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

Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: WilburnRoach

Have you read this thread, I reckon you will really enjoy it if you haven't?

One of the best threads ever! Thanks for the link.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Empire has expanded both with militaristic expansion and diplomatic expansion.

Rome expanded mostly with there legions with military expansion robbing and looting as they advanced. Rome fell because they stopped expanding.

What do you want your globalism to look like? This is the choice we are given? Trump hasn't shown any diplomacy in his almost 16 month campaign, only attacks. Hillary is constantly attacked because of her use of diplomacy in all things. (not voting Hillary)

Trumps tax cuts for the wealthy is pandering for support from the elite, he will get it. Trumps massive military increase in spending also caters to the elite. A massive increase in military spending will create jobs, not sure if they will be where they are most needed. He will attack because he isn't capable of solving his differences with negotiating or the use of diplomacy. Trump doesn't care about Syria because Syria is all about a pipeline that will benefit Europe (our allies). Of course if Europe pays us, Trumps tune will change, believe me! Trump will lead to massive war for his version of globalism.

Hillary will use diplomacy and negotiating to make agreements with many other countries that agree with her view of globalism. There are issues she will use war to further the goals of the globalist. Syria is one of those places. Russia will defend Asad because they want to build a pipeline that will benefit Russia.

It's possible Hillary can broker a diplomatic solution, where Trumps solution will be to attack.
edit on 19-10-2016 by WilburnRoach because: obama stole my toaster!!!

edit on 19-10-2016 by WilburnRoach because: he took my toaster to kenyan




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WilburnRoach



I don't think Trump and his supporters know how the election process works nor how a constitutional republic works.


There does seem to be a disconnect, in general, between many Trump supporters, Trump himself and the Constitution. In a "the ends justify the means" sort of relationship. They have goals they want to achieve and they don't seem too concerned about how they get there.

Luckily, the Constitution protects us from those sorts of people.

What a joke the Democrats treat the Constitution as....
Like how it protected us from Feinstein et al?


Not sure how this relates to my post, except as a deflection.

In your post, you could just have easily said:
"There does seem to be a disconnect, in general, between most Clinton supporters, Hillary herself and the Constitution. In a "the ends justify the means" sort of relationship. They have goals they want to achieve and they don't seem too concerned about how they get there.

Luckily, the Constitution protects us from those sorts of people. "

The Constitution gives the Federal government the power to provide for the general welfare of the people, not provide welfare, health care, et cetera. So when concerning one's self with grievances against one group, delegated Constitutional authorities and such, one should also give equal consideration to what other groups have done, and continue to do, unabated. Failure to do so is at least disingenuous, and often leads to false beliefs and misinformation treated as fact.

Yet, the facts are entirely different from what you purport.


edit on 19-10-2016 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
At this point, what does it matter anyways?

We are screwed....


If you prefer a fast and furious screw.... vote Hillary

If you prefer to circle the drain a little while longer before going down, vote Trump.


The end result will be the same.
edit on R072016-10-19T11:07:27-05:00k0710Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious



In your post, you could just have easily said:


Can you name a policy stance of Hillary's that could be considered unconsitutional?



The Constitution gives the Federal government the power to provide for the general welfare of the people, not provide welfare, health care, et cetera. So when concerning one's self with grievances against one group, delegated Constitutional authorities and such, one should also give equal consideration to what other groups have done, and continue to do, unabated. Failure to do so is at least disingenuous, and often leads to false beliefs and misinformation treated as fact.


Who's to say that I have not given consideration to "other groups" and how they jive with the Constitution? The topic of the discussion involves Trump. Forcing the discussion towards Hillary, as you have done, is deflection, because it does not address the OP.



Yet, the facts are entirely different from what you purport.


How so?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   


Trump is running to be the first American Emperor, h


For students of history.

That would have been Wilson. Then FDR, Then Johnson.

The greatest usurpation of money, and power, and RIGHTS from Americans.

But hey don't let a little thing like a history book get in the way of demagoguery.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Can you name a policy stance of Hillary's that could be considered unconsitutional?


