Bush and Clinton. The Two Headed Coin.

Sorry Toelint, I reread your post, no, I don't see our political proccess as a winner because it really doesn't benefit the people that put the gov't in power. They still need, let's face it, Big Biz, money, lobbyists, etc to keep them in coin.

Monarchy's are more honest imo. "My way or the highway." We've got that now BUT with the illussion that we actually have a say in things.

We have a Monarchy here in the West, it's not a certain family though, it's Major interests. AND both parties answer to that. They use that against us too. Look at the division even in our forum, right and left bashing each other instead of keeping THEM accountable. :shk:

Whoa, my fingers are tired.

Intrepid I couldn't agree more.
Maybe that is why 52% of Americans don't vote. Some say is because they are not educated in civics.
I believe even uneducated people see it the same way as you.
Is this two party system is just a reflexion of our maturity as a society ? Or, Do you see a conspiracy behind it ?
Knowing that is a two headed coin, why do we keep playing this Game?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Toelint
Well, if you consider the political process itself a winner, then sure. I mean hey, it beats having to put up with a king and all that. (unless you're one of those who believes we're still the property of Great Britain. Then you're REALLY out of luck!)

I think you missed the point, you seem to think you have a choice in your political proccess. WHOEVER wins answers to someone other than the voter. THAT'S my point. Same coin, different sides.

Of course we don't have a choice in the political process; but that's the way we like it. We elect others to make the hard decisions for us, because we (we, meaning the majority of the voting public) neither understand the complexities of geopolitics or real economics, nor wish to understand them.

Originally posted by Umbrax
I think this spills onto ATS thanks to the mainstream media. Network news in general has stopped reporting only the facts. Now it seems that "news" personalities are more important than the issues themselves. This really goes against the spirit of ATS.

You nailed it, Umbrax. The pretty faces on TV news are what people look for. The information presented is never criticized in itself. But if the host has a pimple on her face, the channel will surely be changed.

Frankly, I think most "adults" are still children. They plop down in front of the TV set not to become informed, but to become comforted. Even if the world events are scary, the pretty TV news anchors will be sure to sugar-coat it so it don't taste so yucky. ...or better yet, not mention it at all.

Good thread Intrepid. Now that it's becoming more well known that Clinton is a member of the Bush Clan, hopefully people will open their eyes. But what do you think they should replace their faith in government with? Because in Canada, I don't think the people are raised to worship the commander-in-chief like we Americans are.

I wonder also if Canada has any similar relationships between it's new right-wing-leaders and the current power structure in the US. From what I hear, Canadians are fairly upset by the shift to the right. I wonder if there's other heads to the Bush/Clinton coin?


[edit on 9-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

I don't know how I missed this thread for so long...

I see this as largely a US phenomenon but not exclusively. For some reason it appears that large numbers of people will support who they voted for no matter what they do. They "identify" themselves with a party and vote for them out of some kind of false belief that they are "like them" or that if they change they are somehow flawed for having made a mistake or it would be an admission of guilt for a bad choice. The notions of loyalty and treason runs deep in the American psyche built around "patriotism".

This kind of rally behind the "dear leader"attitude (i.e. leader worship)comes from playing identity politics in a society that places so much emphasis on always winning, being the winner and stomping your opponents into the ground.

The need to be on the winning team drives people to overlook the obvious, strike without thinking and even blindly follow the team captain over the cliff, cheering for their team the whole way.
.

What gave it away for me was Kerry. He knew he would never be president nor did he want to be.

It was all staged. They are all in bed together, so why bother to vote (supposing we get to vote again)???

I predict the LOWEST voter turnout in history ! (should we get to vote again)

Do you really think Bush is planning on leaving in 2008? He's got global take-over up his sleeve. He'll sling us so far into war, the sheeple will let him change the constitution to say "president forever", because they'll (illuminati?) make sure there are not logical alternatives to "vote". Yep, things gotta change. Why do you think all the secret camps are being set-up. Go with the flow, or go to "summer camp". Those who oppose will be branded traitors. The rest will be bribed, the ones who's worlds are controlled by money. Big enough reward, turn the "traitors in". To much resistance will be quelled quietly, with biological and chemical means. We are quickly running out of time. Worship government, or face the consequences. Well, I'll face the consequences.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by stompk]

Originally posted by Gools
... For some reason it appears that large numbers of people will support who they voted for no matter what they do. They "identify" themselves with a party and vote for them out of some kind of false belief that they are "like them" or that if they change they are somehow flawed for having made a mistake or it would be an admission of guilt for a bad choice. The notions of loyalty and treason runs deep in the American psyche built around "patriotism".

This kind of rally behind the "dear leader"attitude (i.e. leader worship)comes from playing identity politics in a society that places so much emphasis on always winning, being the winner and stomping your opponents into the ground.

The need to be on the winning team drives people to overlook the obvious, strike without thinking and even blindly follow the team captain over the cliff, cheering for their team the whole way.
.

What a great post. Too bad MODS don't get WATS. I'd give mine to you today.

REPUBLICAN FOREVER.....

What a strange and narrow mindset some have. Its idiotic to support such a president of either party.

