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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

You can elect any actor you like. The winner’s initials are MIC.

page: 1
17

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Both candidates are “fighting” for filling the pockets of military-industrial complex (MIC) and protecting global corporate interests. Forget about the “Basket of Deplorables”. Forget about "Grab Them By The P---y".
They make you fight with each other while they milk you.


Do you happen to know the average daily cost of operations related to ISIL? It is $12.3 million. They spent at least $9.3 billion in just two years (and it is only during one operation, we are not talking about trillions spent every year; and, of course, if we actually can say “spent”, because actually it is “earned”).

For what purpose?

For “Assad must go” or something? Maybe for the sake of “democracy”? For human rights? For children? Come on. Or, does it have anything to do with your national security? You know the answer. They have earned zillions on the legend of Osama bin Laden, for the sake of “national security”, because he was reeeeealy danger (and again, Osama is just one story, one piece of the mosaic), but do you think you are safe now?

So, why? To gain more. Now you do not see those Osama-like homemade videos from his lair with AK traditionally placed nearby, you see almost Hollywood-like videos of organized executions and stuff. You paid for it, yeah, so enjoy the show! Next time in 4K resolution. A bigger budget provides bigger spendings, so you get better commercials. Why? To gain not zillions but tens of zillions. More money, more power, more control.
That is the real story.


Now let me come back to your “Make America Grate Again” and “Stronger Together”.

You will not find the defense sector representatives in the top-10 or top-20 list of contributors, but do not get fooled: they put their cash into Congress and can elect and influence legislators who will remain in Washington far longer than any president.

There is no need to prove that HRC is a war hawk. But for those of you who think that DJT is a dove, let me remind you just one quote:

DJT:
I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now. It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us.

His running mate also knows how this system works, he constantly makes commitments:

PENCE:
“look, we have got to begin to lean into this with strong, broad-shouldered American leadership. It begins by rebuilding our military.

the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo…

What we're dealing with is the -- you know, there's an old proverb that says the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates. And the truth of the matter is, the weak and feckless foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awakened an aggression in Russia that first appeared a few years ago with their move in Georgia, now their move into Crimea, now their move into the wider Middle East.

We're going to rebuild our military.

Well, first, we need to – we need to make a commitment to rebuild our military… We're going to -- we're going to go back to the days of peace through strength.

Swap the names in the quotes and nobody will guess which quote is whose. Both camps are warmongering. Competitors? Accomplices.

They are arguing over the issue whether McCain is a war hero or not, but I am sure he is having a good laugh sitting in the Senate Armed Services Committee and counting cash.

I am not covering all the frauds and war crimes in the post. You can find more quotes, more cases, more scams, more interventions. Dig deeper. You can find a lot more.
LOL, even our pro-NATO ATS shills are divided into two camps.))


You can elect any actor you like. The winner’s initials are MIC.
edit on 2016 by JedemDasSeine because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon Oct 10 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: edited vulgarity




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I agree, I'm honestly shocked that so many people on a site such as this one are actually buying into the whole charade, it's really sad actually.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JedemDasSeine

My partner's parents are saying that she "has" to vote, I told her that if she votes for either of these two scumbags, and then they do something terrible like continue with the wars and stripping us of our rights (which they likely will), then she has to bear some of the blame for that.

I'm amazed at this whole thing - everyone so easily buys into it. I talk with my neighbors, co-workers, people from all walks of life. Many of them are intelligent folks - and yet, when it comes to politics, they are all buying into either one side or the other. It's mind-blowing to me. I can't even state my case because nobody seems to understand.

"Let's just keep voting!" *insert sarcastic fart soundbite here*



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Not sure who first said that, but it's apt. APT!!!



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: JedemDasSeine

Do you think the military industrial complex controls the media? If so, why are they so one sided in ther attacks of Trump?

And do you think the MIC approves of Trumps stance on Syria, that we should not be arming the rebels and trying to take out Assad?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JedemDasSeine
Absolutely. Trump's support of military intervention against a sovereign nation should not sit well with anyone. Particularly when it involves one of the few nations that is actually fighting ISIS. I think we have entered the Twilight Zone. All of the people who yelled that "Obama is more of the same, how could you fall for it" have now fallen for the latest model of false hope.




a reply to: Grambler
I disagree. Trump has brought much of the media circus on himself, by his self-admission of political incorrectness. It's not so much that Clinton is beyond reproach as it is that she appears to be. She knows how to act, and she knows that most people do not believe the conspiracy theories about her.

