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.

 

Idiocracy is a "documentary" ATTN!

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Bravo and well said.

The lead up to 2016 certainly gave me a bad taste to the left got a sense of entitlement. They believed so much that they were morally superior that they deserved my vote rather than trying to earn it. That calling anyone who wasn't with their cause ethically bankrupt without telling people what their platform really was other than "we're not them".

While there are tinges of similarity in today's environment on the inverse, I'll admit it's not exactly the same... But it can be equally as taxing.

But one thing's for sure, we are all going to pay the cost for poor competition while the divisiveness increases. It's looking to be just a matter of when. While Trump's camp feels secure about the next term (which seems fair), the cockiness I've seen from the right could give rise to the extreme left next go around.




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ADVISOR

Feel better.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I fear you may be correct. Right now, the right is starting to wake up to the fact that the left is losing power. We saw it when Chuck Grassley refused to give in to Democrat demands to stifle the Kavanaugh appointment and when Lindsay Graham let go with both barrels on the same attempts. That is a good thing in the short term: the left had bullied the right into almost total submission. But as time goes on and the left continues to double down on things that are guaranteed to cost them what's left of their power base (the New Green Deal, Socialism extremes, reparations, open borders, etc.), the right is now in the catbird's seat.

I don't want anyone in the catbird's seat.

We have had our disagreements (some pretty good one, lol) but when all is said and done I think you and I want the same thing: sanity and transparency in politics. Rest assured that, while I am now an ardent Trump supporter, I also have my hand firmly on the lever... I can change who I support in an instant should the need arise. It's not about the person, and certainly not about the party... it's about the people and the country. Who will speak for them, and who will speak with them.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Either the lunatics on the left have a solid following, or there are leftist troll farms pumping out ridiculous amounts of anti-Trump nonsense.

I read through Reddit and marvel at the viewpoint of the folks there. Its an absolutely hostile environment to anyone not fully behind IMPEACH. Facebook has its own corners that are the same. And good lord don't start looking at places like YouTube (the biggest cesspool on the internet as far as comments go).

Its hard for me to judge. If i go by ATS, the left is all but dead. But popular places like YouTube and Reddit don't seem to support that view.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


We have had our disagreements (some pretty good one, lol) but when all is said and done I think you and I want the same thing: sanity and transparency in politics. Rest assured that, while I am now an ardent Trump supporter, I also have my hand firmly on the lever... I can change who I support in an instant should the need arise. It's not about the person, and certainly not about the party... it's about the people and the country. Who will speak for them, and who will speak with them.


Disagreements should be celebrated as long as they are done right. It's the diversity that kind of diversity that keeps our country able to adapt to the ever changing world. The pick two sides that are turning more extreme will eventually have it's side effects, hopefully they won't be too bad.

But yes, at the end of the day I think you and I can find more agreement in what end results need to be as oppose to how we get there (ironically how the majorities disagree, not on what needs to be the end result, but how to attain it).

As for Trump, many mistake my skepticism and critical outlook of some of his actions as being anti-Trump. Many of us who voted him in wanted real change, something promised by many and delivered by few. While it's early, I just don't feel that is the case, but I welcome him to prove me wrong... The only way I would become anti-Trump in a hurry is if Bolton has his way.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I read through Reddit and marvel at the viewpoint of the folks there. Its an absolutely hostile environment to anyone not fully behind IMPEACH. Facebook has its own corners that are the same. And good lord don't start looking at places like YouTube (the biggest cesspool on the internet as far as comments go).


That doesn't come as much surprise to me, I like Reddit, though I don't use it for political discourse.


In 2016, the Reddit user base was 64 percent between the ages of 18 and 29, and another 29 percent were between the ages of 30 and 49. Only 6 percent of Reddit users were found to be between the ages of 50 and 64, and just one percent were 65 or older.
link



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think what you're seeing is a combination of two things: first, the age these other platforms attract. They typically cater to the very young (which, luckily, is the voter base least likely to turn out). The youth is the single largest demographic that tends to favor socialistic policies. ATS has a more mature and diverse following.

