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.


The truth behind elections...

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:40 AM
In Australia and the US, you are presented with a red team and a blue team. Both are controlled by the same small group of rich men.

Not only is this designed to give the illusion of "freedom", it actually enables those in control to push the masses to their limits much more easily than a one-party system.

With a one-party system, if the masses thought that they were being treated unfairly, they would feel trapped and revolt. With the two-party system, you can push the masses to their absolute limits. If you go to far, they will get revenge on you by voting for the other team. If the other team is elected, the masses will calm down, feeling they have "won". This enables those in control to continue.

Many say that if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain about what the government does. But the exact opposite is true. If you choose to allow another entity to make decisions on your behalf, you have no right to complain about what they do, because you agreed to it. If you refuse to vote, you are NOT agreeing to allow another entity to make decisions on your behalf. So ethically, you should not be subjected to their decisions.

Here in Australia, if you get mad enough at the two major parties, you can vote for one of the smaller guys. You are simply choosing a subcontractor to vote on your behalf, as they end up giving it to one of the major parties anyway.

The fact you are supposed to vote by law only encourages corruption, because it means that politicians don't have to earn or win your vote. You must give it to them by law!

How many of you vote for the candidate you dislike the least?

When will people wake up and understand that the whole thing is a clever scam?

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:47 AM
I agree with your post

And I'd also like to add that America has been a nation for over 220 years, we've had by now millions of political elections from city mayors to the Presidency. Each politician that ran for office in every election has promised change. But look at the current state of things right now.

Do you really believe when a Politician makes promises?

I've learned my lesson, I hope you all will too

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:58 AM
Whether you believe Cathy O'Brien's claims about being a mind-controlled slave or not, this part highlights exactly what is going on...

"In 1984, George Bush told Bill Clinton that when the American people become disillusioned with Republicans leading them into the New World Order, Arkansas Democrat Governor Bill Clinton would be maneuvered into place as President. Clinton was to be followed into office by Republican Bush, Jr. who was actively being programmed through MK Ultra mind control means in preparation for his role as President. When another illusion of change would be needed to appease the public, Hilary Clinton as a “female” Democrat was to be placed into the office of President thereby keeping the same family of dictators in full operation."

ETA: Although Hillary didn't become President, Obama did. Given he is related to Cheney (and many others), the same "family" is still in charge.
edit on 19/12/11 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:58 AM
reply to post by NuclearPaul

If I didn't like either candidate, why the hell would I vote? Who would take the time to vote for somebody that they don't even like?

The two party system is a complete joke. We have hundreds of millions of people in this country, and we have to choose between two people? What kind of a system is that? Third party candidates are shunned and treated as complete outcasts who have no chance of winning, so we're stuck with the two puppets. They may look and talk differently, but at the end of the day, they're each on a different arm of the same puppeteer.

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:02 AM

Originally posted by TupacShakur
If I didn't like either candidate, why the hell would I vote? Who would take the time to vote for somebody that they don't even like?

People who must vote by law (as it is here, I don't know if that's the case in the US).

That is the biggest problem.

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:16 AM
reply to post by NuclearPaul

Voting is a waste of time. It is meant to further the idea in the mind of the voter that they count. Of course, when it comes down to the real decisions, they can shout, picket, protest all day for weeks, and nobody in Washington gives a flying fruitcake what they have to say. They are ignored. Ignored, ignored, ignored.

Did they ask Americans on NDAA? on SOPA? on Patriot Act?

No. No. No.

The elected ones have all the power and voice because stupid Americans vote for (give it to) them. On the other hand, I believe most people are too stupid to make intelligent decisions, so I really can't say it would be better if we forced everyone to vote on things. Yes, I really mean that.

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:22 AM
I look at the two major parties that us Aussies have a choice of I get depressed! They're both as bad as the other. Even if Rudd challenges the leadership he is going to open up the flood gates for a 'Big Australia'. Gillard and Abbott just argue about where to stuff the over whelming tide of illegal immigrants. No solutions just back flips on election promises and passing votes on their own pay rises.

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:29 AM
Here in the US, you are not required by law to vote.

It is, however, considered your civic duty. So you can choose not to vote.

I have to agree with the OP though. The two party system sucks. You really have no choice.

I'm still trying to figure out how to affect any kind of change. There has got to be some way!

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:30 AM
The people of America need to develop a third, forth and/or fifth party that won't fold amid pressure like OWS protesters. America needs individuals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, individuals who can stand up, lead and who won't be silenced. Who continue to protest, regardless of 'charges'. To be 'martyr's' if needed.

America needs a million man march of all races that can unite the country. Apathy is a sickness that needs to be cured.

We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game - Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name, lord. We know when we understand: Almighty god is a living man. You can fool some people sometimes, But you can't fool all the people all the time. So now we see the light (what you gonna do?), We gonna stand up for our rights! (yeah, yeah, yeah! ) - BM R.I.P.

edit on 19-12-2011 by Phayte because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 05:07 AM
Tony Abbott, leader of the Opposition down here in Australia, is quoted as once saying "Never believe anything I say unless I write it down".

I think that pretty much applies to all politicians.

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 01:27 PM
I wrote this reply to Daynight42 but due to me being a Noob on ATS I do not have reply access yet lol so Ill put it here for everyone to gander at and then give their 2 cents on .

America needs political parties who distance themselves from the current two party system.

Yeah, blind faith in the government is hard to stomach when it's the governments and institutions that have caused the blindness.

I'm not sure if people are scared of a revolution, based on the meaning of the word or what it means about the state of America when one just contemplates the term or if it really is just apathy. Maybe people don't want to remove their security blackets. Perhaps it's all of the above along with other factors

The questions that arises are 'How can change occur when the fat-cats have the resources to silence the competition and how can one rally the populace to make changes?'

Well the answer could be that the fat-cats may have the resources but the public has the population.

But the populace needs an absolute ironwill to fight back.

Grassroots campaigns to form political parties at universities and campuses can help find potential charismatic leaders who can appeal to the youth and make the youth understand that America needs them.

You need leaders with conviction who can speak clearly and eloquently and who clearly separate themselves from the monopolistic two party political system.

You would need a uniting platform that reaches across many demographics using grassroots campaigns , knocking on doors, visiting local fundraisers, talking to people honestly, not fanatically. EVERY PARTY MEMBER SHOULD PROUDLY DISPLAY THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND STAND BEHIND THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATES AS AMERICAN CITIZENS. I believe this last part would have a somewhat of a psychological effect on the America public after the current presidents BC fiasco.

You would need creative video makers to make online commercials and videos that would resonate with each demographic. The MTV Holocaust commercials are good examples.

The problem is that the time it would take to organize a full political party for the 2012 American elections. After that will it be too late?

It can never be too late to stand up for your rights.

I however am Canadian, and live in Canada. Even though we in Canada don't have anything like the new detention bill yet, I can see it coming and recently have started to think about how to form a new political party here that could bring the power back to the people.

If your American then America needs you. Not Uncle Sam but America.

I have a question that maybe you would like to banter with me about.

In the political systems we have, we elect representatives to 'represent' us in government matters. Hundreds of years ago when we created these systems it was impractical for an individual voter to vote on every bit of legislation that went through the systems.

However in today's age, with home computers, tablets and smartphone's why couldn't the population vote of every issue instead of having corporate bought representatives representing the corporations vote for them?

I understand the argument that the representatives "Should be more informed on the issues because thats what they are paid for, but in reality are they more informed?" Do they always read everything they vote on or just sign their name based on very little information?

Put the legislation online, let the people read it if they want, vote on the issues and truly bring the power back to the people.

Now, hypothetically is that plausible?



log in