The Bilderbergers are poised to win with a mandate.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kaylaluv

Unfortunately we didn't get anywhere close.

I agree with you on this.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: NewzNose

Ha! Well none of us rub elbows with The Bilderberg Group. But Hillary and Obama attended their annual meeting in 2008.

They are the Puppetmasters -- please do check them out, and the Trilateral Commission.

In a nutshell: "Founded in 1954, Bilderberg is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference."

Basically, they get together annually to decide the course of the global economy. For example, they were behind the oil crisis in the 1970s.

All of our political leaders are beholden to The Bilderberg Group. Both parties.

Just wanted to add, though you probably know it already, many members of the Bilderberg Group are also "Royals", by that I mean they are either themselves members of the old line European Royalty, or they are married to members of the old line Royal families, many of whom have relatives that sit on the Boards of major European Banks and the BIS, (Bank of International Settlements) in Zurich, (I believe its Zurich) as well as on the Boards of Directors of many of the major European manufacturing and chemical companies. We're talking here of the House of Bourbon, the Royal family of the Netherlands, the House of Savoy, numerous hard-to-spell German and Austro-Hungarian royal families, etc.

Now, I throw that out only for the sake of interest. I find it fascinating and somehow puzzling that the European Royals have managed to somehow survive revolutions, world wars, uprisings and rebellions with not only their vast weatlh intact, but their landholdings as well! In addition to that, they exercise enormous influence over matters of public policy and public finance in Europe.

Ya' gotta hand it to them, they got staying power!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've got to think about your OP this afternoon and puzzle through it but one question it raises is....... a MANDATE, really?

I'm not so sure about that. Even if the winner were to get 51% of the "popular" vote, where maybe turnout will be 60%, I'm not so sure that equates to a mandate to do anything.

What is a "mandate"; I guess it implies that the winner has sufficient support from those who voted for him/her be believe they have sufficient Political Capital, (support) to push through their Platform or stated agenda.

One of the keys to the US political system is that everyone used to be bound by the principle that they may not have supported the candidates election, but they are expected to "respect the result" and participate as they feel necessary in the camp of the "loyal opposition". I'm not sure the voters and the non-voters alike feel so bound anymore. I get the impression that the losers, anymore, in the Presidential elections don't feel any loyalty whatsoever to the outcome. And that may well be why, with each cycle, we see Presidents elected with less and less "Mandate" and far less political capital.

If this trend continues, it makes me wonder if we aren't going to see more violent outbursts and protests of the elections themselves. We've already seen that to some extent in the past two presidential elections what with certain people blocking access to the polling stations with implied intimidation.

If that is the case, we may be seeing the beginning of the unraveling of the entire system.

originally posted by: TonyS

Just wanted to add, though you probably know it already, many members of the Bilderberg Group are also "Royals", by that I mean they are either themselves members of the old line European Royalty, or they are married to members of the old line Royal families, many of whom have relatives that sit on the Boards of major European Banks and the BIS, (Bank of International Settlements) in Zurich, (I believe its Zurich) as well as on the Boards of Directors of many of the major European manufacturing and chemical companies. We're talking here of the House of Bourbon, the Royal family of the Netherlands, the House of Savoy, numerous hard-to-spell German and Austro-Hungarian royal families, etc.

Now, I throw that out only for the sake of interest. I find it fascinating and somehow puzzling that the European Royals have managed to somehow survive revolutions, world wars, uprisings and rebellions with not only their vast weatlh intact, but their landholdings as well! In addition to that, they exercise enormous influence over matters of public policy and public finance in Europe.

Ya' gotta hand it to them, they got staying power!

They sure do. And when I visit UK online forums, for example, it's pretty clear that the monarchy is a tool used to oppress the masses. Sure there are some enamored 'royalists,' but there is plenty of support for a republic and the abolishion of the monarchy, too. But the people have no voice to compete -- they are, after all, peons thanks to the monarchy and aristocratical society. Perhaps they have staying power for purposes of control by oppression.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've got to think about your OP this afternoon and puzzle through it but one question it raises is....... a MANDATE, really?

I'm not so sure about that. Even if the winner were to get 51% of the "popular" vote, where maybe turnout will be 60%, I'm not so sure that equates to a mandate to do anything.

What is a "mandate"; I guess it implies that the winner has sufficient support from those who voted for him/her be believe they have sufficient Political Capital, (support) to push through their Platform or stated agenda.

One of the keys to the US political system is that everyone used to be bound by the principle that they may not have supported the candidates election, but they are expected to "respect the result" and participate as they feel necessary in the camp of the "loyal opposition". I'm not sure the voters and the non-voters alike feel so bound anymore. I get the impression that the losers, anymore, in the Presidential elections don't feel any loyalty whatsoever to the outcome. And that may well be why, with each cycle, we see Presidents elected with less and less "Mandate" and far less political capital.

