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

Everyone relax: President-Elect Trump is different than Republican Nominee Trump.

page: 5
83
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: marg6043

There was a time in America (before 20 years ago) when both parties were comprised of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Sometimes Americans used to vote "straight ticket", sometimes they would "cross party lines" to vote. I grew up in a family that did that.

For 20 years now, our parties have devolved into factions, with increasing disagreements. America was founded on the idea that the parties would "compromise" to govern effectively. It is no longer possible to find much on which to compromise. It is no longer possible to find candidates on "the other side" to vote for. That is why it seems that Americans stick to their party to vote now.

Plus, IMO Americans are now so focused on personality of a candidate over the platform of their party.


So what you are saying people voted for Trump's personality because most people are racists and misogynists?

Many people voted for Trump because he was going to get rid of NAFTA and restore good paying jobs in this county. Not everything is about personality voting.




posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Yes. This election is exactly what our founding leaders warned us about. They gave us the two party system with tools they believed was needed to survive, based on compromise. One party, under Newt Gingrich's leadership, became a faction, and now we are effectively ungovernable under the system we were bequeathed.

The founding leaders gave us the two party system, but warned us about, as Adams said, "concerting measures in opposition to each other".


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

John Adams


The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Geore Washington

And as Adam's said, this opposition is "the greatest political evil under our Constitution". And all it took for this evil to flourish was for good politicians to not speak up, or to be drowned out by all the piles of money that had fallen on them from the oligarchs.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

No! When Trump acted as a demagogue and bellowed that he alone would give them jobs, people believed him. Look, let's not act as if ALL Trump voters were racist or misogynists. OTOH Trump did bellow racist remarks and misogynist remarks that were attractive to certain of his voters.

Personality did play a big part in this election, whether that personality was a Trump or Sanders. (Although, really, Trump came in with the biggest celebrity personality,) Trump was willing to shout the easy way out for those people left out of the economy, vote for me and I will give you a job. Sanders knew the system had to be changed, which requires more work than electing a person shouting in an authoritarian voice.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Yes. This election is exactly what our founding leaders warned us about. They gave us the two party system with tools they believed was needed to survive, based on compromise. One party, under Newt Gingrich's leadership, became a faction, and now we are effectively ungovernable under the system we were bequeathed.

The founding leaders gave us the two party system, but warned us about, as Adams said, "concerting measures in opposition to each other".


There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

John Adams


The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Geore Washington

And as Adam's said, this opposition is "the greatest political evil under our Constitution". And all it took for this evil to flourish was for good politicians to not speak up, or to be drowned out by all the piles of money that had fallen on them from the oligarchs.


If the minority party is now determined to always play the spoiler in every measure (as the Republicans were during Obama's tenure) our entire system of government needs to be reconsidered.

Our government was designed from the beginning to be a slow-moving, do-little system plagued by gridlock -- it's by design. But if the new standard is to do NOTHING, which seems to be an ever-more-popular strategy, that's not going to work.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I have to be honest and say that I was blindsided by what I saw happening since the 1990s and especially during the Obama Presidency. Also, being an American, I always took for granted the uniqueness of our democratic system, I never gave a thought that it could ever be in jeopardy. It wasn't till a couple years ago, when I read the book, Mann & Ornstein “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks”, that I got a dose and the shock of reality.

And from what I hear on tv, radio, and people I interact with (in person or at ATS), not many people understand what has happened. Certainly I would not expect members from outside of the US to understand our system fully, but for Americans who work with our system and do not understand what has happened is frightening.



Our government was designed from the beginning to be a slow-moving, do-little system plagued by gridlock -- it's by design.


To some extant, because, for example, Congress is a deliberative body, not expected to throw punches. It can get heated with discussion, but cooler minds prevail. This is how it worked through the 1980s, even under the Reagan years. It was not always a "do-little" system, but rather a system, because it was based on compromise, no one got everything they wanted. No one side got everything they wanted.

This was interpreted by some as govt "not working", especially as they did not get what "they wanted" during the 1960-70s as America underwent great social changes. For others, govt WAS listening and carrying out needed changes. Govt was indeed not "slow moving" or "do-little plagued by gridlock" under Rep Pres Nixon, for ex. We were two parties but not two factions.

It wasn't until the 1990s when Rep leader Newt Gingrich ushered in the idea of compromise as a dirty word and began to RINO hunt, that his party became a faction. When Obama was elected, the RP began to act as a defacto parliamentarian party of opposition. No compromise as our founding leaders envisioned, vigorous vocal calling out and opposition carried out by party and supporters.

