Voting Disinformation Must Read!!, page 1/
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 7-2-2008 @ 06:05 PM by mybigunit
I was watching Neil Cavuto interview Clint Eastwood today and Clint said something that made me think and that is "if your man drops out you shouldnt not vote because your man didnt make it"

So I say to myself this is the same thing that the media and government and all the pundits say if your person doesnt make it vote the party. Why is this? Why do I have to vote for someone that I disagree with just because he is in the same party as my candidate. Why should I give a blank check to candidate because he is republican or democrat?

Now Im going somewhere with this cause I believe this is a big disinformation campaign and Ill explain why.

A lot of people out there including myself think that the elites choose our president that they are not elected they are allowed. If you dont believe that premice then you will not agree with this at all. So as I continue so once these rigged primaries weed down the candidates the the best in republican and best in democratic party you should just vote for them because they are in your party. They do this because it give the feeling to people like their vote made a difference that we as a people vote for who should be president that way we cant question the fact that these are already preset.

By the way just for full disclosure so people dont think that Im saying this cause Im mad about Romney dropping Im actually for Paul or Huckabee both who are still in the race. Why should I have to vote for McCain if I dont agree with crap that he says and if I think that he is a career politician and that there should be no such thing as a career politician.

So to close Im not going to vote for a candidate if mine drops out unless I like their policy. If I dont agree with anything they say they will not get my vote. I think if people voted on what they believe instead of because they are in a certain party it would send a message to people that the 2 party system does not work and does not get anything done. We should vote for people on ideas and policy not because they are republican or democrat.


reply posted on 7-2-2008 @ 08:23 PM by jackinthebox
I have been a conscientious non-voter for quite some time and for this very reason.

I am sick of people telling me that I should not complain about the way things are if I didn't bother to vote. This is nonsense. No matter who gets into office, we're all gonna pay the piper. Take immigration for example. Neither party is going to do anything about illegal immigration because it is the agenda of the NWO to create the NAU.

I have also heard it said that only people who bother to vote, bother to pay attention to what is actually going on. I beg to differ. Most people vote like they're rooting for their local ball team. The issues don't matter as long as their team wins.

Lastly, I would like to add the the two-party system is a sham. It gives the people the appearance of having a choice. Why is it that there is never a candidate that really stands for the things that you believe? Take gun control for example. The NWO has slated the Democrats to disarm the people, but when Republicans are in office, they let the people think that there is someone still looking out for their right to bear arms. Or the economy. Put a Democrat in office to create a budget surplus, and to share the wealth as a sort of pressure valve to keep the people from revolting. Then put a Republican in office to spend all the money on upgrading the police-state and expanding the empire.

I don't vote because there are very important issues to me that ALL need to be adressed. Not a few this term at the expense of the others I am willing to have undermined, in hopes that the damage can be repaired with a new President down the road. And of course that down-the-road President will only undermine the work on the issues I felt were important this time around. I hope I'm getting that out clearly. Let me make an example. Why can't we have a President who is both pro-gun and pro-choice? This is America. Shouldn't our President be pro-freedom?

I hate to jump on the band-wagon, but my write-in is going to Ron Paul. Just so I can at least say I voted in the last Presidential election of the United States.

Hail Hillary! (She's got the Rothschild fix in.)


reply posted on 9-2-2008 @ 09:22 AM by darcon
Originally posted by jackinthebox
I have been a conscientious non-voter for quite some time and for this very reason.

I am sick of people telling me that I should not complain about the way things are if I didn't bother to vote. This is nonsense. No matter who gets into office, we're all gonna pay the piper. Take immigration for example. Neither party is going to do anything about illegal immigration because it is the agenda of the NWO to create the NAU.

I have also heard it said that only people who bother to vote, bother to pay attention to what is actually going on. I beg to differ. Most people vote like they're rooting for their local ball team. The issues don't matter as long as their team wins.

Lastly, I would like to add the the two-party system is a sham. It gives the people the appearance of having a choice. Why is it that there is never a candidate that really stands for the things that you believe? Take gun control for example. The NWO has slated the Democrats to disarm the people, but when Republicans are in office, they let the people think that there is someone still looking out for their right to bear arms. Or the economy. Put a Democrat in office to create a budget surplus, and to share the wealth as a sort of pressure valve to keep the people from revolting. Then put a Republican in office to spend all the money on upgrading the police-state and expanding the empire.

I don't vote because there are very important issues to me that ALL need to be adressed. Not a few this term at the expense of the others I am willing to have undermined, in hopes that the damage can be repaired with a new President down the road. And of course that down-the-road President will only undermine the work on the issues I felt were important this time around. I hope I'm getting that out clearly. Let me make an example. Why can't we have a President who is both pro-gun and pro-choice? This is America. Shouldn't our President be pro-freedom?

I hate to jump on the band-wagon, but my write-in is going to Ron Paul. Just so I can at least say I voted in the last Presidential election of the United States.

Hail Hillary! (She's got the Rothschild fix in.)


Listen to this guy, finally someone who sees the truth!!!


reply posted on 9-2-2008 @ 10:06 AM by Tinhatman
Casting a vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. If every person in this country would not vote for someone because they do not truly believe in them the voter turn out would be less than 5%. There is no mandate to rule anything in that case. That's why the powers that be always spin this "vote anyway".