If this trend continues, it makes me wonder if we aren't going to see more violent outbursts and protests of the elections themselves. We've already seen that to some extent in the past two presidential elections what with certain people blocking access to the polling stations with implied intimidation.

If that is the case, we may be seeing the beginning of the unraveling of the entire system.

Well think about it...if Trump goes independent and takes say 20% to 30% of republican voters with him, that's a huge split. Bernie could end up with 50%+ of the popular vote, and the republican nominee and Trump will divide the rest. Bernie could win by 15%+ if Trump can take enough votes with him. That would give him a mandate....or so it would 'appear,' anyway.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

"Bernie could end up with 50%+ of the popular vote, and the republican nominee and Trump will divide the rest. Bernie could win by 15%+ if Trump can take enough votes with him. That would give him a mandate....or so it would 'appear,' anyway."

Yea, I see your point, but........when only 60% of eligible voters participate, (eligible, not just registered), my calculator says that 50% of 60% is.......(drum roll) 30%.
Uh....that doesn't scream "mandate" at me.

Then, yesterday's news stated that there are now 41 million undocumented immigrants in the US. (most won't vote). They'll never really be deported and they'll stay around long enough to "normalize" into the system such that they will be eligible to vote of a day. Per: www.census.gov... there are roughly 319 million people in the US. So the new immigrants in various stages of transition now equal approximately 13.5% of the US population.

Arguably, they got no vote and probably don't agree with the results.

So, no.....I'm still not so sure of the mandate thing.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
If Sanders wins, you have no one to blame but the Republicans, isn't it about time they fielded a decent candidate for a presidential election? Not 17 losers

By decent ... you mean as socialist as Bernie?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

"Perhaps they have staying power for purposes of control by oppression."
Or perhaps by way of extreme financial prowess and control. That kind of wealth makes them the ultimate puppet masters.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: MotherMayEye

"Bernie could end up with 50%+ of the popular vote, and the republican nominee and Trump will divide the rest. Bernie could win by 15%+ if Trump can take enough votes with him. That would give him a mandate....or so it would 'appear,' anyway."

Yea, I see your point, but........when only 60% of eligible voters participate, (eligible, not just registered), my calculator says that 50% of 60% is.......(drum roll) 30%.
Uh....that doesn't scream "mandate" at me.

Then, yesterday's news stated that there are now 41 million undocumented immigrants in the US. (most won't vote). They'll never really be deported and they'll stay around long enough to "normalize" into the system such that they will be eligible to vote of a day. Per: www.census.gov... there are roughly 319 million people in the US. So the new immigrants in various stages of transition now equal approximately 13.5% of the US population.

Arguably, they got no vote and probably don't agree with the results.

So, no.....I'm still not so sure of the mandate thing.

I don't think a mandate is dependent on how many eligible voters actually vote, not historically anyway.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

In a nutshell: "Founded in 1954, Bilderberg is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America

That's a very small nutshell.
In the late 19th Century the Round Table secret society was founded in England by the Rothschids and had Cecil Rhodes as it's head minion who plundered South Africa's Gold and Diamond reserves on behalf of the Rothschilds.
This organization later began to shed tentacles and form other groups under it's control to dictate Foriegn policy as a way of plundering more reserves of other countries.
In 1920 it founded in England "the royal institute of international affairs"in London
In 1921 it founded "The council on Foriegn relations" in the United States
In 1945 The "United Nations"
In 1954 came the "Bilderberg Group" who were behind the European Union.
In 1968 "The Club Of Rome " was formed which used Global warming and the environment to form a Centralized Globalized power structure.
In the early 70's came "The Trilateral Commission" formed by David Rockerfeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski both heavily involved in a "One World Government" and "Central Globilization " of power dictating insidious policies on behalf of the political elite who are under direct control of the "Rothschilds"

So when Hilary Clinton is invited to one of their meetings in 2008 then you know she is to voice their opinions into American policies which serve the few at the detriment of the many.
One of her aides attended the meeting this year which strongly tells me she will be elected as President.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: MotherMayEye

In a nutshell: "Founded in 1954, Bilderberg is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America

That's a very small nutshell.

Thank you for the wonderful info and I appreciate your take on things, too.

I am always worried about giving too much information because it invites debate about the source -- I didn't want to derail the thread. I was hoping anyone interested would actually seek out the information they wanted.