Oh, the GOP also did one thing the Dems did not do; the GOP gave power to their extremist wing (think Koch economic and conspiratorial ideology, i.e. libertarian and John Birch Society). The Dems OTOH would not allow far left conspiracists to campaign as a DEm.

At this point we either need to change our parties back to ones of compromise, with all political spectrum represented or change our governing structure. A complete read of my link will see what Mann and Ornstein present as fixes.



if the new standard is to do NOTHING, which seems to be an ever-more-popular strategy, that's not going to work.


Correct!

The way out has a gigantic roadblock, the issue of "dark money" (Citizens United) and the creeping (not Socialism!) but oligarchy that now holds the reins of our govt at all levels. That Koch Private Party, a defacto private political party machine.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

I just wanted to add that all year and a half of this election cycle, people both in media and out have acted as if this election was the same as all past elections. No! Because we are in uncharted waters due to this new de facto parliamentary system (propped up by Big Money and far right extremism, let alone foreign influence), we are not in any political time as in the past!

As new and different things kept happening, everyone just said, "oh, this is new and different", but they expected the same outcomes as in the past. Hence, that is a huge factor in not seeing a Trump victory, IMO.
edit on 16-11-2016 by desert because: ETA ()



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
desert,

Thank you for the well thought-out posts. Very illuminating.

I truly hope Trump makes good on his promise of campaign finance reform, but I don't know... Sanders would have done it -- or at least tried -- but there's no use crying over spilled milk.

The elite own our government. The only way to take it back is to kick their money out of the process.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You are quite welcome
Yes, Sanders would have definitely pursued it, but once Hillary was nominated, Bernie had wanted his supporters to work through the Democratic Party, using their political power, to achieve this. He had this as part of their platform


Democrats know that Americans’ right to vote is sacred and fundamental. We believe that we must protect Americans’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections.Text We must rectify the Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, which is a profound injustice. We will stop efforts by Republican governors and legislatures to disenfranchise people of color, low-income people, and young people, and prevent these voters from exercising their right to vote through onerous restrictions. We will ensure that election officials comply with voting protections, including provisions mandating bilingual materials and voter assistance. And we will fight to reform our broken campaign finance system, which gives outsized influence to billionaires and big corporations. It’s time we give back control of our elections to those to whom it belongs—the American people.

source

Going forward, no crying over spilled milk, Bernie is asking people to work through his Our Revolution to work from the ground up. That will take more time, because the Dems have no power now at the Federal level. Progressive Democrats of America will also work on that issue. "Overturn Citizens United", for ex.

No matter what political affiliation, every American who is for campaign finance reform needs to tell their elected Federal Congressperson via letter or phone call, local office preferable.

edit on 16-11-2016 by desert because: sp



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I rarely do this, but I cut and pasted from another of my posts on a different thread, because I saw a relevance here. Yes, I will cut Trump a bit of slack for reasons already discussed. I wonder if he understood this about the GOP, how it has changed. Or did he think of it as the same party of his past? This is either what Trump is up against or what he supports:

I think the people need to understand what we're up against, a private political machine that took over the Republican Party lock stock and barrel, in order to see what needs to be done.



“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”

“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”

“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”

“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”

“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”

“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”

“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”

“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”

“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”

“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”

“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”

“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”

“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”

“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”

“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”

“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”

“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”

“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”


From David Koch's 1980 party platform



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
That platform is truly frightening.

Basically, he's saying he doesn't want to pay for anything even remotely related to the wellbeing of the citizens of the country in which he lives.

He wants the citizenry to be uneducated, untreated, and powerless.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: desert

Damn that reads like the platform of a super villain.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I'll be back to discuss the above, but I saw this

Which way for Trump and progressives on pharmaceutical reform?


Which way for Trump and progressives on pharmaceutical reform? Last January, to the astonishment of many, Donald Trump asserted that he favored allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices, a longstanding progressive policy that was also supported by the Democratic candidates. “We don't do it. Why? Because of the drug companies,” Trump said.

Will he pursue such a populist course on drug prices once in office? It seemed unlikely then. But now, it seems pretty clear that the promise was a bait-and-switch: his new website does not include a word about Medicare drug negotiations._javascript:bold()

Instead it calls for “[r]eform[ing] the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], to put greater focus on the need of patients for new and innovative medical products,” code words for a pro-Pharma agenda that would weaken the FDA standards for drug approval.

