It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is there a positve outlook for the 2008 Presidency?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The primaries just passed and I've been wondering does anyone have any faith that the presidency of 2008 will put America back on the track that it should never had gotten off. I mean we are losing so many freedoms..the patriot act has taken away our right to a fair trial if we the goverment "decides" we are terrorist to their agenda. The wiretapping program is being revised to by-pass any unconstitutional judgement from the a lawful judge.

Who doesn't say that the 2008 president won't be in poket of the New World Order, Bilderberg or whatever... and then take more of our freedoms with RFID chips, Biometric I.Ds etc.
Do we have any chance of getting an honest president who will reverse or just escalate our countries need for peace, financial security and personal freedom.




posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Multiple questions. Do I have faith that the presidency of 2008 will put us "back on track"? No.

Who doesn't say that the 2008 president won't be in pocket of the New World Order, Bilderberg or whatever..? Not me.

Do we have any chance of getting an honest president...? Yes, mathematically the possibility exists. Realistically, no because it will be either a Democrat or Republican that wins. The only difference is in the rhetoric. It will be same as it ever was.

I will continue to vote Libertarian, even though I have no illusion about a Libertarian winning. I argue continually with a good friend of mine about this. He maintains I "waste my vote". I say I only waste it if I either (a) don't cast it or (b) cast it for someone I really don't want. If (a) I send the message I don't care. If (b) I send the message I agree. Neither of those go down well for me.

Here's my theory- if sufficient numbers would vote Libertarian (or some other 3rd party), eventually we can at least get the attention of elected officials to the point that more and more of the Libertarian-type philosophies will be adopted by the main parties in order to garner that segment of the vote.

Now this isn't a quick-fix, which I know everyone is looking for, but the problems we are currently having have been coming on for a good 90 years or more and it's not going to get fixed over night. Or in 5 years. Or 10. But we can either resign ourselves to it getting progressively worse, or start doing something to begin to move this political/governmental glacier in a direction we want to see it go.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
all possible presidential candidates have voted for the war in iraq..
our only hope is hil clinton..but of course she was pro-war also



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The results of 2008 will depend a great deal on how we are voting - as in are we using tracable, virus-impervious ballots or are we using Diebold?

If we cannot legitimately vote, we can figure we are lost.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
"True power lies not with those who cast the votes, but rather with those who count the vote." -- Joseph Stalin

Jeb Bush has been selected to be President in 2008.


[edit on 19-9-2006 by tazadar]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Not to be overly negative.. but The corporatists(corporate fascists) will win the White House no matter who runs. An the masses will continue to lose....Just one mans morbid opinion....


[edit on 9/19/2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 9/19/2006 by TONE23]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I can't see anything positive coming from any national elections. The mega corps have bought and paid for their agenda during the neocon reign. Even the mega corps now control the election infrastructure.

Elections now are just an illusion to make the sheep think they have a voice in the way this country is run. We don't have a democracy or a republic anymore and I'm not sure we ever did. What we have now is a corporate Oligarchy or as Vagabond said a "Kleptacracy."

It's a brave new world; welcome to the monkey house.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SAGEX89
all possible presidential candidates have voted for the war in iraq..
our only hope is hil clinton..but of course she was pro-war also


So... Let's vote Libertarian. Let's vote Green (I can bet that THEY didn't support that gruesome and assinine war!).

If we can recount (legitimately!) the votes, we could make changes. If not, it won't matter if EVERYBODY voted for ... lessee, Mother T. is dead, Princess Di is dead... Who's left? Well. It won't make a difference if EVERYBODY voted for Tommy Chong!

So either we can win - or we can't. i shall hope for the former.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Yes, the positive outlook is that GWB will NOT be President anymore. To me that is positive!


The negative, however, is that we will probably be stuck with some other NWO, Skull & Crossbone crook who will continue to pander to his corporate billionaire cronies while the rest of while away at our menial existances while funding this entire hoax of a democracy! Rest in peace America!