[but I am very glad you posted this info since I was so hesitant -- It's really all just facts, anyway.]

a reply to: ketsuko I live in a country with a conservative government. Quite an intelligent bunch, no religious zealots or crass individuals like Donald trump, there are a plenty of intelligent and sane conservatives, we have them here on ats, yet the republicans manage to choose a bunch of losers. It's up to the republicans to win this it's there for the taking but evangelical religion and years of anti intectualism have left you in a position, where a wig wearing bully is the lead candidate for the republicans. Just because he said he would make America great again is that all it takes a few trite platitudes to get the lead. Pretty pathetic in my books

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: ketsuko I live in a country with a conservative government. Quite an intelligent bunch, no religious zealots or crass individuals like Donald trump, there are a plenty of intelligent and sane conservatives, we have them here on ats, yet the republicans manage to choose a bunch of losers. It's up to the republicans to win this it's there for the taking but evangelical religion and years of anti intectualism have left you in a position, where a wig wearing bully is the lead candidate for the republicans. Just because he said he would make America great again is that all it takes a few trite platitudes to get the lead. Pretty pathetic in my books

So many losers, too. And you're right, losers do not entirely comprise the republican party. My political leanings and interests are very diverse. I find myself participating in all kinds of political forums. I know first hand that there are rational, sensible, compelling people voicing conservative political opinions. Why are republicans offering us losers? 17 of them!

I was already convinced the two parties were working hand in hand. I don't believe it's just an unfortunate turn of uncontrolled events that republicans have all but ruined their chances in the general election with the field they have offered up.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
If Sanders wins, you have no one to blame but the Republicans, isn't it about time they fielded a decent candidate for a presidential election? Not 17 losers

They do field good candidates. Problem is that the Democrats long con has come to fruition, resulting in "feel good" policies winning out over anything responsible and anyone with a different opinion being demonized as _______ (insert buzz word of choice).

a reply to: Wardaddy454 name me one decent candidate out of the 17

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Have you considered the opposite.

Trumps ties to the Clintons and other candidates could have been merely business relationships as he claims, since he doesn't appear to be afraid to speak the truth. Even when he knows what he says will be unpopular.

It is possible that Trump entered the race as a republican to sabotage the republican party. Which he is doing quite well. Several threads have shown how if the blue states remain blue it would be almost impossible for a republican to win the presidency.

And Hillary might be the last "false" democrat with a viable chance at presidency that is owned by the elitists. I say "false" democrat because she is clearly funded by the banks and mega corporations.

What if Bernie and Trump are on the same team because they are 2 individuals who can't be bought by the elitists?

They both say many of the same things in regards to the corruption in government due to outside monetary influences.

What if Trump is an a$$, but an a$$ with a conscious? And Bernie is a true democratic socialist with hopes of real transformation?

Maybe I am just seeing what I want to see. Or maybe these two are individuals truly wish to end the scam of private central banks and corporate control of government.

Based on both Trumps and Bernies pasts I would say that my theory is as valid as yours.

Is it possible that citizens united was passed through the courts because the elitists are scared their scam is up if they loose the white house? And they are hoping that a few billion will buy them one more round of control?

Also the DNC recently put forth what many consider illegal debating policies trying to limit the number of debates the candidates are allowed to participate in. Could this be another scramble by the elitists to ensure that the relatively unknown Bernie Sanders remains relatively unknown?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What if Bernie and Trump are on the same team because they are 2 individuals who can't be bought by the elitists?

Why would you think Trump cannot be bought? Because he's wealthy? We are talking about a man that flies into fits of rage if someone dares to value his financial portfolio one dollar less than he claims. He has always done that, too.

He may not need money (according to people, like us, who would be satisfied with mere millions, let alone billions). But he WANTS money -- as much as he can get. And all of Trump's pride and ego is driven by wealth and being perceived by the peons as hugely, fabulously wealthy.

I do not see how Trump is in any way above being bought.

Sanders is in the pocket of the Bilderbergers, ay? Well, there's not much money coming out of that pocket towards his campaign. Sanders and Trump are gaining ground on the others because they are the only two of the declared major candidates who can speak their mind honestly, and not hedge. Clinton is falling apart like Humpady Dumpty because she seems to hedge every sentence with careful thought that people can see right through - her personality and speaking style aren't suited for a presidential run this far along in the 21st century.

originally posted by: Aleister
Sanders is in the pocket of the Bilderbergers, ay? Well, there's not much money coming out of that pocket towards his campaign. Sanders and Trump are gaining ground on the others because they are the only two of the declared major candidates who can speak their mind honestly, and not hedge. Clinton is falling apart like Humpady Dumpty because she seems to hedge every sentence with careful thought that people can see right through - her personality and speaking style aren't suited for a presidential run this far along in the 21st century.

Hillary had 18 million devoted supporters in 2008. In fact, the only reason Obama won the democratic primary in 2008, was because the DNC Rules and Bylaws committees decided to give Obama 500,000 Michigan votes cast for Hillary Clinton and nearly all those cast for 'Undecided.' At that meeting, Hillary reserved the right to take the fight to Denver....but she didn't. All the 'fighting' she did leading up to that meeting, but then Hillary just rolled over when party leaders disenfranchised their own members' votes.

I agree though, Hillary does not have that kind of support now. And her campaign is completely lackluster by comparison.

I also agree with pretty much how you have described Sanders and Trump -- I am just alleging it is all scripted and all by design.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If that was the case the media would have been pushing him into the spot light since he said he was going to run.

The outright ignoring of his campaign is proof enough to be that he's no establishment shill.

~Tenth