Overreaction, however, I would agree is a staple. The media knows that Trump stories get views. It actually works in his favor to have the appearance of victimhood. He can claim endlessly that everyone is out to get him and that the bias hurts him; in truth, it just further convinces voters that the longtime friend of Clinton's is somehow not.

Trump supports the CFR, meaning he is the exact same as Clinton. He supports the Patriot Act, which I imagine you should take issue to. And when he originally ran for president he claimed that he would use force to stop North Korea and help Israel, which one could only surmise means suppressing their enemies, such as Syria.

Peer through the veil friend, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing too.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: JedemDasSeine
Do you think the military industrial complex controls the media? If so, why are they so one sided in ther attacks of Trump?

For sure. And they are not totally one-sided, as far as I can see. Actually I do sometimes watch American TV (for the language acquisition purpose) and I feel CNN is blatantly covering HRC (no question about it) while FOX is happy to bash her, and to do a favor for DJT (somebody has to do it, otherwise people will start asking questions, LOL). Correct me if I am wrong though, I am not well up on American mind porn channels.

It seems that they want to keep the gap between the results of the candidates as small as possible, maybe within 5-8 percent. So, since the media landscape has changed because of the Internet for the last 5-10 years and DJT supporters are more likely to occupy the Internet than the HRC ones, she has to be boosted much more by the traditional media that is occupied by the latter. Just a thought.


originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: JedemDasSeine
And do you think the MIC approves of Trumps stance on Syria, that we should not be arming the rebels and trying to take out Assad?

He said it to be a false dilemma part. And, anyway, these words mean nothing. If he would say something really anti-war and peace-loving, I would love it. And, again, words, words, words.
edit on 2016 by JedemDasSeine because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

a reply to: Grambler
I disagree. Trump has brought much of the media circus on himself, by his self-admission of political incorrectness. It's not so much that Clinton is beyond reproach as it is that she appears to be. She knows how to act, and she knows that most people do not believe the conspiracy theories about her.

Overreaction, however, I would agree is a staple. The media knows that Trump stories get views. It actually works in his favor to have the appearance of victimhood. He can claim endlessly that everyone is out to get him and that the bias hurts him; in truth, it just further convinces voters that the longtime friend of Clinton's is somehow not.

Trump supports the CFR, meaning he is the exact same as Clinton. He supports the Patriot Act, which I imagine you should take issue to. And when he originally ran for president he claimed that he would use force to stop North Korea and help Israel, which one could only surmise means suppressing their enemies, such as Syria.

Peer through the veil friend, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing too.


I agree with you that I dislike of of these policy decisions by Trump.

But last night, I heard a man that said something that I agree with in Syria. That we need to stop arming the rebels/Isis. The we need to not dive headlong into war with Russia.

Do you at least give him credit for that?

I guess we just disaagree with the media attacks on him. To me, it shows an unprecedented bias. If its all about ratings, why did the media ignore Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul. They had huge crowds, huge followings. yet the swept them under the rug.

If its about ratings wouldn't attacking Obama bring huge ratings, both by supporters and haters of Obama. Yet they wont do this. The same is true of Hillary.

So although you are probably right that Trump will be more of the same, the fact that the establishment is fighting tooth and nail to keep him out gives me some hope that maybe, just maybe he would not be a stooge for them.

But in the end you are probably right that he won't be any better. And if thats the case, I will be right there criticizing him. But what other choice do we have, to vote for Hillary? And all of the third parties are terrible this election.
edit on 10-10-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JedemDasSeine

For sure. And they are not totally one-sided, as far as I can see. Actually I do sometimes watch American TV (for the language acquisition purpose) and I feel CNN is blatantly covering HRC (no question about it) while FOX is happy to bash her, and to do a favor for DJT (somebody has to do it, otherwise people will start asking questions, LOL). Correct me if I am wrong though, I am not well up on American mind porn channels.

It seems that they want to keep the gap between the results of the candidates as small as possible, maybe within 5-8 percent. So, since the media landscape has changed because of the Internet for the last 5-10 years and DJT supporters are more likely to occupy the Internet than the HRC ones, she has to be boosted much more by the traditional media that is occupied by the latter. Just a thought.


