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.
That is the exact opposite of Trump's mandate, and of his promises. I don't think, after reading that, we have much to worry about from this Koch plan.
While the Kochs’ decision to build their own independent political organization was prompted largely by their dissatisfaction with George W. Bush and his Republican congressional majorities, so far, the network’s forays have almost exclusively complemented those of the official GOP. And the network is expected to spend heavily in 2016 on ads and other voter outreach boosting the party’s efforts to retake the White House and protect its congressional majorities. RNC and Koch network officials even meet periodically to discuss their respective efforts, to the limited extent that is legally permissible, POLITICO has learned. But the Koch network hasn’t hesitated to call out Republicans who violate the brothers’ brand of small-government fiscal conservatism. And perhaps more worrisome for the GOP, Koch operatives have signaled they’re looking for more chances to take on Republicans, including in primary campaigns.
Nonetheless, conservative leaders have grumbled that too much of their movement is being centralized under one umbrella ― the Kochs ― while GOP officials have openly fretted about the possibility of the party losing at least some control to “a group of very strong, well-financed individuals who have no accountability to anyone,” as RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh put it this year.
Koch Industries, the closely held oil and gas conglomerate out of Wichita, Kansas, contributed $599,400 over time to members now aligned with the caucus. The company’s PAC, combined with individual contributions from Koch employees, ranked as the top contributor only to Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. But the analysis showed that it spread around enough money to be the second-biggest donor overall to caucus members. The analysis did not cover the wide network of political groups marshaled by the Koch brothers that collectively have evolved as a major funding source for Republican candidates.
In the end, Trump’s wall is likely to be the latest addition to the border barrier-building frenzy first launched by President Bill Clinton, greatly expanded by George W. Bush and continued by Obama. But Trump will take full ownership of it as the only president willing to actually call it a wall.
It will not stop migrants from entering the country illegally — going over, under or around it, with many of them dying in the process. But when Trump supporters grumble that the wall is too porous, Trump will no doubt promise to make the wall even longer, taller and stronger in his second term.
PERRY IS UNQUALIFIED, utterly unqualified. He wanted to eliminate the Dept of Energy entirely, remember? (He couldn't remember when asked at the debate, but anyway.....). So - Trump hires the guy who wants to dismantle the DoE to RUN THE DoE? There is no conflict of logic here?
President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Rick Perry to head up the Department of Energy , a choice that’s raised eyebrows given that the former Texas governor previously said he’d eliminate the department—and, memorably, he forgot its name .
He also lacks a science background, which critics say is crucial for the leader of the agency that, among other things, manages America’s national laboratories and nuclear weapons arsenal.
Do you all think Trump should separate himself from his businesses?
For his part, Trump himself is under fire for failing to distance himself from his businesses—though most of his voters don’t seem to care .
(JEFF SESSIONS wants to legislate morality, just remember that.)
Politics and Morals: Trump isn’t the only one struggling to deal ethically in business. In talks with nearly 50 convicted white-collar criminals , one researcher found that most could hardly explain why they’d made their unethical decisions, any more than they’d thought of the negative consequences at the time.
The findings suggest that in certain circumstances, it doesn’t take much to lead an ordinary person into committing serious moral fraud—even though other studies show most people tend to think their own sense of morality is stronger than others’.
One last going back to education.
The image shows the faces of German prisoners of war, captured by Americans, watching a film about a concentration camp. This forced confrontation brought Germans face-to-face with the worst works of the Third Reich. It must be really hard to go through what they did and look back knowing that everything that happened to them, all of their friends who were killed or maimed was in the name of something horrific, something totally repugnant to their own values.
This forced process was part of the Allied policy of postwar denazification, meant to purge Germany of the remnants of Nazi rule and rebuild its civil society, infrastructure, and economy. The program included compulsory visits to nearby concentration camps, posters displaying dead bodies of prisoners hung in public places, and forcing German prisoners of war to view films documenting the Nazis’ treatment of “inferior” people.
German soldiers weren’t necessarily Nazis. The Holocaust is just one side of the Second World War. The other side was the fight for territory and power. Sounds unthinkable today (especially when you are German), but in that respect the Second World War was just the last war in a very long of wars for supremacy in Europe, that went back and forth for centuries.
Strong nationalistic feelings and “war as extension of diplomacy” were quite normal back then. There was no conflict between not following (maybe even opposing) the Nazis and fighting for the “good of your Fatherland”. Some soldiers were Nazis, some just wanted revenge for Versailles, others wanted to sit at the same table as France and Britain. And many followed because they had no other choice.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I'm still using the same argument I always have: Trump is not President. If things are suddenly as bad as you seem to think they are, the blame goes to President Obama.
As a matter of fact, precedence dictates that everything that happens the next four years be blamed on Obama. After all, Bush was blamed for everything that went wrong during Obama's first term.
Don't worry... I personally don't like or agree with that precedent. Put the blame on whoever caused the issue, I say.
Things aren't so bad right now. That's what it seems you all are missing.
So - everything that happens from now on (up to and INCLUDING inauguration day and afterward) is SQUARELY ON TRUMP'S SHOULDERS.
You know, TheRedneck, I'll bet there's a lot that you and I agree on.
Or, I guess we could blame the next four years on Obama.
We may have jobs, but they're low-pay, part-time gigs working under demeaning bosses. We barely get the crumbs anymore, when we could once get a whole loaf. Others are even worse off... no job whatsoever. No unemployment insurance either; it does run out, you know. And when the unemployment runs out, suddenly you are no longer considered unemployed. You are now indigent and don't get counted in the unemployment figures.
So of course unemployment numbers are down. Discount millions out of work since 2008, or barely making enough to keep body and soul together, and we're in a boom!
The effing "faith initiative" all over again. Here's them: "Believe in Jesus? c'mon in!!! Don't believe? Go get screwed!"
You just said that. Earlier. And I refuted it.
Do I think that we should turn the Middle East into a sea of glass and register all "Muslim" citizens? NO.
Do I think that those who have been receiving assistance from the government to survive should be disenfranchised and left to starve? NO.
Do I think that Trump will address those issues? MAYBE.
he has said "no one will fall through the cracks" on his watch. But the immigrants will. The children of Mexican nationals who were born here will. The elderly dependent on Social Security and Medicaid will.
So explain to me how it is that Congress and Trump are just fine with "buy Chinese and Asian" steel, instead of " Buy American".
You have apparently missed the part...
As we seek new ways to jump-start America’s job growth, we would be wise not to rely only on big government or big business to accomplish the task for us. Indeed, the new and better jobs of tomorrow will be created not by any such abstract powers but by very real people—such as our own more entrepreneurial neighbors, cousins, and children—working in big corporations made subject to competition and working in small ventures launched specifically to compete. These entrepreneurs will be able to do so only after we have used our antimonopoly laws to clear away the great private powers that now stand in their way.