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by SAGEX89
all possible presidential candidates have voted for the war in iraq..
our only hope is hil clinton..but of course she was pro-war also


So... Let's vote Libertarian. Let's vote Green (I can bet that THEY didn't support that gruesome and assinine war!).

If we can recount (legitimately!) the votes, we could make changes. If not, it won't matter if EVERYBODY voted for ... lessee, Mother T. is dead, Princess Di is dead... Who's left? Well. It won't make a difference if EVERYBODY voted for Tommy Chong!

So either we can win - or we can't. i shall hope for the former.


I Voted Nader in the last election... not because I thought he had a chance in hell.. but rather, because he didnt represent the "Corporate Whores" mentality that permiates throughout our Current leadership(Executive and Legislative branches).

And.... its good to see that I am not the only 'looney' in the bin.

One of the first things that needs to be abolished in order to clean up our govt. is Corporate Personhood. One of the biggest downfalls for the general people's power(if they had any to begin with), IMO.

[edit on 9/19/2006 by TONE23]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Sen. John McCain would be a great choice. I feel that he is a good leader who has given his life to the service of America. He has the experince...

Check him out! mccain.senate.gov...

-- Boat



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
I Voted Nader in the last election... not because I thought he had a chance in hell.. but rather, because he didnt represent the "Corporate Whores" mentality that permiates throughout our Current leadership(Executive and Legislative branches).

And.... its good to see that I am not the only 'looney' in the bin.

One of the first things that needs to be abolished in order to clean up our govt. is Corporate Personhood. One of the biggest downfalls for the general people's power(if they had any to begin with), IMO.


I can't tell you how much I agree with you on this! It is the corporofascists that we must beware of. And that corporations essentially have no personal responsibility is a big part of our problem.

I think that all corporate documents should be required to be made public - intellectual property be damned! If they want their IP, that had better be willing to take personal responsibility. At least it's an idea worth considering.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Sen. John McCain would be a great choice. I feel that he is a good leader who has given his life to the service of America. He has the experince...

Check him out! mccain.senate.gov...

-- Boat



He did write the foreword to the Popular Mechanics' book, Debunking 9/11 Myths... Not sure I could trust him as far as I could launch him. [shrug]

But maybe he is merely holding tightly to his security blanket with eyes closed. I don't think so, however.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
Sen. John McCain would be a great choice. I feel that he is a good leader who has given his life to the service of America. He has the experince...

Check him out! mccain.senate.gov...

-- Boat



Out of the line up of slim pickins.. I would have to agree... But honestly I dont really know enough about him. I know some of the more prominent issues pertaining to him.. such as his stance on torture.. But I have alot to learn about him. Voting history; Lobbying habits, etc.

But on the surface he does appear to be the best of the worst(being the pseudo two party dictatorship... controlled by the Corporate) But how far in their pocket is McCain? I dont have the slighest clue..yet.

Boat, thanks for the link.. that should get me started...



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I have lost faith in the election process in general. We only have two main parties and in my opinion, they are both the same in many aspects.

I really wish that more people would be brave enough to vote independant and break the monotony of the two party system. If I hear one more person say "If you vote independant then you are throwing away your vote" one more time I am going to be sick.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowflake_obsidian
I have lost faith in the election process in general. We only have two main parties and in my opinion, they are both the same in many aspects.

I really wish that more people would be brave enough to vote independant and break the monotony of the two party system. If I hear one more person say "If you vote independant then you are throwing away your vote" one more time I am going to be sick.


The two parties are indeed corporate-run. And I get so sick of hearing, "I voted (Demo, Repub, whichever) because if I voted for (Lib, Green, whatever), my vote would be wasted." As long as one does not vote for the candidate they WANT, their vote is wasted. And since I heard it SOOOO many times in 2004, I have to wonder (Diebold, etc. not withstanding) who would have won...

