Switch Presidents

Imagine Humphrey winning instead of Nixon; Carter instead of Reagan; Dukakis instead of Bush... If every losing candidate throughout U.S. history had won, do you think life would be any different today? How so?

reply to post by jiggerj


I don't really think it would be too different. The NWO agenda progresses regardless of who is POTUS. If Carter would have won instead of Reagan, etc.. the NWO agenda may have been realized sooner.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I don't really think it would be too different. The NWO agenda progresses regardless of who is POTUS. If Carter would have won instead of Reagan, etc.. the NWO agenda may have been realized sooner.

Then what's the point of voting? Especially when candidates will promise us the moon and when they get into office they say, "Oh well, can't do it. Sorry."

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I don't really think it would be too different. The NWO agenda progresses regardless of who is POTUS. If Carter would have won instead of Reagan, etc.. the NWO agenda may have been realized sooner.

Then what's the point of voting? Especially when candidates will promise us the moon and when they get into office they say, "Oh well, can't do it. Sorry."

exactly

This is why the sham democracy that the west involves itself in, is such a joke when veiwed honestly, from a position of intellect.

This absolutely rotten system, especially the US one, with its limited number of candidates, and also limited BACKGROUNDS from which candidates may come, is part and parcel of a control system that is, in all honestly, far more effective than the overt tyranny of some other nations.

The UK and the US both suffer under a delusion of freedom, because the wool is well and truely over the eyes of the majority.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
..., and also limited BACKGROUNDS from which candidates may come,...

Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama come from backgrounds that differ greatly from each other (at least their childhood years). Obviously, they all went on to get good educations, but their childhoods ranged from privileged (Bush), to upper-middle-class (Carter), and modest working-class (Reagan and Clinton).

Yeah -- they all became successful later in life (and before becoming president) but they didn't all start that way.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


My problem with what you say, is that they have had massive financial success before getting into power at all. Gaining money, and therefore power, changes people. It does not change them positively.

I think that western democracies ought to put CURRENTLY working class people, i.e. people who did low paid work, but are still intellectual (of which there are MANY not few) in the frame for leadership, because people who have "escaped poverty" or rather, escaped the reality that the majority of people live with every day, forget very quickly, how it really feels to be circling the bowl.

I believe only people who are immediately familiar with the troubles in a nation, have any business thinking they could possibly have anything constructive to say about fixing it. People who are either born, or fall into huge wealth, cannot possibly say that they are in touch with people who have not attained that financial power. They either never knew, or forget. This cannot continue.