Pre-planned Presidential Elections...

I am very new here and am looking for some good links for the aforementioned subject regarding the presidential elections being predetermined.

Having prior experience with other message boards, I know how annoying it is for some new guy to post a topic that is possibly beaten into the ground and lazily post it without searching other posts first. I will admit a bit of slothfulness but would appreciate any thoughts or links regarding not only the Presidential elections but also links between both parties.

I have always thought, without confirmation, that the bickering republican and democrat pundits serve only as a bit of window dressing, and that the Clintons and Bush’s (for example) are anything but rivals and possibly co-workers in a much deeper sense. I in no way claim to have this theory as my original idea, which is why I am seeking some direction on this.

I will leave this open fir debate, but again would greatly appreciate any existing thoughts, links, or knowledge of these topics.

johnnyg

While I have no evidence that can prove the Democrats and Republicans are actively working together while publicy acting as rivals, I DO know this: From my observations, both parties are rife with corruption and equally detrimental to this country.

I *do* happen to think Kerry was placed to run against Bush and it would have been a win-win situation for the so-called powers that be. Again, no actual proof other than the fact that they were both Skull & Bones members. So it's just speculation, but it happens to be my personal belief.

I have never really bought into the Reps vs. Dems fight as it has always centered on talking points and low level bickering. Among all this squabbling, important issues seep through the cracks and things happen on a global level that the general public cannot understand or feels the need to.

I take Iraq and an example. I have always believed that no matter who was president we would be taking Saddam out of power. Why? Well we put him in power as we have with other nations with the understanding of “You give us what we want and you have your power while we look the other way.” Saddam got greedy and started talking back, much like a teenager who is given more power than they had as a kid and now is pushing those boundaries. I cannot claim to know what he was being difficult about, possibly oil, but he became a problem and wasn’t living up to the aforementioned bargain. It made sense to put not only a republican in the Whitehouse since the elder Bush (republican of course) had invaded Iraq ten years prior, but more so to put in a very similar administration comprised of former Bush Sr.’s staff… Hell, why not make it another Bush. This makes it sellable to the public.

I extrapolate that theory as to Gore’s role regarding the 2000 election. Was it possible that Gore was to follow Clinton in the Whitehouse as president, and due to some issue with Saddam the “powers that be” felt it best to go another way. Was Saddam, who was brought back on track in 1991, getting off track again and “the powers that be” felt it best to remove him completely? So with the wheels in motion to elect Gore, for possibly several years at that point plans changed and they tap Bush Jr. to be the face of the next president? Gore was given a face saving parting prize (by claiming the popular vote and a certain prestige in being considered, by some, the rightful winner) but that same agenda would be carried out by a more familiar republican façade?

Keep in mind there are no Anti or even Pro Bush overtones here, and that this idea was actually extrapolated as I type. Just the idea to ponder really.

I have always wondered about this too. One of my friends brought this up numerous times to me, and I have been thinking about it a lot. It would be great to find more info. or proof regarding the elections and candidates, since they are tied together through Skull and Bones.

There is no difference between Republican and Democrat in Washington anymore, maybe never was. There may well be a few newbies who don't have a grasp of the powers that be and are still a little idealistic, but they and that mindset won't last. Poppy Bush and Slick Willie have been involved for many years. Poppy Bush ran the Iran/Contra drug imports into Mena, Arkansas back in 83' and beyond. Clinton was governor at the time and was well aware of GHW Bush activities. Poppy and Slick Will put together the Tsunami Fund. That's a money bilking front with no desire to assist Indonesians. Seen any proof of their work there?...anything at all....hell no. Candidates are choosen for us and electoral colleges with a little assurance from Deibolt ,Triad and ES&S elect our national leaders. Remember elections are just too important to be left in the hands of the people.

I recently read a bumper sticker that said "If elections really made any difference; they would be illegal"

I have always voted in the presidential elections; but I too believe that there is a shadow government that really pulls the strings. Local elections are the only place where democracy actually exists.

But if you don't vote, don't bitch. Illusion is all we have left.

The Liberal/conservative pissing matches here on ATS are so amusing.

Originally posted by whaaa

The Liberal/conservative pissing matches here on ATS are so amusing.

