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.

 

Why Obama is going to win the 2012 election.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
It's plain to see, for anyone who's paying attention, that "tptb" have decided that subtle and secret control is no longer sufficient. Gone are the days where control of the media, and arrests/assassinations carried out in secret, documented as "missing persons" are enough. The time has come where the executive feels the need to secure there power in a more overt, and blatant way.

This will happen regardless of who is in power. There is a continuity of the power base in this country. The plans of the executive aren't thrown out the window every time we have a new POTUS, haven't been since WWII. The "Cold War" made this necessary. We couldn't be successful against the USSR if we threw our foreign policy out the window every 8 years.

Now I'll get to my point, which is the strategic advantage of having Obama be the one to lay the final piece. There is a narrative running right now of Obama the socialist creating an over reaching central government. The majority of the public has already forgotten all about Bush, they don't realize that Obama is merely building on Bush policy's.

If you have Romney come into power, and fully implement the NDAA it becomes too obvious that they are both part of the same agenda. However, you have Obama start really going for it after the upcoming election and the majority of the people will blame "the leftist agenda". People will have hope that in 4 years they can elect a republican and reverse this stuff.

This gives the executive the opportunity to arrest the right people, that being anyone reporting on what they're doing, for 4 years while most of the people who know what's going on have hope. You have 4 years to round up the reporters and whistleblowers before the next election.

After this there will be an election, a republican will win. By this point all the people who are going to be honestly reporting the fact that we live in a dictatorship will be gone. From this point on they'll be able to have us "vote left to end the tyranny" "vote right to end the tyranny" "vote left to end the tyranny" etc...

I'm sure I don't have it exactly right, but I think my gist is right. If you have Obama really implement NDAA, we can blame Obama and leftists. You have Romney do it and maybe it's too obvious.
edit on 18-9-2012 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2012 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2012 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by renegadeloser
 

In regards to your title, I can answer your question.

Obama will win because Romney represents nothing different, they are ideologically identical.

Not only did Obama use Romney's health care model, they are both owned by Wall St., neither will reform our debt based monetary system via the Federal Reserve, both will (and have) bow/ed down to the Military Industrial Complex, neither will stop the TSA style police state, neither will meaningfully address our incredible debt burden or worthless dollar etc...

You have to give people a reason to vote. Giving them the option of a White Obama is not enough of an incentive.

Doesnt matter to me, I'm voting for Ron Paul. Couldnt imagine wasting my vote on one of these two establishment minions.


edit on 18-9-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by renegadeloser
I accidentally hit enter before finishing post. Please hold while I write it up.
edit on 18-9-2012 by renegadeloser because: asdf


I see a lot of posts that seem like they were dreamt up that way....

edit on 9/18/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Last time I looked, Romney was up by one. Certainly that doesn't mean he will win, but it does mean that it is a contest. Assuming Obama wins, we can come up with lots of reasons why. Assuming Romney wins, we can come up with lots of reasons why.

I'm curious, when you do get around to posting, would you do me the favor of explaining why Obama should win? I already know about all the terrible things Romney is charged with, no need to go through that again, but how has, or how will, Obama help with the economy, individual rights versus the federal government, foreign policy, or any other major issue?

Thank you for posting, may I comment? It seems as though you're saying we should vote for Obama, because he will use federal powers left and right to imprison lots of people. Then four years later, we can elect a Republican to fix it. I may have misunderstood your point, I was confused in spots. But why are you sure there will be an election four years from now, if Obama's busy locking everybody up? Why not go Republican now?

See, it's just that I must be confused.
edit on 18-9-2012 by charles1952 because: Add paragraph



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Last time I looked, Romney was up by one. Certainly that doesn't mean he will win, but it does mean that it is a contest. Assuming Obama wins, we can come up with lots of reasons why. Assuming Romney wins, we can come up with lots of reasons why.

I'm curious, when you do get around to posting, would you do me the favor of explaining why Obama should win? I already know about all the terrible things Romney is charged with, no need to go through that again, but how has, or how will, Obama help with the economy, individual rights versus the federal government, foreign policy, or any other major issue?

I don't think that Obama should win. His economic policies are ineffective, and his ideologies are repugnant. So are Romney's. They both serve the agenda's of Wall St. and the Military Industrial Complex.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by renegadeloser
 


Simple, why Obama will win.

Debates are upcoming, and Mitt will speak...



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
bunch of grammatical errors hehe, fixed. I have to go do HW for my electromagnetics class now, but I'll check back later.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by renegadeloser
 

But I agree with you.

When Bush trampled the Constitution via his citizen assassinations, torture, secret renditions, indefinite imprisonment, suspension of habeas corpus, "free speech zones", doubling of the national debt, war mongering, expanded the size of government etc.; Republicans said nothing.

But now that Obama is doing the exact same things, the Republicans are up in arms!

Theres a schizophrenic double standard in politics: "its ok as long a my side is doing it".

We need Obama to stay in office so people actually pay attention to all of the destruction.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
It's not that Obama will win....it's that Romney will lose!



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Obama wins because Mitt can't convince Americans that he is going to do a better job.

It's all about the economy and the economy point blank sucks. Romney should be winning hands downs. This should have been one of the easiest slam dunks in history. Simply put, the Republicans put the wrong horse in the race.

End of story.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Simple, why Obama will win.

Debates are upcoming, and Mitt will speak...


