It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Next U.S. President = AntiChrist?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:02 PM
You have to ask yourself, who will replace Bush? How come Bush picked Cheney who he absolutely knows won't run for president.

Throughout history completely random people seem to be stepping up to become President in the United States. Like you're zooming across the country and hit a city and bam, Little Rock, Clinton, next president.

Who would have thought. Did you ever hear about him prior? Probably not if you aren't from Arkansas.

So my question is, who will pop up next on the map. Who is behind door #2? Obviously they must know who their picks are for president after Bush's terms over.

He could have made that person his VP obviously and gave him a better chance. Cheney technically could still step down and give that person a chance to get some air time.

I think the climate is ripe for a potential world world war 3. Which country do you think is most likely to pursue another Hitler/Napolean style move across the world.

Perhaps Bush is the last U.S. president, he did say he needs 8 years to complete his purpose.

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:41 PM
Everything you said is based on "what ifs", maybe Bush is the last president; then what? Maybe Mrs. Clinton will be the next president; in that case you have heard about her and she won't be a random person, maybe Condie will be the next president; in that case you've heard about her too . . . .what's your point?

We're living in the end times? According to most we have been for a couple of decades; what will happen after that realization is what is important though . . . .

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:46 PM
my dad saids that the newyork gover is running for president after bush.

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:47 PM
Excuse me, but wasn't Bush43 supposed to be the 'anti-christ'?
Wasn't John Kerry supposed to be the 'anti-christ'?
Wasn't Bush41 supposed to be the 'anti-christ'?
Etc x 1000.

This might prove interesting as to just some of the people who have been claimed and asserted as being the "anti-christ":

Various numerological methods of calculating the number of the name of the Beast ("666" in most manuscript sources, "616" in a minority), and other methods are used to identify the Antichrist before he has the chance to lead astray. A nice example is the case of Adolf Hitler, where numbering the letters A=100, B=101, etc, produces H+I+T+L+E+R=666.

Candidates for the Antichrist have been men in virtually all positions of public influence, the most frequent modern candidates: Prince Charles of Wales[1] (, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, various Popes, the European Union and recent Presidents of the United States. Some have taken seriously the suggestion made by the Left Behind series, that the Antichrist may be the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Since the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, theories about Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or George W. Bush being the Antichrist have been put forward. In addition, many apocalyptic webites claim that Javier Solana has rebuilt the Roman Empire through the EU (European Union), where he is said to have been named High Representative through Resolution 666 [2] ( This claim echoes the plot of the Left Behind novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins.


So in conclusion, nope, I'm not buying into the next president being the "anti-christ". The problem with these centuries old assertions of who is the "anti-christ" is that it has amounted to pure bunk and the same mythos as the "Boy that Cried Wolf."


[edit on 2-4-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:07 PM
The Antichrist will be charismatic (not Bush) extremely intelligent and supposedly will have everyone at his feet. (not Bush)

That leaves Bush out of the running on this one.

Yes, there will be other presidents after Bush, and if we're lucky with different ideologies.

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:08 PM
I know it sounds crazy, and it is a big assumption, and it's unsupported but all antichrist conspiracies are. If they were truly supported, their wouldn't be any speculation.

I personally wanted the ability to come back when the world is getting bombed by the AntiChrist after the next election, bump this thread and say I told you so.

Seriously I think we're getting into an interesting time. Bush is said to be the AntiChrist and many feel he is. Well, nobody thought that about Clinton. Not as seriously as they do now about Bush.

So what happens with the next President. The stage is set, we have Iraq and Afghanistan in the matter of one presidents term. That's pretty agressive for someone who doesn't have bigger plans on the table.

I'd say it's fairly historical to take over 2 countries and not get called on it. Sure he didn't get much support for it, but he sure didn't get any opposition.

So the 2nd term rolls around, we're in it now, what other big plans will occur.

My point is, say Bush has a NWO AntiChrist enabling style plan. Obviously he won't be able to finish it by his term. He will have to bring somone else in to take the reigns. But who on God's earth could possibly lead it as agressively as him and get away with it? If you believe the world is ending in 2012, or whatever, who else could be the AntiChrist?

So the root of my speculation is, if there is an AntiChrist, and it's of Biblical proportions, what better time in the history of mankind than right now in our time, to start noticing it. I personally don't think Bush has enough time to put that hat on.

So my theory is, it may be the next one. What say you.

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:33 PM
If you want to listen to Alex Jones, it's gonna be Arnold Schwazzenegger(sp?). Charismatic(check) Highly Intelligent...... not so much. And oh lord let me not open this up to Arnold, if we there was going to be an amendment to the constitution so that arnold could run, they would have allready had to have gotten the ball rolling, sure they have 4 years, but for a amendment to be approve it has to be voted on and passed, which would take 2/3rds of congress and the senate to approve ot it or 2/3rd's of the the state legislators to ask for it. and that's just the first step. Next step 3/4 of the country has to vote on it and agree to it, that means 38 states have to approve it. Or there has to be a special convention where anyone can join in every state and that has to be passed by 3/4's of the country also(Note: the second method has only been used once, and that was to end prohibition)
But who do I think the Anti-Christ is? Whatever schmuck bangs his head so hard we all think he will die, then he lives through it, that's who.

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:41 PM
I also don't think it's going to be Arnold. Like you said, not enough time to change the laws. It's fair to say on the Democrat side, it will be Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and possibly John Kerry running. On the Republican side it will be Rudolph Giuliani, who said he wouldn't run, or John McCain who also said he wouldn't run. So I think it's really up in the air on the Republican side.