Secondly, you and I both know ATS is not prone to outside influences. Youtube, Reddit, Snapchat, Facebook are. So I suspect you're seeing a bit of both causes.

The thing is, these other platforms haven't figured out yet that they're not making a huge difference in the short term. Maybe in 20 or 30 years their efforts will pay off (Lord, please come before then!), but for now they're simply providing an echo chamber for a demographic that will not affect the country substantially.

I could be wrong, though... AOC is a Representative...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

99% of my social media usage is funny memes and dogs.

I've never posted on some social media, but follow over 100 dog pages silently.

TBH, if humans were replaced with dogs the world would be better off.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I can relate. I feel as if I was born in the wrong generation. I don't have a Facebook or Instagram, I prefer handles of anonymity.



TBH, if humans were replaced with dogs the world would be better off.


If you want to look at the bright side, dogs are a product of humanity. There would be no such thing without us.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I can relate. I feel as if I was born in the wrong generation. I don't have a Facebook or Instagram, I prefer handles of anonymity.



TBH, if humans were replaced with dogs the world would be better off.


If you want to look at the bright side, dogs are a product of humanity. There would be no such thing without us.


I suspect that is a 2 way street.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I had finally watched the movie "Idiocracy" when I borrowed some DVDs from a friend. I've heard so much about it, I was really curious about what truths it may hold.

At the very beginning of the movie, the main reason given for the condition of our country (and I must assume the whole world at that point) was because of the assumed lifestyle of low class people breeding out of control while the more intelligent class of people controlled their reproduction to one or two offspring. I'm left to assume that the more intelligent class wanted to devote more time and resources to their career path and one or two children. So, under the main assumption of being out numbered, the intellectuals basically went extinct while the low class "Billy Bob" families took over.

A fairly simple idea to present to the viewer, but it never addresses how this majority of lazy, dumb and clueless people ever gained enough power to bring our society to such an extreme point. It seems that a small percentage of intelligent people would survive to be in power, not all these idiots. If the majority of people were that stupid and had positions of power, then the entire culture would collapse long before there was a problem with food production due to their complete stupidity.

Then there is the main character that is of average intelligence that get's into a position of power because he has the highest IQ around. Just because he realized that water was better for crops than "Brawndo", he becomes the leader.

In my opinion, "Idiocracy" was just a comedy based on middle school humor. I was amused and entertained somewhat, but it was a pretty lame movie and not some kind of serious warning about a possible future we are heading toward. It had social commentary, but nothing that really made me feel it was a serious plot that was delivering an important message.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The premise of the show is ludicrous, as intelligence is really as inheritable as we want to believe. Its as much about environment and epigenetics as anything else. So a class of dimwits would not happen, as the general spread of intellect would be maintained (although that spread may be smaller among populations that are highly stressed).

That said...the statistics don't necessarily predict the top/lower end of intellect. It only predicts the spread of intelligence. If the entire population were miseducated or distracted i could see a way to create the dumb populace. But even then, you'd have to isolate people, as statistically some people are far more curious than others. We'd never kill all our crops with Brawndo. But we may kill all our bees with Roundup.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The ignorant majority gained enough power because they voted en masse and outnumbered the more intelligent people. (It's like bringing in illegals for votes, but these people are just dumb)

The same thing the left is trying to do via a popular vote.

Good thing Politics aren't decided by popularity or we would have been a goner much sooner.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ADVISOR

I thought of that aspect, but seriously, those people were far too dumb to vote on anything. Besides, who created the bills to be voted on, these idiots? The way the dumb population was portrayed, they wouldn't be able to vote their way out of a paper bag.