Have any of you heard that line to the point you think someone else might have been elected if everyone actually voted their heart?

[On a side note, I did a graphic for a politically interested friend's website of the Alien vs Preditor poster, with the alien's features rather Kerryish and the Preditor's features rather Bushish... The logo was changed to: DVR and of course the line, "Whoever wins...We lose."]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   


posted by yeahright

Do I have faith that the presidency of 2008 will put us "back on track"? No. Do we have a chance of getting an honest president? Yes, mathematically Realistically, no because it will be a Democrat or a Republican that wins. The only difference is in the rhetoric. I will vote Libertarian, though I have no illusion a Libertarian wins. I argue with a friend about this. He maintains I "waste my vote." I say I waste it only if I either (a) don't cast it or (b) cast it for someone I don't want.

Here's my theory - if sufficient numbers would vote Libertarian or some other 3rd party, we can eventually get the attention of officials to the point that more of the Libertarian-type philosophies will be adopted by the main parties in order to garner that segment of the vote . . this isn't a quick-fix but the problems have been coming for 90 years or more and it's not going to get fixed over night . . we can either resign ourselves to it getting progressively worse or start doing something to begin to move this political glacier in a direction we want to see it go. [Edited by Don W]



Exactly, Mr Y/R! OTOH, the history of 3rd party successes is mixed. The last time a 3rd party won the presidency was 1860, by Abraham Lincoln. No kidding. Also the only time. The next time a third party played a significant role was the 1912 election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson brought about by Teddy Roosevelt running on the Progressive - Bull Moose - Party against his own hand picked man, GOP President William Howard Taft. It is claimed - and I believe it - that minor parties in the late 19th century pushed the major parties into reforms in the 20th century.

The most notable - and persistent - was Norman Thomas, who ran 6 times on the Socialist Party ticket. He polled 880,000 votes in 1932, the high water mark of his many campaigns. The Socialist Party was first on the national scene to support the 40 hour work week, the minimum wage and social security. en.wikipedia.org...

The 1948 election pitted Harry Truman Democrat versus Tom Dewey, then NY GOP governor. Also running were the former vice president Henry Wallace, Progressive Party, and J Strom Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, States Rights Party a/k/a Dixiecrats. Thurmond carried 4 states, SC, LA, AL and MS. 39 electoral votes. Truman won, of course. Ross Perot ran a strong race with his own money in 1992, and polled about 18% of the vote taken in equal numbers from the Dems and GOP, making Clinton’s 43% victory possible. Better than Lincoln’s 39%.

In about half the states, it is easy to get on the presidential ballot. The other half - with the great majority of electoral votes - make it very difficult for a 3rd party to make it on the ballot. That’s wrong.

Each of the major parties will spend $500 million or more between 2006 and the 2008 election. Because the Supreme Court says we the people cannot control or regulate our own elections, this puts the choice of both candidates squarely into the hands of the rich “special interests.” The Buckley case says we cannot limit the amount of money a candidate spends because of the 1st Amendment’s “Free Speech” clause. Yet, if you count the number of times “free speech” appears, and the number of times elect, election, electoral and vote appear, you will see it s 9 to 1. It is irrational to say the public - through Congress - cannot write reasonable laws on the amount of money to be spent in elections.

Some observers say a House member spends half his or her time collecting money for the next campaign. But we the people are helpless to do anything about it? I say the first thing we need is a new Supreme Court. The second would be an honest Congress. The third is to ban all the Jack Abramoff's from W-DC. We definitely have our work cut out for us.



[edit on 9/19/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Self-fulfilling prophecy? People don't vote for a 3rd party because they don't do well, and they don't do well because people don't vote for them.

As I said, I have no particular illusion about a 3rd party candidate actually winning, but IF sufficient people were to actually vote that way, that in and of itself could make for some significant change.

My main point is that we cannot continue to do what we've always done and have any reasonable belief that the results will be different. If we continue to do what we've always done, we'll continue to get what we've always gotten. For sure.

