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

A New Civil War

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I agree in principle, but there's a major thing you're overlooking. It's not just that the majority of citizens are being controlled or manipulated by the 2 parties. A lot of our citizens are heavily invested in this current system and their reluctance to change things is what fuels the 2 "party" system. So ironically, the fact that our 2 major parties agree on so many policies is a desired trait for many or most Americans. Here are a few examples to illustrate my point.

1. War, the defense industry, and pacifism.

People may rail against our overseas wars and military operations, but that doesn't nullify the millions of jobs that are tied to our military and MIC. Many Americans also have direct investments in defense related companies, while others from both "sides" are simply warmongers and/or believe we should dominate global issues. This is why I don't think it's a coincidence that both major parties support these overseas wars and the MIC, regardless of their rhetoric.

It's undeniable that our country's economy would suffer if we suddenly adopted global pacifism. It would require the closing of most or all of our overseas bases, the annulment of NATO and many of our military alliances, and the cancellation of a ridiculous amount of defense contracts & defense related spending programs. This would cause many layoffs and drastically hurt our current alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and South Korea, all of which we depend on for various economic reasons (like technology, products, investments, stable defense clients, etc). It would also prevent our kneejerk bigots from having new bogeymen to wage war on. People may not admit it, but our country loves violence and war, hence why both "sides" are anti-pacifist.

2. Crime & the perception of being tough or soft on crime.

A lot of citizens crave security more than anything, and loathe any politician they see as being "weak" on crime. This is one reason why both parties still wage the Drug War, still have their law enforcement disproportionately target minorities, still legislate judicial punishment over rehabilitation, etc. I'm not talking about the rhetoric; I mean the actual policies they implement.

And once again, our law enforcement and judicial systems benefit a lot of Americans. This can be through investments in security firms, jobs, the disenfranchisement of "social undesirables", the entire lawyer profession, the legal drug industry & its workers and investors (who would suffer from the legalization of various illegal substances), etc. Don't forget, even corrupt officials and businessmen are still voters. Of course all of these groups of citizens would prefer political parties that maintain the status quo, rather than political parties that are seen as "soft" on criminals, pro-drug legalization, and would guarantee that all felons would regain their voting rights.

3. Wall Street and our major banks & corporations.

Let's be blunt: most citizens don't really want "Wall Street" to collapse. That would shut down 10s of millions of jobs, cause countless millions of new debt faults (from mortgages & car loans to business loans & credit card defaults), and absolutely shatter our economy. Retirement funds & retirement programs are invested in various stocks and bonds, and those would collapse. Our food supplies and consumer product supplies would dry up immediately, seeing as most of these companies are also publicly traded and/or have stocks and bonds that are owned by other investors. Even many top sports universities like the University of Texas are major institutional investors.

So once again, I don't think it's a coincidence that both major parties cater to Wall Street. People may want more regulations and actual prosecutions for Wall St crimes, but I think that's the limit to what people really want. We could probably list all kinds of different examples to further make the point.

edit on 31-10-2016 by enlightenedservant because: typo




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
List of things that would cause me to open fire on someone:

1. You open fire on me first

2. You open fire on innocent people first.


If one or both of these conditions aren't met I won't engage anyone.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I agree in principle, but there's a major thing you're overlooking. It's not just that the majority of citizens are being controlled or manipulated by the 2 parties. A lot of our citizens are heavily invested in this current system and their reluctance to change things is what fuels the 2 "party" system. So ironically, the fact that our 2 major parties agree on so many policies is a desired trait for many or most Americans. Here are a few examples to illustrate my point.


It kind of reminds me of that moment in the Transformers movie (the cartoon, not the Michael Bay ones) where they subtly point out that the Autobots are really just as bad as the Decepticons. At one point someone asks the question "when will the war be over" and the response is "when all are one", basically referring to what would be genetic purity.

It's pretty sad that that's the state of our politics right now. There's things to fix, but smart and capable people are able to manipulate a 2 party system to get the changes we want. We just seem to be short on smart, capable people who are also charismatic enough to get elected. Or on people that are capable of flipping on being a sociopath for business success, and then flipping that off when bribing politicians for the good of all. Maybe I expect too much of people, though that would be odd since I have low standards for everyone.



1. War, the defense industry, and pacifism.


The military, and the entire MIC for that matter, is essentially the US's true welfare program. Most of the work is jobs that don't need doing, just to put paychecks into the system and force economic spending. It's also the biggest driver of getting people educated.

