the less discussed but still vigorous legacy of Richard Nixon, whose politics reflected a curious admixture of anti-Communism, social moderation, and tactical thuggery. Stone believes that Nixonian hardball, more than sunny Reaganism, is John McCain’s only hope for the Presidency. Over the years, Stone’s relationships with colleagues and clients have been so combustible that his value as a messenger has been compromised.

Stone worked for Donald Trump as an occasional lobbyist and as an adviser when Trump considered running for President in 2000. “Roger is a stone-cold loser,” Trump told me. “He always tries taking credit for things he never did.” Like Nixon, Stone is also a great hater—of, among others, the Clintons, Karl Rove, and Spitzer. So what happened at Miami Velvet one night last September, he said, amounted to a gift.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:27 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Daily News -

Michael Caputo, the Roger Stone protege who led Carl Paladino's unsuccessful but never boring gubernatorial campaign against Andrew Cuomo in 2010, arranged today's sit down between various GOP officials and Donald Trump. The 10 GOPers are on an admittedly quixotic adventure to convince Trump to run for office. The Daily News first reported the meeting in its city edition this morning.

I could just keep going. I'm not even trying. I haven't even to him speaking at CPAC or who he's donated to or anything.


posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:31 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian
Breaking news; they (those running for POTUS) all are part of the establishment, and are desperately looking for your validation (who are you; The Mysterious Public: Establishment ill defined by polls misinterpreted). A square plug will not fit a round hole.
edit on 24-3-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:33 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

I disagree, i don't think he is.

I believe a Coup is taking place to get the filth out of the White House and i'd say it's about damn time.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:33 AM
“I support legislation which allows the NSA to hold the bulk metadata. For oversight, I propose that a court, which is available any time on any day, is created to issue individual rulings on when this metadata can be accessed.

Here is a quote by Trump on meta-data collection of the NSA.

That is showing his commitment to have a COURT order on a SPECIFIC CASE BY CASE basis for warranting access to the data.

That is directly in the spirit of the original law and limits the scope to actual investigations of TERRORISM.

This is EXACTLY what happened before the patriot act was introduced.

It is not a phone in warrant like happens now AFTER the fact.

Ultimately he is not president yet and so the risk is the same as with any other candidate. The only difference with him is his commitment to targeting TERRORISTS and their support networks, not US citizens since a court would need to have access to information proving if an actual investigation exists.

Hence domestic spying would not exist under him as under Obama.

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:34 AM
a reply to: tadaman

I provided verifiable sources. You throw opinion around and myself into the mix when responding. WHAT ARE YOUR FACTS? I gave you mine, you respond every time with the same old argument. Its BS

You provided a single irrelevant excerpt from Wikipedia because you can't back up anything you're saying. You keep making claims about what Donald Trump "wants" with no evidence that he said it. I give you the mans words and you dismiss them out of hand.

You're saying things about "what Trump wants" that have no basis in actual things that Trump has said or his campaign has put out. I through down the gauntlet, you balked. I'm done here.

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

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:39 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

and then I expanded on it since you failed to point out the nefarious parts targeting US citizens.

I explained why he is not going to target US citizens in mass under the patriot act as is NOW under Obama which all else except him and bernie would not follow suit with, and who he IS GOING TO, making the case that he will refocus spying in this country to terrorists and not US citizens who would be protected under our constitution.

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

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:44 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian
Carl Paladino is a constitutional activist who sought to remove welfare dependence and out of state abuses, reduce state budgets and cut taxes

Roger stone has always fought against free trade

everyone important seems bad and dark when you know NOTHING about them.
edit on 3 24 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in