Even though the majority of the people would not choose either of the canididates on their own they are told that the "other guy" is going to be so terrible that you have to vote just so that oh so terrible "other guy" won't get elected. That's why we have a two party system. It makes everyone who wishes to be polticially active have to choose sides. Then both sides hype up how horrible the other side is going to be which in turn increases the passion for the person listening to the hype which results in that person turning out to vote lest the "other guy" win and ruin the country. This fervent "us vs. them" situation is what creates record voter turn-out in our country. It creates the appearance of a Democratic government because so many damn people particpated. When in fact most people are voting just sdo the "other guy" won't win.

Remember 2004? The country was completely divided, the people were completely split Red vs. Blue. Everyone turned out so that the "other guy" would not win. When you watched the debates what happened? Well there were the two opponents shaking hands and smiling at each other. Turns out they are cousins, went to the same school, voted for the same policy decisions (before voting against it), and ultimately the winner did the exact same thing that the pundits said the evil "other guy" that lost was going to do.

A person's only absolute possession is their principles. The Media in collusion with Government have created a way in which the People give up the only thing they really have. It's quite terrible.

Vote your choice. If the "other guy" wins because you did not vote for their opponent, well so be it. You still voted for who you thought would best represent you. Don't regret voting for Nader because W won. Do your beliefs mean so little? There your beliefs, stand up for them always. Embrace the challenge and know that even through threat of something horrible you did the right thing. Kind of like if the US had never started torturing their prisoners. Always maintain the moral high ground, careful when fighting dragons not to become a dragon, etc etc etc.

Voting is an act of violence. It is essentially using your will to overcome the freedom of another. Vote at your own risk. Or vote Ron Paul. He's not trying to hurt anybody.


reply posted on 9-2-2008 @ 10:16 AM by Tinhatman
reply to post by darcon



Every other western country got rid of slaves without war except for the US. Lincoln was assassinated because he was a treacherous bastard. He suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus, he suspended and arrested memebrs of congress, he had prison ships full of dissidents and journalists, he executed prisoners without trial, he received bribes from weapons manufacturers and railroad companies and northern industrialists. Lincoln is a myth. Slavery was bound to end, most economic historians do not think it could have lasted more than another 30 years without government intervening to retain it as an institution. European countries were already looking for alternates to slave produced agricultural and textile goods. As soon as Europe stopped buying the South's economy would start to collpase and the market woudl have adjusted slavery right out of the picture with or without help form the local and federal government. All Lincoln did was ensure that slavery ended with a million dead Americans. He was the culmination of the slavery problem. An honest man would have found a way to keep the union or not, end slavery, and avert war. Lincoln paved the way for the government we have now.

Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to do away with the Federal Reserve. No doubt about it.

My two cents!


reply posted on 9-2-2008 @ 10:41 AM by Tinhatman
reply to post by darcon



History is controlled by the victors, not by the truth.
Slavery was terrible, reprehensible, and other strong words. It stopped after the war. Lincoln himself said that if he could preserve the Union, whether or not slavery ended, it would make no difference to him.

Some people think the assassination was actually plotted by the industrialists because Lincoln was in talks with northern black leaders about repatriating the African-Americans back to Africa and they did not want to lose the pool of cheap labor.

Corpratism at it's finest.

Sorry about the momentary hi-jacking of this thread!



[edit on 9-2-2008 by Tinhatman]


reply posted on 10-2-2008 @ 11:17 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by darcon



I prefer to leave open the possibility that Lincoln may have been being scammed himself. He was not a very happy person either, almost as if he was not quite a willing participant.

I also think that Woodrow Wilson was scammed into allowing the Federal Reserve Bank to be set up, judging by his regrets about it later in life.


reply posted on 11-2-2008 @ 07:53 AM by Tinhatman
reply to post by jackinthebox



Agreed. I think Mr. WIlson had no idea what he was creating. Most politicians now a days have no idea what the Federal Reserve does. Just listen to the questions asked of Bernanke when he testifies to congress. Other than Dr. Paul, no one else up there seems to have a clue.

Lincoln had some issues and he may not have been 100% willing participant. That does not change the fact that he set the Precedent later followed by FDR and then by GWB in essentially taking dictatorial powers while in executive office. Every one writhes and complains about Gitmo and Abu Graib etc, Lincoln opened the door for that kind of behavior. Against the Advice of his advisors who warned him what a dangerous Precedetn it would set for the Future!!!

If (when) the US reverts to a Police state or Totalitarianism (debatedly it has already due to the "2 party" system. There is no difference between the Reps and the Dems) you can trace it's history from GWB to FDR to Wilson to Lincoln to Hamilton and the Federalists. And many others along the way.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



No introduction, but strange Claim is this for real?
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags
Whats the best water for consumption?
  Posted 19 days ago with 2 member flags
Aspects of disinformation, some nuts and bolts.
  Posted 16 days ago with 1 member flags
Why Syria Makes Me Upset
  Posted 12 days ago with 1 member flags
Really bad hoax video of drone allegedly flying over US?
  Posted 10 days ago with 1 member flags