It was a silly idea taken to extremes to showcase low brow humor, not some important warning about a possible future.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ADVISOR

You're framing it as if only one side poses a risk for the outcome like Idiocracy. As I've said before, they are paid off by the same "donors" (investors).

Right now Erik Prince is trying to do his magic so that Academi (formerly Black Water) will get to take over the efforts in Afghanistan. Amazon has the Cloud services of the CIA and soon to be the Pentagon. Erik Prince's sister Betsy DeVos (Secretary of Education) believes traditional public schools could and possibly should die to charter schools.

I'm not blaming one side more than the other, merely showing examples of how political pimps are willing to sell out our country and it's capacities right out from under us.

Saying only one side is a threat is dangerous, more dangerous than the left is by themselves.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

its a hyperbolic thought experiment.

And (imo) Terry Crews greatest performance.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
And the scary part is the socialist liberal Democrats believe the movie represents if conservative Republicans have their way.

The level of standards has dropped so far.

Liberals have dropped the standards In education, military, budget....

The u.s. use to be held to high standards until they were making the rest of the world look bad.

Got to slow down, and tell that to China



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ADVISOR

Since its release in 2006, everyone who has watched Idiocracy, excluding the profoundly stupid, has made this observation. I assure you, you are not saying anything new or profound. I’m assuming you just saw Idiocracy for the first time. You’re suffering from a mild form of delusion called “Judge Syndrome”.

Basically, the issue is that the movie was so well made that people often get it confused with real life. This feeling should subside within a week. I suggest you go outside, talk with people, and enjoy life.

Please be aware that in the event of a chance interaction with a complete moron, you may experience a resurgence of Judge syndrome. This is normal. Go find someone who has the ability to think and have a conversation. This will help to reduce the symptoms.

I hope this helps.




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


He has been involved in politics, aiming at the top job, for more than 18 years. The claim that he had no political involvement prior to his latest Presidential run is just BS.

One failed campaign does not 18 continuous years make. That's your BS.


No it doesn't but I never said that.

It does absolutely say that he didn't arrive as President with no previous political experience. He had some.

He was also the leader of a large organization, too. Surely 'political issues' were a day to day occurrence in the governance of that as well.



Of course he hasn't been a "career politician" prior to his election, but it was not for the want of trying.

So wanting to do something is now the same as doing it?


He didn't just want it. He actively did it. A subtle difference, I know.

He clearly and definitely was not politically inexperienced before his run for office this time.



No-one is arguing that some other politicians haven't served for a bit before running for office. That is a non excuse.

You seemed to be. Maybe you could phrase your arguments a bit clearer?

TheRedneck


I was clear enough, your assumptions are not my fault.

Also, Trump's previous party-hopping would indicate that he didn't have a strong belief in a particular platform, constituency or ethos. It does fit better with someone who wants their ego stroked by occupying high office. That isn't a great credential.

At least Bernie has shown that he would forgo honors and accolades for what he believed was a greater good for the country. He isn't an egomaniac.

edit on 5/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut

Thinking about running for office is not the same thing as running for office. lol.

Nice try though.


Trump did more than think about running for President in 2000.

Trump 2000 campaign photo

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He actually did run for President and won both primaries but withdrew from the campaign when polls put him way behind George W. Bush (Trump only had 7% support) and it was clear he didn't have a chance.


Which makes me bring up, once again, running for the office of a politician and winning the office are two entirely different things. I hate circular logic. It's so odd to me. I am actually arguing about how Trump does not have political experience, but somehow you will argue that he has more political knowledge and knowhow than anyone in office right now.
I tell you what. I will let you win this argument, because you are actually admitting that he has enough experience to be more than capable for his job.


I'm only arguing against the untrue and manufactured image.

I think that Trump has a lot of (unsuccessful) political experience.

Kudos to him for getting back up each time he got knocked down.



And this is the first Political Leadership experience he has had.


Oh, like AOC.



Yeah, except on a level that he can really do something to help America.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join