You could be right. But I will tell you that Fox has just as many establishment reublicans on that bash Trump constantly. If you look at the media as a whole, its not even close how in the tank they are for Hillary


He said it to be a false dilemma part. And, anyway, these words mean nothing. If he would say something really anti-war and peace-loving, I would love it. And, again, words, words, words.


I don't know. he went against his own VP to make that statement. And Trump has denounced the nation building idea from the get go of his campaign. he took alot of flak for saying the US shouldn't police the world, and nations should defend themselves. One of the big attacks leveled at him by the establishment is that he is an isolationist.

I have no doubt that you are right, that the MIC will continue to be strong no matter who wins. But at least there is a chance Trump will pull back from some of these wars. Obama and Hillary seem determined to start a war with Russia.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JedemDasSeine


originally posted by: JedemDasSeine
For what purpose?

For “Assad must go” or something? Maybe for the sake of “democracy”? For human rights? For children? Come on. Or, does it have anything to do with your national security? You know the answer.


Protecting the lifeblood of the Pax Americana - the petrodollar - is actually a matter of national security for the United States, since the alternative - fixing and repatriating the U.S. monetary system - is a task the U.S. population isn't willing to shoulder.

Everything else you pointed out is spot on



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Though both are controlled by same MIC handlers, only one candidate brought up "Defend Saudi" and against Iran in both of these debates. President is just a PR representative to sway the public opinion.

So far crazy Trump convinced his followers to jump off the bridge and his followers happily obliged. I don't think any one running under a democratic party platform convince the majority of the conservatives to go to another endless war with Iran to protect Petro Dollar/Saudi/Israeli/MIC interests.




“That’s phase one —[Iran] to go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don’t survive without us. And the question is, at what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them? That’s ultimately what’s going to happen.”
..
“Well, I would want to help Saudi Arabia,” he said. "I would want to protect Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us economically



Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia'

Trump made millions from Saudi government: report



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Trump has said a couple of times he loves war. Given he has also doubted the military leadership, I suppose it means he will be micro managing the conflicts he will get going. I imagines he will start with ISIS since he can take them out quickly.

Tired of wars? Better get used to it.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
2 good reasons to elect Johnson:
1. He wants to Legalize weed.
2. He doesn't even know where Syria is. Maybe it will all go away.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I don't get this; so you say that there's no need to convince people that Hillary is a warhawk, because she doesn't hold the power that congress and the MIC does, then deflect to Trump and Pence and try to convince us that they are warhawks.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

While I agree with your points about the MIC, I find your tactics to attack one side and defer on the other a bit deplorable.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Not so much that we should stop supporting rebels, but rather that we never should have to begin with, yes. What does that matter, though? Trump is playing politician and promising everyone what they want, even when it is contradictory:

For policy decisions, he said, “I’d really call up Bibi [Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu], who is a friend of mine and I’d call up some people and be very dependent on what Israel wants. You know if they really want certain things and they are deserving of certain things.”

How do you expect he can give Netanyahu what he wants (removal of rival Syria) while pleasing Putin at the same time?

To be honest, his absurd support of Putin is what scares me the most. When Putin invades Crimea and Ukraine, Georgia and Chechnya, the entire right flocks to the opinion "oh he's the next Hitler! We have to stop him!" Suddenly when Trump supports him, Putin magically becomes a saint. Putting on my tin foil hat for a moment, every New World Order scenario was about the United States and the Soviet Union uniting. People seem to forget that far too often.

And of course, Ozymandias unites the Soviets and Americans with a fake alien invasion...

Think about the media. They have collectively given Trump more exposure than all the other candidates combined. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity. Trump himself boasted that he could shoot someone on the street and people would still vote for him.

edit on 11-10-2016 by SargonThrall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: JedemDasSeine

Excellent thread and you've given much food for thought.




I think the only reason why some people don't view Trump as a warmonger-saber rattler is because he hasn't been in any kind of position to effect such things.

But if were are to take the man for his word (which he claims we all should), then you better believe he's all in favour of playing with his bucket of little green plastic soldiers.

Clinton or Trump.... both in favour of playing war games.

Two time bombs looking for an excuse to blow something up.



Scary scary thoughts indeed.




new topics

top topics



 
17

log in

join