I'm thinking Mitt will do better off the teleprompter than Obama...remember that Obama has not been without on in about 5 years lol, and he doesn't do so well without one....



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Obama wins because Mitt can't convince Americans that he is going to do a better job.

It's all about the economy and the economy point blank sucks. Romney should be winning hands downs. This should have been one of the easiest slam dunks in history. Simply put, the Republicans put the wrong horse in the race.

End of story.


Very true Jam,

The other thing is,

The GOP framed this election as a CHOICE

If they would of thought beyond all the recent hyperbole they could of framed this
election as a REFERENDUM and won with any candidate.

That is the strategic error that has cost them dearly.

As a result America wants to chose the nice, personable guy they already know.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Obama will win....

Its all in the numbers...He needs 65 million votes

He will get 10 million from the gays because he once said he likes gay marriages, doesn't matter if he really does or not... in four years most will still not be married.

He will get 40 million from people who think he will give them entitlements. They will not get them , but he said they will and he will get their vote.

That leaves only 15 million that for some reason think he will do something that he didn't do this last four years...now we know the next four years will be about as bad as the last, but he will get their vote...

BAM!! 65 million votes....



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
It's time to vote out all incumbents, every single one of them, at every level, from the top to the bottom.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Obama will win....

Its all in the numbers...He needs 65 million votes

He will get 10 million from the gays because he once said he likes gay marriages, doesn't matter if he really does or not... in four years most will still not be married.

He will get 40 million from people who think he will give them entitlements. They will not get them , but he said they will and he will get their vote.

That leaves only 15 million that for some reason think he will do something that he didn't do this last four years...now we know the next four years will be about as bad as the last, but he will get their vote...

BAM!! 65 million votes....


65 Million????

You mean 270 electoral college votes?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
...or if he doesn't win, this will be the reason why.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Last time I looked, Romney was up by one. Certainly that doesn't mean he will win, but it does mean that it is a contest. Assuming Obama wins, we can come up with lots of reasons why. Assuming Romney wins, we can come up with lots of reasons why.

I'm curious, when you do get around to posting, would you do me the favor of explaining why Obama should win? I already know about all the terrible things Romney is charged with, no need to go through that again, but how has, or how will, Obama help with the economy, individual rights versus the federal government, foreign policy, or any other major issue?

Thank you for posting, may I comment? It seems as though you're saying we should vote for Obama, because he will use federal powers left and right to imprison lots of people. Then four years later, we can elect a Republican to fix it. I may have misunderstood your point, I was confused in spots. But why are you sure there will be an election four years from now, if Obama's busy locking everybody up? Why not go Republican now?

See, it's just that I must be confused.
edit on 18-9-2012 by charles1952 because: Add paragraph


I was under the jaded impression that contests were ***legitimate*** tests involving multiple parties acting in such a way as to benefit themselves, their team, etc. In this case there is no contest since it is all rigged. Like Jesse Ventura said (to paraphrase); "Politics is like wrestling, it's all just entertainment. The fighters make a big noise about each other then they get in the ring to fight it out. Somebody wins and somebody loses. When it's all over, both fighters go to the bar and have a drink with the boss who manages both of them and the boss plans the next big thing and how it's going to turn out."

Neither party is any good (in Canada, none of the three main ones). They are all controlled by the money power (central banks) and the military-industrial complex. A non-vote just means whomever the handlers chose, wins. A vote for either party means whomever the handlers chose, wins. A vote for an independent throws a real spanner in the works, but it has to be an en-masse vote for an independent candidate to really mean something, otherwise, the vote handlers will lie as they always do and their candidate of choice will win.

Vote independent and vote with your wallet. If your house is being foreclosed, fight them every inch of the way in court and defend yourself, lawyers are part of the corrupt system. Pull your money out of large banks and go with credit unions. Withold taxes whenever you can. Fight every stupid infraction these @sshats throw at you and tie the courts up forever. Write your alleged "representative" monthly and tell them what is wrong with this retarded system, weekly if you can, send a stock letter if you must. Flood the government with FOIA requests on things that interest you as well as information they have on you. Starve the beast and screw it up until it dies.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I won't bother with a link, but a recent Washington Post story indicates that the French would vote for Obama 89 to 2. The French?
Does that guarantee a Romney win?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


This is the premise of my post. I'm predicting that the boss has chosen obama, for the reasons given. Politics is a sham. People with power aren't going to let you influence anything that affects them.
edit on 19-9-2012 by renegadeloser because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 

Dear bobs_uruncle,

Interesting ideas, thanks. It reminds me a little of the OWS movement. But aren't there some pretty big hurdles to be overcome?

A vote for an independent throws a real spanner in the works, but it has to be an en-masse vote for an independent candidate to really mean something,
I don't remember precisely, but didn't third-party candidate Ross Perot get about 15% of the national vote? He left no legacy or movement behind, the system continued, unperturbed. How do we get to 30% when the nation is so strongly polarized and dedicated to their candidate? Right now, undecided and third-party combined is at less than 10%. I can't see how that will change significantly.

Starve the beast and screw it up until it dies.
I assume that if the beast is hungry it will just take more. A hungry beast is an angry beast. I don't want to be around if it gets really mad. It will seriously hurt the first million or so people that it gets mad at. And if it does die, what then? Who picks up the pieces? Islam? China? Russia? Mexico? All of the above? I don't care for that very much either.

I'm just not clear on how we get from here to a "Worker's Paradise."




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join