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: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: TheRedneck
Supposing your theory happens OP, there will be a Civil War in this country unlike History has ever seen.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: rollanotherone
It would have to be bigger than 9/11....a lot bigger.
Wasn't there an interview going around very early on in Obama's tenure, 1st term, where he was talking to someone ... I've searched and searched for it and can't find it where he was talking about the magnitude of disaster that the US can absorb, and he made it sound like the US could take nuke almost like he was more or less unconcerned with the idea of a nuke attack on the US (as in one nuke, not all out nuclear war).
I remember it making a splash at the time, but I can't find it now. I might be just searching for the wrong wording.
originally posted by: nomad2
Interesting. But I have to say your assessment of Obama is debatable:
Obama is, and has been during his national political career, a rebel in search of a cause.
He is exactly the opposite of a rebel. He is a very conservative person with a conservative agenda. For all intents and purposes, a neocon pursuing the imperialist agenda abroad. But because he is masquerading as a liberal he has to pursue this agenda by duplicitous means. Liberal rhetoric, conservative policies. His shtick is to allow the other side to when while in reality desiring the conservative outcome. It's a passive/aggressive style.
And he has and always has had a cause: the corporate, imperialist agenda.
originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: AuranVector
It's a very confused situation. Donald Trump has knocked over the Republican applecart and apples are rolling all over the road.
I think he could actually win the general election, if and only if he avoids making any major gaffes in debates or out on the hustings.
Part of the GOP establishment are running scared of Trump because he has made so many statements that run counter to their traditional interests. His views on globalism, in the context of accepted Republican views, amount to inviting Beelzebub to give the Commencement address at Liberty University. And that's just one thing.
But Trump is all over the map in his opinions. He's an amateur.
Hillary Clinton is old news, but she is a political professional. She will be attempting to "rope a dope" Donald, or to keep him charging at the cape while waiting for just the right moment to slip the blade in. He should not underestimate her.
His most dangerous weapon will be the atomic bomb of politics, "time for a change".
If I were putting money on it right now, I would put my money on Trump (in a two party race). I don't think he has reached his high water mark yet.
It is going to be an exciting election, and very tough. Neither of these two likes losing and both are very serious about this contest.
originally posted by: ipsedixit
I've started several threads on Donald Trump, from a critical perspective. To put it in a nutshell, I think that Trump is a dabbler in politics with very little real understanding of the issues that he has promoted in his campaign. In that sense he is very representative of "the average American", who knows about as much as Trump does about what is going on. The average American can truly say, on that basis, that Donald Trump is "one of us".
Trump is, as a result, a formidable political force.
The opposition that Trump has encountered in the Republican Party establishment and among significant numbers of ordinary Republicans comes from that smaller number of Americans who know more about how politics works in the United States and know more about the political issues facing the country. These people don't like Donald Trump's approach to politics or to dealing with political and social issues. They think that Donald Trump is excessively authoritarian (fascist?), excessively rebellious, and possibly mentally unstable.
In short, they think he's a crackpot.
I think the short term future of America is in the hands of those on the Republican side of politics in the country who want to stop Donald Trump from getting his hands on the levers of power in the country. It seems like the only way to do that would be to run a prominent third party candidate on the right of the political spectrum (the Stop Trump Party?) which would split the Republican vote and either hand the presidency to Clinton, or force a vote in Congress that would give the nation's highest office to a congressional choice, not Trump.
If this were to happen, would there be civil unrest? I think it is possible that there would be some trouble. The activity of a third party in American politics is not unprecedented but the precedents are not contemporary ones. Many Americans might see such a maneuver, running a "Stop Trump" candidate in a third party, as blatantly subversive of the normal electoral paradigm and take violent umbrage at it.
One can understand this, but in countries around the world where political opinion is fractured in the way that American public opinion is being fractured, the presence of multiple political parties is taken for granted.
Donald Trump's supporters will realize, hopefully, that the fracturing of American political opinion is Donald Trump's most profound contribution to politics in the United States and has been achieved without even having to win elected office.
Trump himself, if he has real weight and integrity as a political leader, if he is more that a lightweight flash in the pan, should take ownership of this development and start to navigate as if it were an established fact and not a temporary anomaly. He does show signs of doing that, but there are also signs of his being subsumed into the larger remnant of the established Republican matrix (endorsement by Dick Cheney!).
Problems will arise if Donald Trump's political supporters are not sophisticated enough to realize what has happened. A simple minded Trump centric viewpoint will be tempted to cry "foul" at the obviously manipulative appearance of a "Stop Trump" political party. They might not see such a development as being consistent with "freedom of speech", "freedom of assembly" or "the right to self determination" and, rather, view it as simple, cynical chicanery. Such people could take to the streets.
It is very possible that Americans are going to be put into a position where, for the first time in generations, they will be able to understand and experience why politics in places like Greece and France and Italy seem so turbulent and unsettled.
European politicians are used to shuffling over in their seats into coalitions, where clear majorities can't be obtained. Do parliamentary systems accommodate better than presidential ones to fractured political landscapes? Perhaps that's one of the things that makes European politics different from the politics of South America (and "America"?).
In any case, we live in interesting times. It will be the responsibility of responsible politicians in the United States to guide Americans peacefully into uncharted political territory. These coming months will be a challenge and a test of the maturity and good sense of the American political establishment across the political spectrum.
originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TheRedneck
Political correctness is the one thing destroying this nation. S&F and well written. I don't trust trump either, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. I have my own reasons for withholding trust on Trump though. But if the rumors are true that he is anti establishment, then I'll go with the lesser of the two evils, because the alternative would destroy this nation.
At-least Trump Speaks common sense, which is a plus in my book. But I am with you on not affiliating myself to any party. But here's hoping Trump is the real deal. Otherwise we are screwed & distracted.
originally posted by: nomad2
Liberal/Progressive: interpret the Constitution as needed to enforce 'enlightened' policies; regulate and tax commerce; consolidate power on the Federal level; use military actions to police other countries.
Yes, that is a really different interpretation of progressive than mine. "a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas"
And Obama is clearly a person in opposition to social reform (while as I say pretending otherwise). Case in point, healthcare reform. Warmed over Republicanism for the benefit of the corporate health care vipers. He is the most conservative president since Ronald Reagan.
originally posted by: Miracula2
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Miracula2
LOL, that's a good one.
Name me a politician that isn't crooked.
Rethink Trump! He's at least a successful crook! Although, obviously Hilary is a successful crook as well.........or, well, Bill is.
Everyone possesses some ethical problems. Difference is Hillary Clinton has political experience. If I have to choose between two crooks I will choose one who has already been Secretary of State.
originally posted by: knoxie
for those of you creaming for civil war, do you have kids? daughters?
I think there are folks in this country who just wanna use their guns and their safe hidey places. they're jealous, they didn't get quite where they thought they would in life and they're mad at those who did. they also hate Obama to a point that's just odd...
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: knoxie
I'm sure there are some who hope for another civil war; I'm not among them. I am of the thought that it is prudent to watch, because such an occurrence is both possible and terrifying at the same time.
You did hit on one key point that I think makes such a possibility more probable: we live in a society where 'getting ahead' is seen equivalent to 'trip your opponent'. The reality that impeding others' goals does nothing to accomplish yours seems to have gotten lost in the fray.
We have also forgotten what war is. We tend to think of war like the first-person-shooter video games. The difference is that no one response in reality. For every corpse lying on the ground, there is the permanent loss of a life, the mourning of family and friends, the end of hope and the finality of the grave. Video games don't show that.
There is an old saying: "Those who have forgotten history's lessons are doomed to repeat them."