For the record i do vote,and i also agree with your view of the pissing matches being amusing.

those who use "liberal," or "conservative" as bad words, are not only missing the point but falling into the whole point i think we are making.

these little pissing matches and calling certain party figures "crooks" etc. are smoke screens to keep john q. dumbpublic arguing to distract from what happens off our radar.

i very much agree with the other post regarding bush sr. and clinton. it makes me laugh when people have hate for one of these guys while thinking the other is a good guy. in general they are all as bad as the other, and you dont get to be at the level of president of the US and really of the world without stepping on a few necks.

www.abovetopsecret.com... is one of the most comprehensive threads on Electronic Voting here on ATS, highly reccomended reading if you want to know more on our modern electoral system.

What about the libertarian party or greens? Are they in the ruckus too? I voted Perot (mostly bacause I didn't like either candidate Rep OR Dem". I found a site one time that had a bunch of questions to see what you were according to how you answered. I came out a libertarian. Just a thought.

Originally posted by whaaa
I recently read a bumper sticker that said "If elections really made any difference; they would be illegal"

I have always voted in the presidential elections; but I too believe that there is a shadow government that really pulls the strings. Local elections are the only place where democracy actually exists.

But if you don't vote, don't bitch. Illusion is all we have left.

The Liberal/conservative pissing matches here on ATS are so amusing.

I almost totally agree, whaaa.....I just wonder as much about some of the local elections.....at least some of the ones in my local govt.....looking too closely can give one a bad turn sometimes.

jgrant641, if you find any interesting info, please drop us a link to it....thanks!

There have been rumors of a 'shadow' gov for a good while.....How far back might this type of hokum go??

I am a Democrat- and i will tell you this. I do beleive both parties are working together, they both have the same agenda, they are playing politics, thats all.

I equally fear them both now. This came to light for me when Kerry (with all his attorneys) didnt blink an eye on election day. Skull & Bones, all of them are.

Not a huge bit of news, but it was a headline today that Bush called Hillary Clinton Formidable. A nice compliment for someone, at least the general public views, as his enemy.

The biggest example I can think of would be the lackluster attention to Sandy Berger.

It could have been a huge point, but no, it wasn't.

This is one of the few subjects here that I think may have merrit. There has been plenty of evidence, but nothing you can point to and say "AhHa that proves it". People this highly placed seldom make mistakes.
No reporter would touch this unless they had definitive proof. Not in a million years. Much of the evidence I see on this board is a reporters opinion and nothing more. But even so, I think there is evidence. An example would be when President George Bush Sr. ran for his second term. I think had the reporters been on the ball, they would have seen that he never even tried to win. He never defended his positions on anything and it was as if he could care less if he won or not. Lackluster speeches and letting things pass that he clearly should have responded to. I believe he could have easily won had he wanted to. Another example. I think President Bush (Jr.) was supposed to win. When it looked like Dean might win he quickly did something realy dumb. To dumb for a man that intellegent. Then they were thrown a curveball in the form of Kerry. I don't think he was in the inner circle and they could not control him. Then his history of a endless stream of lies kills his chances. How come his record and all the lies were never exposed before??? My lord the man never attended the security council meetings!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How incompetent can a man be! It took both parties cooperating to dig up that kind of dirt.

Before I'm accused - I do not belong to any party. They are all bad. The party platforms are a farce. I do not want other people telling what to think and how to vote. Period end of subject - Now I've got that out of the way. Consevatives always think I'm a liberal and liberals always think I'm a conservative. Why is that???

[edit on 30-1-2006 by Blaine91555]

why would bush's oppenent just so happend to be an anti-vietnam individual?
why is Iraq considered the new Vietnam from the general population at the time of the elections?
why did Bush win?

im am unconcerned of replies.
what i am concerned about is the contradictions of the political world that enshroud us everyday- and most apparantly for everday people since 9/11.

why would an anti-Vietnam individual lose against Bush in a Iraq-nam world?
why would Bush lose against Kerry when the majority public disagrees/hates Bush.
why did America go to war with Iraq for invading Kuwait? why did they leave Iraq in the first war? did we lose? and if we won... what did we win? and if we won... why was Saddam left to control Iraq?
When has ever a nation won a war[USA/Desert Storm] only to let the the losing nation[Iraq/Desert Storm] stay as was before(president, laws, way of life, etc.) the "war?"
why... how... why... why...

few will understand.
many will see.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by chibidai_rrr]

One need only look at the Bilderburg attendees to see this is all a drop ceiling of reality. Richard Perle, Paul Wofowitz are at the same meeting with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.?
The other rather tell tale sign is that virtually nothing has been done with regard to the flawed voting process in the country. Howard Dean won't even address this issue . The Dems just let John Conyers and Maxine Waters[silly idealistic representatives] keep churning on this issue with the GAO, like they actually care.I was told this many years ago and refused to believe it. It's all too clear now!