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.


Something unusual about elections

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM
Lets talk about the GOP first, I don't think any of the front runners (all two of them) are electible. Newt will be providing feed to the fodder for the media with his scandals all ready the 2nd ex-wife came forward. Romney is in my opinion too rich and doesn't seem to try to appel to the average guy from what I've seen of him.
and finally why aren't any Dems out there to challenge Obama? Strange what say you? What's up with this odd election? Any interesting theories?

edit on 30-1-2012 by 1loserel2 because: change word back to way I had it

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by 1loserel2

I don't find it particularly unusual. The political field has been like this for a while.
Nixon lost it by sweating during a televised debate with Kennedy.
Gerald Ford fell down once. Who would vote for him?
One of the funniest critiques I've ever seen of a candidate was a picture of Dan Quail, holding a pumpkin next to his head. That was all.
Dukakis lost it by having his picture taken in a tank, to the point that many people said the Kerry biochemical suit picture was his "Dukakis Moment".
I think it's fair that candidates personal decisions and accomplishments should be vetted before getting so far as to be nominated president. Withholding information and covering up for him only leads to President Pig in a Poke.
Let 'em duke it out. To be honest, I'm going to be looking at their voting records and viewpoints before I vote, I don't care who married who or what college they went to.
It's normal for the sitting president to be the incumbent candidate after the four year mark. It's the eight year mark you have to worry about.

edit on 30-1-2012 by TheCounselor because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:41 PM
It's rare for the president's party to run someone against him. It's happened, but rarely.
As for the Repubs, both will largely follow the same policies as Obama, just as he followed most of the same policies as Bush.
You are not supposed to have choice.
Not to make this a Ron Paul thread, but like him or not, he's the only choice for actual change. Obama and the others are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by 1loserel2

Yes, this democrats and republicans stuff, I mean c'mon they're all little puppets who make their little play in front of people to give them the illusion that they can actually "choose " their Gov.

And same goes here in Canada and around the globe. I'm guessing they're purposely doing such strange things as you mentioned and all the new bills and all the freakin' build up in hype of NWO, 2012 end times, WW3, alien invasion ( yeah right ) and so on, to again distract us in fear and wonder.

So when you go in and vote this year, might as well close your eyes and pick one out at random because the outcome will sadly be the same ( mabye with differences in the small details ) but with the same big picture.

Think for yourselves. Question authority.
And spread Love my brothers

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by 1loserel2

'They' are ushering a new world in which politics is controlled by MSM or mainstream media, 'they' are effectively badgering most of the candidates into signing agreements with corporations which dictate what they do once president of the US, in return the candidates either receive positive media coverage or a smear campaign against an opponent, the next president will be the candidate which signed the most agreements, plus it all plays into the money making game IMO

new topics

top topics

log in