Article 1, Section 9:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
All those donations the Clinton Foundation accepts from foreign governments? UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Amendment 2:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Shall not be infringed" seems to be a point of tremendous confusion in Mrs. Clinton's mind.

Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Mrs. Clinton voted for the Patriot Act and again for reauthorization of it 5 years later. Enough said on that...

How has her pandering and manipulation supported the 1st Amendment's guarantee of a "free, independent press" in America?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Every empire fails simply due to there be nothing left to conquer.

An empire is a feeding beast that consumes more and more for less and less result...spending lets say spending a million bucks a year to protect a farm thats worth 30k a year top in some foreign country will soon drain the system even one who can self print the cash.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: WilburnRoach

I love this post!

Recently I have been noticing the parallels between the issues of our current republic and Rome's ancient one. America's founding fathers (and mothers) were fans of Cato the younger, Brutus, Cassius, and so on. They admired those who held onto their republic, but the thing is is that the founding fathers also understood what caused the Roman republic to fall in the first place.

1. Obstructionism - the two party (or, faction) system (consisting of the Optimates (rich folk) and Populares (rich folk who pandered to the poor)) couldn't get along for the life of them. Both sides were incredibly partisan and couldn't come to any meaningful agreement for the betterment of the Roman people. Why was that?
2. Lobbyism - They couldn't get along, because their private interests kept them from being able to budge. It wasn't because they were so passionate about a certain issue for the betterment of the people. It had more to do with not wanting to offend the patricians who filled their coffers and propped up their authority.
3. Arrogance, Corruption, and Complacency - None of them thought the gravy train was going to end. They thought that they could continue making questionable political maneuvers, compromising their values, and exploiting the ignorant for their gain. Their economy was collapsing while their borders were rapidly expanding. Little wars were sprouting up everywhere. The people were being alienated while becoming more and more aware of the incompetent and impotent leadership.

Who steps into this turmoil? When the republic was collapsing, who came in and promised to restore the republic on the "only" ten year tyranny plan? The man was Julius Caesar. The senate, outraged at the thought of going back to an "Etruscan King", promptly assassinated him. The assassination only made things worse for the republic, as history shows.

Now, you might wonder what does this crazy post have to do with Trump. I believe the rise of Trump is an indicator of things to come. Back in the thirties when Huey Long (a populist who was a very complex man with questionable methods) was running and was assassinated, FDR ended up winning the presidency. I know he may not be very popular what with the Fed reserve and all, but FDR really walked the tightrope in keeping this country from becoming a totalitarian state. He was an excellent leader in many ways. I can't fathom how he was able to navigate this country from the Great Depression and then go straight into the worst war known to humankind, while still keeping a guy like Stalin happy. I really don't.. I mean, you don't see that kind of leadership anymore. I even also read how DuPont and JP Morgan allegedly attempted a military coup with disgruntled veterans in the thirties (Business Plot. Maj Gen Butler ended up exposing the whole thing). Ahem.

The issue with Trump is that he could end up being a Huey Long with a large platform that is if he gets his news channel at the end of this election year. The alt-right isn't going away, and it could very well increase if Hillary Clinton doesn't get much accomplished during her tenure. And let's face it, she may hit roadblock after roadblock with the republicans. Her improprieties aren't going away any time soon. The spotlight will be on her like no other. I think Pelosi said that the GOP couldn't wait to stonewall her. Here's the thing. Hillary is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If she wants to get anything done, it may have to be done through a red colored lens. If she sticks by her guns, then nothing may end up accomplished. And the thing with Trump and his possible news empire, it could make things even worse.

This leads me to the possibility that we might get a Frankenstein's monster politician with Trump/Huey Long populist rhetoric with John F. Kennedy's charisma, and Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord's diplomacy skills. Basically, another Julius Caesar if our economy declines even further. This may not happen if we get another leader of FDR's caliber, but at this point, who really knows what lies in the future. But I will say, it is eerily scary how this republic is making the same mistakes as ancient Rome's.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join