Thats like saying: "I am a Democrat": Come hell and high water (very close) i will remain faithful to my party.

Beh...... I'll support anyone of either party who is a real president, with our best interests at heart.

However- I stand by my comment we will not see another president.
:shk:

The two party system (particularly the USA's) is a perfect example of the Hegelian dialectic in action. The discussion is artificially framed within the predetermined framework that the politicians, with the knowing assistance of the controlled media, establish. Any opinion straying outside of this dialectic box is immediately labeled as extreme, crazy, dangerous and even criminal. Those expressing such opinions are relegated to fringe, extremist or fundamentalist status, and excluded from any 'rational' discussion. Everyone should educate themselves as to how the dialectic functions. Here's a good starting point.

nord.twu.net...

So do we suffer the unfairness of the false two party system?
Are we to hope endlessly for one of the elite, to change the system that gave them elitness?
to whistleblow on the corruption, the agendas, the scandal...
aint gonna happen folks...

anyone who would fix it, can never be elected.

Third party is the only way...

Support me, a joe nobody, who can get an internet grassroot campaign started now, and by the time the elections roll around, I can have a volunteer army ready to change the political process of America with petitions in all the states...

What? Not a good idea? Why not? got one better? then shoot!

But for the USA's sake, we the people have got to do something to bring us back to the pride and respect that we deserve in the world. and selling us off slowly aint gonna get there...

I agree 100% with this thread and the point it seeks to make.

It is easy to vilify someone who's part of "the opposing team," if you will. We do it all the time. We do it while watching football; we do it while watching pro wrestling; we even do it at school as children. It's something we're raised with, and is a learned, ingrained behavior. The beauty of being a human being, however, is that we possess the capacity to overrule our raw instincts and impulses and by sheer force of will and intellect, try to find better ways of thinking and conducting ourselves. It's a miracle to be honest, whatever that word may mean to you, and I say we should exercise it far more than we do.

When we elect someone (or, for those who believe we have been deceived, when we are led to think we have elected someone), a very clear pattern emerges. It is a psychological and sociological pattern seen in all animals, and whether you believe human beings are animals or not, it is seen in us as well. It is, essentially, herd or pack behavior. The simplest way of saying it is, "birds of a feather flock together." We root for "our guy" and boo "the other guy." It's us against them, and them against us. Kill or be killed, only more polite and without blood (well, at least until the election is over, of course.) We fall into this so easily that it boggles the mind sometimes. It's Red versus blue - only, this isn't a video game.

I have gone over it again and again in my mind, weighing logic against my empathy - which I will be the first to admit is sensitive to a fault, and comes back to bite me on the rear more often than not - and I still cannot get the notion that the Presidents are the ones we should be the most concerned about to sit right with me. Every time I try to entertain the "Clinton or Bush are evil incarnate and plotting to assist in the overthrow of democracy for the NWO!" theory, I run into the same four brick walls.

Brick wall #1 is seeing Clinton squirm on the witness stand asking me what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Brick wall #2 is hearing Bush say "nucular."

Brick wall #3 is seeing Clinton playing the sax on Arsenio Hall.

Brick wall #4 is seeing Bush choking back tears and having to interrupt his speech to say he is a "loving guy" when he reached the word "children" while speaking about the victims of the 9-11 attacks. (I'm sorry but Bush isn't that good an actor. Even Reagan wasn't that good an actor, and he was an actor!)

Are these the words and actions of evil masterminds? Corrupt, yes. Criminal in some cases perhaps, even. Negligent, irresponsible, unintelligent, dishonest, disastrous, detrimental to our democracy, etc. I could say all of those things about them if I wanted to (though I prefer not to resort to that as it doesn't help anything, as much as I dislike both of them, and most presidents in general to be frank), but I just cannot imagine the logic in a hidden conspiracy of the proportions suggested choosing those two men as their point men. Figureheads? Public faces? Accessories? Patsies, if situations call for it? Sure. Absolutely.

I refuse to believe they are the architects or conductors of this macabre symphony, however, and I believe party affiliation is irrelevant. If such a conspiracy really exists, then they are going to achieve their ends regardless of who we elect (or who is appointed.) I say the political process is a rubix cube being turned by the real power we seldom lay eyes or ears upon.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by AceWombat04]

Wow Bush crying about the children involved in the attacks that he planned. Interesting. The illuminati really do have it all figured out. They know how to play with our minds and feelings.

Thanks for inviting me here Intrepid,

All I read is agreement after agreement, someone predicting the end to the election process and a "dialectic" approach to resolving the issues. It is refreshing to find so many like minds in one place, but that is never going to solve or resolve any issues.

The highest percentage of voters still belong to the age group of 65 and above with the percentage going steadily down as age decreases. (Find it anywhere on google, I'll state it as an accepted statistic.) How many in the higher percentile age groups are going to even consider the opinions expressed here? I will wager most of them are staunch ABC, CBS and NBC news watchers and consider what they see and hear on there as established facts. These are the voters that go into the booth and pull one lever. Republican/ Democratic, sad but true in my experience. Name recognition can never be downplayed either. I mean as an example, how would Teddy Kennedy ever be reelected time and again? His name of course.