A similar pro-industry agenda was embodied in the 21st Century Cure Act that was passed by the House last year. As an article in the “New England Journal of Medicine” described, that act would “lead to the approval of drugs and devices that are less safe or effective than existing criteria would permit,” producing a windfall for the drug industry but greatly increasing the likelihood that unsafe medications would gain approval.


Candidate Trump as he turns to Pres-elect Trump.

This turning I view as this. In a piece of machinery called a lathe, a piece of wood (or other material) is held at both ends and turned as designs are cut into it. I see Donald Trump as a piece of wood... no, plastic..... who is now held by his Republican Party for turning in their Koch economic and governmental ideology lathe.
edit on 17-11-2016 by desert because: punc



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: desert

From David Koch's 1980 party platform


WOW!

Every man for himself, huh?

I see they didn't abolish military or law enforcement.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: desert
I see Donald Trump as a piece of wood... no, plastic..... who is now held by his Republican Party for turning in their Koch economic and governmental ideology lathe.


All about the dollar.

Aren't we shocked.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

I see they didn't abolish military or law enforcement.

Considering he wants to abolish all forms of taxation, I'm not sure how it would have been paid for though...

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

Apparently the government runs on magic and unicorn farts in Koch world.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

I see they didn't abolish military or law enforcement.

Considering he wants to abolish all forms of taxation, I'm not sure how it would have been paid for though...

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

Apparently the government runs on magic and unicorn farts in Koch world.


Doesn't sound like he wants the government to exist at all.

Right now, the government essentially acts as a proxy for corporate power; he'd like to eliminate the middle man.

Reminds me of the Umbrella Corporation from Resident Evil.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Yeah in a Koch glory world they are allowed to do whatever they wanted and # everyone else apparently.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

I see they didn't abolish military or law enforcement.

Considering he wants to abolish all forms of taxation, I'm not sure how it would have been paid for though...

“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

Apparently the government runs on magic and unicorn farts in Koch world.


Very good points.

They'll probably personally pay for law enforcement so they have full control.

It all just reminds me of the movie "No Escape"

www.imdb.com...



edit on 17-11-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

This is why no member of his transition team and administration can be a lobbyists to gain in the future as well as foreign governments.

www.breitbart.com...



Spicer added that there is a five-year ban on becoming a lobbyist after one leaves government service and there is a lifetime ban on representing any foreign government.


He is anti-establishment folks. You need to stop all of the petty hate. Makes you look sad...



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers



Doesn't sound like he wants the government to exist at all.


Exactly. The govt would be there for basic functions such as military and policing. All the rest is left up to the "free market", which is free only to those with wealth, which is not the 99% of us. This idea goes way beyond even Ronald Reagan's vision of how govt should function.

Billionaires like the Kochs (etal) promoted for decades the idea that you can't trust govt, that govt is not on your side, but the "free market"....corporation.... knows better. Trust the "free market", i.e. the corporation. Of course, they were able to harness economic angst to convince people at the grassroots level that the elite were in their corner.

"TThe fundamental weakness in the Tea Party machine is the stark difference between what the leaders of the Tea Party elite, plutocrats like the Koch Brothers, want and what the average grassroots Tea Party follower wants."
scribd source, an excellent read all the way through

Oh, got any problems in this New Economic Order, which Donald Trump has been tapped to lead (unwittingly IMO.... lol he should have put down My New Order and read Resident Evil)? The Koch Libertarian ideology solution is to take them to court!! Yeah, like I got the money for a lawyer.... oh, wait, the idea is to get other like minded people to band together to sue the corporation.... yeah, right. Hey, poor people in Flint... sue the corporation that would privatize and poison your water!

Yep, no govt to stand between the corporation and We The People. Of course, that's called getting rid of those pesky regulations that burden one's daily life. hahaha yeah, I wake up everyday wondering how I'll get through my day because of the regulatory burden! More like the right wing billionaires envision a life without regulations. Again, way beyond de-regulation that would at least leave some govt interventions in place.

It may be that Donald Trump is still living in the Republican Party that existed during his and his father's youth. Make no mistake, this is not the same GOP of Ronald Reagan even. This is far, far worse.

Oh, one more thing, by kicking all govt down to "states rights", no federal govt but only disparate state govts, it would allow states to much more easily dismantle even state and local govt in favor of the corporation, not We The Peoople. That is the goal of another billlionaire group, ALEC. The American Legislative Exchange Council make sure states are on the side of corporate elites, not We The People.

Pres-Elect Trump has nooooo idea. Noooo clue. Sadly, more like Puppet-Elect.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join