On a side note, I was playing with's image search feature and googled Rudolph Giuliani to see what I could find regarding any conspiracy pictures surrounding our next possible president and I got a really interesting photo titled "nazi-demon". With absolutely no reference to him in the picture. Yet it looks kind of like him. Either google is doing some high power image archives that are contrasting variables, or google thinks he's a nazi demon.

Here's the picture if for some reason they ever catch it or change it.

It comes from the not bored website.

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 09:02 PM
Well, if the next president is the anti christ it will be nice to know Hilary won. Finally get the dems back in power, have a good economy again, the dollar will be worth more the the paper it's printed on, go anti christ!

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 10:13 PM
Oh man, I don't even want to know what's going to happen if a Democrat wins next time around. Man o man, our party has tough enough time shaking this "pro death" persona right now, let alone being called the party of the anti-christ. We may never recover.

Let's just hope, for everyone's sake, that there will be no anti-christ and the end of the world will be caused by our own stupidity, and not some religious fable. At least we can then say we were the masters of our own destiny.

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 10:28 PM

Who would have thought. Did you ever hear about him prior? Probably not if you aren't from Arkansas.

Actually, if you had any interest in government/politics, you would have heard of Bill Clinton at least a decade before he ran. Besides the fact that he addressed the Democratic National Convention in 1988 (nearly put everyone to sleep with the world's LONGEST speech), he was one of the most popular and powerful governors in our country at the time.

As far as this anti-christ stuff, I think it's pointless to even speculate. If there is going to be an anti-christ, its going to be someone we least suspect. It's probably going to be someone that we all love and admire. Bush 43 would be the last choice, considering all of you liberals and hippies have such HATRED for the man.

If I had to make a guess, I'd still go with Bill Clinton. Although his time as President is over, he is very interested in heading up the UN after Kofi takes a hike. The fact that Clinton could do so many things wrong and still have a majority of you eating out of his hand just furthers my reasoning for this choice. Only the anti-christ would be capable of receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office while on the phone discussing important issues with world leaders. Maybe the main reason he gutted our military and its capabilities is so we put up less of a resistance to his army from Hell! LOL

If Clinton does turn out to be the anti-christ, most of you people would petition to end term limits and vote for him as President again!

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 10:30 PM
Lets see:

World War 1 (1914-1918)
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921 (Democrat)

World War 2 (1939-1945)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945 (Democrat)
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953 (Democrat)

How should this be interpreted?

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 10:36 PM
Since the world is going to end on Dec. 21 2012, and Revelation requires 7 years, Bush can't be the anti-Christ, at least not George. So he will probably die and the new president will be installed by Dec 22, 2005

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 10:36 PM
The anti.

The anti christ will not be the next president!

He will be around, thats cool.

So will I.

I only pray for it!

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:01 AM
The real question I guess for those who are skeptical about it, where could the AntiChrist come from?

It has to be someone that everyone will follow and that will fool nearly everyone.

I Guess you not believing it, supports the argument?

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:02 AM
Yes, and at those times the economy was the greatest economy of the world. Lets see..... 1927-1930's, a republican was in control..... and we had the Great Depression...... 1992-2000 a dem controlled the government and we had the GREATEST ECONOMY, EVER!!!! Along with the LARGEST SURPLUS, EVER!!!! Then a republican steal office and we have the #tiest economy since the GD and the largest deficit, EVER! Hmmm, go dems. If it requires I will run under the republican ticket and tell the truth so NO ONE will vote republican.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:09 AM
If you think about it, who's more likely to be the AntiChrist....a Republican or a Democrat?

I'm going to say it has to be a Democrat.

If you expect the AntiChrist to be helping the poor, helping the old, and being a real humanitarian for the environment and middle class (majority of America), it is going to have to be a Democrat.

There was some speculation that John Kerry was the AntiChrist in part because of his idealogies that are well liked but also because of his lineage and ties to one of the believed 13 families of the Illuminati.

But who knows, that's beyond speculation.

I think that if you believe there is such a thing as the AntiChrist. The next president is highly likely to be it. And since a Democrat would more than likely fit the bill, I'd say it will be a democrat. Maybe even a Clintonian Democrat? That would play well on your theory wouldn't it Rasputin.

We'll see.

Can you say...

Heil Hillary?

[edit on 3-4-2005 by Lord Altmis]

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Since the world is going to end on Dec. 21 2012, and Revelation requires 7 years, B

What is the verse in Revelations that requires a 7 year tribulation period?

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Since the world is going to end on Dec. 21 2012, and Revelation requires 7 years, B

What is the verse in Revelations that requires a 7 year tribulation period?
I'm pretty sure it speaks of two messenges for 42 months followed by the dragon for a further 42 months. That equals 84 which equals 7 years.

The Mayan calendar ends Dec 21, 2012. Therefore it is obvious that the messengers are declared on December 22, 2005.

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:18 AM
You mean here?

Rev 11:3

And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

And here

Rev 12:6

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Which both refer to the same 1260 years referred to here:

Daniel 7.25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
A Time = 1 year
Times = 2 years
Dividing of Times = 1/2 year.
360 X 3 =1080 + 180 = 1260

Those first two quotes are in day/years, not literal days.

All three refer to the same period of persecution, when the bible was outlawed to the common man, when Christian's were wholesale slaughtered for teaching outside accepted dogma(and anyone that did so was in hiding), and the two witnesses (the old and the new testament) had to be taught in secret.

That time was called the inquisition.

The 1260 days were begun by Emperor Justin in 538AD, and continued to the wounding of the first beast in 1798 when Napoleons general Berthier mortally wounded the first beast, exactly 1260 years later. From the start of the Holy Roman empire to their removal from governmental power and the insertion of a secular government. Now though the beast has had its wound healed and is back, as per prophecy.

Rev 17:8 the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

[edit on 4/3/2005 by defcon5]

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in