Not withstanding the prophesy that there will not be another election, or that George Bush will somehow take over the world, our only hope at true reform is the education of the young. (same with drugs) A third party right at this present time stands about as much of a chance in a federal election, as I do of posting this and not making someone angry. When Ross Perot ran, he put to bed the assumption that third parties could not win because of the lack of funding. (He is rich after all) Third parties wont triumph, because it is uncomfortable and unpredictable. It is uncomfortable to truly think OUR party is deceiving us. It is uncomfortable to introduce an unknown factor into our nice cozy little two party world. How many votes do you imagine are cast because of the thinking that "It's better the Devil you know, than the Devil you don't?"

Most people do not want to think, to decide such momentous issues as, "who will run our country." God forbid we ever resort to "MOB" rule and do away with the electoral college. Even though that option is feasible with modern technology. (chads not withstanding)

SO I fear that we are stuck with our current system and our only recourse is debates on forums such as this. I sure would change it if I could, but I am also sure that most of you would not agree with the person I placed in office.

semperfortis, as much as i agree with you, i have to allow for one thing. No matter how "set" a plan or plotted a play... there is always the element of change and chaos. We see this everyday.
I contend that the internet itself, and boards such as these, can cause a truly influential effect upon an election. Call me an idealist, or merely someone who trys to see the "long picture" of uphill battles of pushing new laws such as "one person-one vote", or motorvoter amendments. It isn't easy, but it is how change is accomplished. Vision... elephants- one bite at a time.
The internet can become the "great equalizer" of our generation. The education system sure isn't doing the job (again, i agree with you).
I am a promotions man, with an advertising background. I can tell you things such as "Karl rove would sell his friends souls (he already sold his own) to get attention for his candidate", but you would have to see the scene, to know what i mean.
A more honest open internet campaign could be made an effective tool to "equalize" the massive expenditure (always to be repaid back by taxpayers "as kickback contracts" after the election) of the modern political parties.

I am seriously thinking...if the campaign was set up like a pyramid scheme, with nothing but info and a vote pledge to pass on, it could take a life of its own.
such is the way of chaos and change.

there is already momentum for change, due to the massive corruption, and sell out scandals that have hurt our country. It was time to do this 20 years ago, but the people lacked the tool of campaign communication. We have it now, and it can change all the rules.

greece was once a great place...

Lazurus,
I hope you are right. Because the alternative is not one I care to contemplate for long periods.
I can see the value in your argument, I just think that even with the incredible growth of the 'net', we are looking at decades before it really makes that much of a difference.

I mean this is a start, a good start towards enlightenment of the mass, so to speak, but we still must contend with the 50+ age group. Low internet usage, and predictable voting habits.

I am not ready to jump on the band wagon of 'world dominance", or global takeover...yet. I would just like to see more VOTERS begin to evaluate their decisions in the booth.

Thanks intrepid for bringing this up. I agree wholeheartedly with the opening statement. Every day, I see all these news reports in the paper with phrases like "Democrats hold out on vote before elections" or "Republicans said they would not allow this to come up for vote before the elections."

See folks? There it is plain and simple. People are choosing sides, when at the very basic it is shown that the politicians are more worried about 1. taking control/keeping control of government, 2. their political careers, 3. the people that line their coffers that help influence their voting through lobbying, campaign contributions, and propaganda.

I don't think I have ever heard a Senator or Representative say, "the majority of my constituents have requested that I vote against this, and even though I want to vote for it, I am going to follow what the people who elected me tell me to do."

It is broken, most of the country has been divided into left/right.

"Left-wing anti-American" or "Right-wing neocon" being screamed around everywhere...

While our supposed "representatives" are grasping for their political jobs and enjoying the fact that we are too busy fighting each other, to ever hold them accountable to doing their own jobs.

I don't think I have ever heard a Senator or Representative say, "the majority of my constituents have requested that I vote against this, and even though I want to vote for it, I am going to follow what the people who elected me tell me to do."

I was living for a short while in Maryland when Senator McKulsky came out HARD against private gun ownership.
Along with the NRA, we obtained several thousand signatures and sent it to her with a letter requesting that she change her stance.

The reply we received was FANTASTIC to the UNBELIEVABLE.

She stated that she was aware that the majority of Marylanders supported gun ownership, but that she was against it and so must vote her conscious.

We sent another letter telling her we could care less about her conscious, we put her there to represent us! NO REPLY

Semper

It makes me sick, Semper, it's not supposed to be that way.

When you look at it from that perspective (which tends to be my personal perspective), the question is are we already lost? And if we aren't, when will we help people wake up to this? I just don't get how people can sit around and accept this. I know that they know, but I just don't think they have come to grips with it yet. My mother always taught me against the two party system, that it would eventually come to open disagreement to just keep people from being united. Sad that I see it with my own two eyes now.

Just my opinion now, but I think it all started when being a politician became a job/career.

I do not believe the Founding Fathers meant for anyone to be a professional politician.

That can only lead to a desire for power and we all know that ....

"Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely."


Semper