That's why we continue defense spending.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


It's pretty sad that that's the state of our politics right now. There's things to fix, but smart and capable people are able to manipulate a 2 party system to get the changes we want. We just seem to be short on smart, capable people who are also charismatic enough to get elected.

I think the issue is the huge number of "smart & capable" people it would take to actually change the system. For example, a quick google search says there are more than 3,000 different counties and roughly 20,000 cities in America. Now think about all of the employees in each city govt & county govt, as well as their local judicial systems. Then think about each business and non-profit organization in those cities and counties. And here's the kicker: those are nearly all staffed with Republicans or Democrats! And those are just the local govts.

It would take 10s of thousands of "smart & capable" people nationwide to change things at the local level, and that's assuming their proposed changes wouldn't nullify each other. Otherwise, they'd be dependent on Dems and Repubs to carry out their revolutionary changes. Good luck w/that. That's the real strength of political parties. They synchronize the goals and policies of large groups of people. Without synchronized plans, we'd end up with thousands of ambitious people who are constantly getting in each others' way.

Then we'd have to find and inspire thousands more people to enter and change the State govts and the federal govt. And once again, they'd have to have common goals/plans or else there would be thousands of people constantly trying to reinvent the proverbial wheel.

But at what point would this new "party" simply become a replacement for the 2 current ones? Contrary to popular belief, our current business and political leaders are geniuses. They're masters in the arts of maintaining power, accumulating wealth, and controlling the masses. So what would stop those powerbrokers from also jumping ship to the new party/movement? Not to mention, they have access to resources and wealth that most people couldn't even dream of. As long as people have a price, they will defeat us. What's a $1million bribe to someone who literally controls the printing of money? And nope, I'm not talking about the Federal Reserve. I mean companies that are in the business of printing banknotes, like De La Rue or these other companies.



Or on people that are capable of flipping on being a sociopath for business success, and then flipping that off when bribing politicians for the good of all.

In my earlier days, I thought that was going to be my path. But anti-heroes don't seem to work in real life, especially with a 24hr media/social media cycle that can brainwash even the most dedicated "conspiracy theorists". It's too easy to demonize someone now, especially when you take into account already existing stereotypes. I'm even convinced that if the Prophet Jesus ever returned, he'd be attacked and/or killed for being a Middle Eastern pacifist, for wanting to share the wealth, for being truly anti-Wall St/moneychangers, for speaking a language that sounds like Arabic, etc.



The military, and the entire MIC for that matter, is essentially the US's true welfare program. Most of the work is jobs that don't need doing, just to put paychecks into the system and force economic spending. It's also the biggest driver of getting people educated.

That's why we continue defense spending.

Yeah, but a lot of that spending can simply be converted to domestic programs. Many (or all) of our largest defense contractors also have civilian subsidiaries. So why couldn't we replace a warship deal with a high speed rail deal? Or replace the number of troops with a similar number of domestic contractors that work on all sorts of new infrastructure projects, like desert-wide solar farms and a nationwide desalination grid to eliminate droughts once and for all? I know that legally we can't just switch them, but I mean policy-wise. The spending and employment numbers could be the same, but we'd be spending it to build up our own country instead of spending it to attack and occupy others.
edit on 1-11-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

I'll be contrarian, then... what if the people don't WANT what you want?

Look at the national response to the Bundys taking over Malheur Wildlife Center. The Bundys (who often talk in terms of things I hear on ATS) were NOT supported by most Americans - and yet the Bundys wanted to start a revolution.

What if people aren't "asleep" or "sheeple" - what if most of them simply don't want what you want? What if we want more government regulation (of, for example, large corporations... and political action groups)?

Isn't the point of our government that things go the way the majority want - even if the minority doesn't like it?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

We couldn't communicate quickly back when then country was founded. News was by rail mail, telegraph was fast but not available everywhere. We elected representatives to stay abreast of the situation so we could work our daily lives while our reps focused on doing our bidding. Now communication is worldwide and instant, we don't need representatives. We can do our own damn governing, if people would wake up, and realize it. We agree on what rights we all should have, then police ourselves with people's courts- not judges.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd




Isn't the point of our government that things go the way the majority want - even if the minority doesn't like it?


No.

Not at all.

The whole point of a constitutional republic is to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

You can't just vote away rights. In the event people try, that's where the well armed lamb concept comes from.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
Isn't the point of our government that things go the way the majority want - even if the minority doesn't like it?


No. That's the entire point of the Constitution. If it were the way you're presenting it, we'd still be a country in which blacks weren't counted as people and women had no vote, because the majority of Americans did not support either of those changes.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
If you want to respect and admire the policies of Abraham Lincoln, you should become a Democrat.