I'm familiar with the Socialist Party. Eugene Debs (a Hoosier from Terre Haute) ran 4 times (once from prison) in the early part of the 20th century.

At this point, I'd classify myself as a Libertarian. I don't think we necessarily have to win, but putting a dent in the numbers would get their attention. No, it isn't a quick fix, and there won't be a happy ending in 60 minutes (minus commercial breaks) but if anyone has a better, more workable solution, I'm glad to listen to it.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
In about half the states, it is easy to get on the presidential ballot. The other half - with the great majority of electoral votes - make it very difficult for a 3rd party to make it on the ballot. That’s wrong.

Each of the major parties will spend $500 million or more between 2006 and the 2008 election. Because the Supreme Court says we the people cannot control or regulate our own elections, this puts the choice of both candidates squarely into the hands of the rich “special interests.” The Buckley case says we cannot limit the amount of money a candidate spends because of the 1st Amendment’s “Free Speech” clause. Yet, if you count the number of times “free speech” appears, and the number of times elect, election, electoral and vote appear, you will see it s 9 to 1. It is irrational to say the public - through Congress - cannot write reasonable laws on the amount of money to be spent in elections.

Some observers say a House member spends half his or her time collecting money for the next campaign. But we the people are helpless to do anything about it? I say the first thing we need is a new Supreme Court. The second would be an honest Congress. The third is to ban all the Jack Abramoff's from W-DC. We definitely have our work cut out for us.


I think that for fed elections, the same rules for all parties should apply, and that they should allow the greatest flexibility that would also weed out those with little or no support. Say, get 2% of voters to sign petitions or something on that order.

Also, I think there should be equity in campaign spending. Maybe have a fixed maximum, or have all money equally doled out to ballot qualifiers from a volunteer fund... Require all media outlets to allot equal time as part of a corporate civic duty...

Regardless, the way it is now is not in our best interest.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   


posted by yeahright

Self-fulfilling prophecy? People don't vote for a 3rd party because they don't do well, and they don't do well because people don't vote for them.

I have no illusion about a 3rd party candidate actually winning, but IF sufficient people were to vote that way, that in and of itself could make for some significant change. My point is we cannot continue to do what we've always done and have any reasonable belief that the results will be different. I'm familiar with the Socialist Party. Eugene Debs a Hoosier from Terre Haute ran 4 times once from prison in the early part of the 20th century. At this point, I'd classify myself as a Libertarian. I don't think we necessarily have to win, but putting a dent in the numbers would get their attention. No, it isn't a quick fix . . [Edited by Don W]



Well, I agree with your goals, but reflect back on the 1992 campaign. That was the only time a 3rd party candidate got equal billing in the presidential debates. As you know, that platform has been surrendered to control of the 2 major parties by the League of Women Voters - forcibly - so now, there will only be 2 in the debates. For sure. Unless Bill Gates or Warren Buffet decide to make a run, it’s going to be Hobson’s choice. See Note below. I happen to prefer the Dems grafters over the GOP grafters. As a matter of principle.


Note: In colloquial English, a Hobson's choice is an apparently free choice that is really no choice at all. The phrase originates from Thomas Hobson (1544-1630), who lived in Cambridge, England. Hobson was a stable manager renting out horses to travelers; the site of his stables is now part of St. Catharine's College. After customers began requesting particular horses again and again, Hobson realized certain horses were being overworked. He decided to begin a rotation system, placing the well-rested horses near the stable door, and refused to let out any horse except in its proper turn. He offered customers the choice of taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

Hobson's choice is somewhat different from a Catch-22 situation, where both or all choices available contradict each other. Hobson's choice is often used not to mean a false illusion of choice, but simply a choice between two undesirable options. The difference between this and the original meaning of Hobson's choice is subtle, so the confusion is perhaps understandable.
See en.wikipedia.org...'s_choice



[edit on 9/19/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join