For those that subscribe to the "two parties, one agenda" strain of thought...

Here is a great question for those that, like myself, subscribe to the "two parties, one agenda" strain of thought: Why are some parties during some elections said to be guilty of cheating (like, for example, President Bush and Florida and all that good stuff)? If both parties really are one and the same, then why does one party or the other (or both) supposedly cheat somehow? Shouldn't they work together? This seems like a loophole in this "two parties, one agenda" strain of thought, unless you ATSers can explain a resolution.

Ive wondered the same thing.

Now i lean more towards the idea that the powers that be will only let the 2 candidates they choose or at least approve of get to that level - like McCain and Oboma, but that they will still let them "duke it out" to win the presidency. The game is rigged, but both candidates still have their own backers, and at that point it is just a top level game to win the Whitehouse. Obama with the walstreet bankers vs. McCain with the industrial complex.

*shrug*

Why do street gangs fight one another? They have similar agendas: they want power, respect and control. They have similar methods: They shoot people, they sell drugs, etc. But two different street gangs with two different leaders can still compete with one another, even if their "agenda" is the same.

Similar idea with politics.

It's not that the parties are necessarily puppet arms of the same organization. They're simply different "Factions" of a basically similar philosophy of control and manipulation.

Whether the street gang calling themselves the "Fluffy hooligans" that uses a blue flag, or the street calling themselves the "Itinerant ninjas" with a red flag...whichever wins, there will still be people shooting one another and drugs and prostitues will still be on the streets. The only difference is who is collecting the profit from it.

Same with politics. Whether the republicans or democrats "win" we're still going to be lied to in order to have tax money siphoned off, we're still going to be killing people in foreign lands for silly, made-up reasons, etc. The same basic lies and methods will be used, the only difference is which faction will be the one calling the shots.

Perhaps its an illusion to make one believe theyre operating as two separate parties? Just a thought

reply to post by they see ALL

Actually, that is quite easy to explain. It's called "putting up a good front". If it appeared too civil, wouldn't you be suspicious? Of course, the other explanation is that they REALLY think they are different, and only find out who their true bosses are, after the election, when the real powers come to call on them at the White House. Take your pick, I'm certainly not on the inside, but I am a fairly decent observer of history, and I judge them by their actions. In fact, all you have to do is look at the last three weeks, and what happened with the Bailout Bill to understand. Bush, Barney Frank and Pelosi working together; need a say more?

Hmm, good question....here's a couple quick, possible explanations I could come up with:

1) To make it appear as if they are separate entities.
2) When you maintain an environment of 'divisive politics,' you need to keep people angry/scared of the other party...that way they don't have time to ask questions or follow the money, etc.
3) The party doesn't intend to get caught cheating, but then have to play into that narrative if someone outside the system (such as an advocate/supporter of the 'other side') catches them.
4) The two parties are on the same team, but don't play by the same script...it would be a sort of game then. Maybe they actually try to beat each other, knowing that it's just for bragging rights or individual power or fun or something, since in the end, they know the results play out the same regardless of which side "wins". Think of it as good-natured competition when the final score is already been decided.

Originally posted by they see ALL

If both parties really are one and the same, then why does one party or the other (or both) supposedly cheat somehow?

Very few in either party would even be aware that the opposition is controlled by the same Master (compartmentalized, pyramid, organizational structure). Most are just working to get their party elected and, perhaps obtain employment thereafter.

Shouldn't they work together?

In the U.S., the so-called two parties are working together, along with the MSM to marginalize, discredit, and eliminate any credible, real opposition.

Just my opinion.

I think they are giving us what we expect with a two party system. They play the game very well and are well trained.
They want to give us the illusion that all is as it should be, while behind the scenes, they're in bed with each other.
I've said for a long time one plays good cop, the other bad cop.
The same goes for Pelosi and Congress. There is one known agenda, i dont care who beats their drums on public tv and says "this is insanity"!
In the end they (the powers that be) get their way.
It never fails.
At least this is what i've observed.

This is so simple. My "two parties, one agenda" TRAIN of thought goes like this: If you don't fit the requirements that the elite want out of their new president you lose. The two candidates are still competing against one another for the position, but it's like two birds fighting over the same worm, one can be red and the other blue, but their both still just birds fighting over a worm. Many candidates in the past and even in this election have been discarded, not because we the people disliked them, but because the elite controls EVERYTHING!!! (basically)

They do work together Kerry and Gore both took dives to get Bush elected. The voting stuff is just misdirection. Like grassy knolls and single bullet theories, Tyco, Worldcom, Matha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Lacy Peterson. Just fluff

Originally posted by enduser
Perhaps its an illusion to make one believe theyre operating as two separate parties? Just a thought

This is interesting.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Actually, that is quite easy to explain. It's called "putting up a good front". If it appeared too civil, wouldn't you be suspicious?

Yes, I guess.

Originally posted by Vault-D
1) To make it appear as if they are separate entities.

This seems like the prevailing thought.

Originally posted by FewWorldOrder
Very few in either party would even be aware that the opposition is controlled by the same Master (compartmentalized, pyramid, organizational structure). Most are just working to get their party elected and, perhaps obtain employment thereafter.

Actually, this is most thought provoking.

Originally posted by cancerian42
This is so simple. My "two parties, one agenda" TRAIN of thought goes like this:

Are you trying to correct my "strain of thought" ? I thought that saying "strain" was the way of saying it. I think it can be said both ways