Somehow I think you missed my whole point, while making it for me at the same time.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Blaine91555

There does not have to be bloodshed.

10,000 armed, concerned citizens marching towards Congress or a State Governor is all it will take.

No one will riot, the Police will be ever so polite and job done.

Now, if then, they are fired upon ... then you have a revolution with bloodshed.

THEY have one thing in common, they wish to live!

P


Somehow I think hundreds of thousands or millions of unarmed citizens united in their desire to move forward as a united people would be far more powerful.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

We make all the decisions good or bad by allowing to happen, what is happening. We have all the power, but we throw it all away over petty differences and a desire to control our neighbors. Which candidate does not much matter when they can be easily controlled by those in power.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That leads me back to what I said before about education being where it needs to start. Actually though that education needs to start at home.

There are certainly no shortcuts and I'm under no illusion that anything will be fixed in short order, but we do need to have a real conversation about it, minus the propaganda we are bombarded with daily.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

YEAH but THIS has been amateur night NOT half as effective as the cold war stuff.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

And what if the things you want create the things you say you don't want?

I.e. what if some of the rest of us have observed that more and more government regulation and oversight actually creates an environment where only the very biggest of corporations can survive to stay in business so that the very things you say you hate - those evil big businesses that MUST be regulated by ever more rules - end up being what you create?

The problem is that you refuse to listen and understand. Instead, you all whine about how when that is pointed out that we "don't want any regulation" so it means we want lead in our drinking water and other hyperbolic crap like that.
edit on 1-11-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thank you for your reply and I'm glad to see you carry it to the conversation about why.

You make some very good points about why we can so easily be controlled and how we want to control each other. We the People are as guilty for allowing it to get this far as the ruling elite are for turning us against each other to control us. We allow it and often desire it.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Blaine91555

I'll be contrarian, then... what if the people don't WANT what you want?


I had to go back and read my own OP to see what I'd said. I think that misses my point a bit. I'm not actually talking about any particular stance on an issue, but the fact we have allowed an obviously corrupt elite to take the power away from us and rule us not for our benefit, but for theirs.


Look at the national response to the Bundys taking over Malheur Wildlife Center. The Bundys (who often talk in terms of things I hear on ATS) were NOT supported by most Americans - and yet the Bundys wanted to start a revolution.

What if people aren't "asleep" or "sheeple" - what if most of them simply don't want what you want? What if we want more government regulation (of, for example, large corporations... and political action groups)?

Isn't the point of our government that things go the way the majority want - even if the minority doesn't like it?


Yes it is and that's how it should be. Those who lead us should be playing the game by the same set of rules we play by though. We should not be forced to choose between two people who could care less about us.

What if some want more regulation? Don't you mean what if some want to control others, while at the same time being free to live as they wish?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555




Or, is there a solution to this? Is a time coming when people will lay aside their Party Pom Pom's? Does anyone believe enough of us can wake up to the truth about the phony Party system to change things? Or, will we simply let ourselves be the pawns of the elite who likely have a good laugh at our expense after each election?


I would say we have taken our first and most important step towards this via the HRC/Wikileaks/FBI riot that has been happening with an accelerating pace since Friday.

That step is, that in order for the elites to win, it requires a disengaged and uninformed/apathetic electorate. Which was the case for the majority prior to Friday. That is clearly not the case today.

This country's voters are now *keenly* alert and ravenously consuming information as fast as they can get it.

And I guarantee that scares the bejesus out of some people...

Next step is getting united against this tyranny of power. I think it can be done once the country is paying attention. Who will do it? I don't know...but that person or organization is out there.

A lot will depend on the outcome of this election and the entwined criminal and ethical investigations going on as we speak.

My prediction is that Hillary will be out of the race by the end of the week. What happens after is still a little cloudy...
edit on 11/1/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Yes, but Byrd also brings up an excellent point too. There are too many people who are too convinced that what we have is better than fighting with people who don't want exactly what they do in order to topple it because if we worked together to unseat the established order, why then ... they might not get what they want, exactly what they want, and they might have to let others have some of things they want too which would mean things they don't want ... and here we go again.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
On a lighter note, there are those who are already locking and loading...

The insanity will not end if Clinton is elected.

What Trump will do if elected is one big question mark, imho.

That’s some scary scenarios.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

I agree that people are more alert and better informed now. Communications is key.

I'm not viewing this through the lens of Hillary or Trump and just this election though, even though they may both be the great examples of what's wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join