Chances of stopping the Bush Clinton manifest destiny?

Is it to late for us who are opposed to the globalist agenda to stop or thwart the coming Bush Clinton ticket? To me this signifies the in your face were in control there's nothing you can do. No matter who you choose the globalist win. Stopping a bush Clinton ticket would at least give a chance for there to be some hope of a decent person winning the election.

But then on the other hand I think would this not be the best evidence the best example that our country is controlled. that we will have the choice of two power dynasty families and that's it. I mean if that doesn't convince someone I am at a loss for what will. I mean to think that we will not have a chance for someone who is there own person there own master and not controlled by other interest or power groups.

Does everybody else think that It is already written in stone Bush Clinton? Or Can WE the people force an actual choice?

a reply to: American-philosopher

It's not too late but you need a big grassroots effort that cuts across party lines.

We'll need to find a candidate that is for equal rights for all humans, less industrial military and alphabet agency spending and can appeal to the average not brainwashed man.

There are a few out there, but Rand Paul doesn't come across right. Like he's not polished enough. I don't think he appeals to moderates or the Left.

Sanders could do it.

But really if ATS, all of us could get behind someone...they would have a legitimate shot. With how much attention our threads get at times, our blogs, comments, tweets, emails and letters on other sites and platforms. We could push it.

But just like the USA general population, we'll be divided along party lines and we won't be able to agree.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
Is it to late for us who are opposed to the globalist agenda to stop or thwart the coming Bush Clinton ticket? To me this signifies the in your face were in control there's nothing you can do. No matter who you choose the globalist win. Stopping a bush Clinton ticket would at least give a chance for there to be some hope of a decent person winning the election.

But then on the other hand I think would this not be the best evidence the best example that our country is controlled. that we will have the choice of two power dynasty families and that's it. I mean if that doesn't convince someone I am at a loss for what will. I mean to think that we will not have a chance for someone who is there own person there own master and not controlled by other interest or power groups.

Does everybody else think that It is already written in stone Bush Clinton? Or Can WE the people force an actual choice?

I don't think we can stop it. On top of that, I don't think it makes a difference. Even if at one time a president, any party, thought they could improve the country, at least since about 1970, they were in for a rude awakening on their first day in office. The incoming president receives information no one has ever seen and might find out they have a Boss. Barack Obama didn't seem to have a clue and aged about 25 years in 7.5 Maybe one of the people who know what to expect might try to fight? I would love to see Bernie Sanders or a strong female president other than Hillary, but it is not going to happen.

I will campaign for a strong, 3rd party candidate.Knowing the entire time it was for nothing, but knowing if I didn't try I would not be able to forgive myself.

a reply to: American-philosopher

I have switched from Hillary to Bernie. If he makes it, he has my vote.

a reply to: amazing

actually I think most of us on ATS could agree "IF" we left religion and sexual orientation out of it. We get the big picture here and all of the horrible things that are happening or have happened can be correlated to a bush or a Clinton. Or if elected will be attributed to them.

no no I get it though that's why its a big if.

But also with the new generation that is going to be able to vote don't they want a fresh vision someone who has a different plan a different way? I mean were not a monarchy! were not supposed to bow down to Bush the third!

a reply to: amazing

Cutting across party lines is the rub on this issue. The tribalism of team red vs. team blue is so engrained as to be disturbing. Politics isn't a damned sport, but too many schmucks treat it as such. What is it going to take for a significant percentage of the country to wake up and realize neither party truly has the interests of the people at heart? While both parties are full of diaperheads, a legitimate, serious third party candidate isn't happening anytime soon. So you have to make do with what you've got and put aside the ego and tribalism and make a choice based on policy and who can do the best/least worst job for the country, rather than on which party do they belong to.

And that means really examining which candidate is the lesser evil. Right now, I see Clinton and nearly all of the Republican candidates as being essentially the same and will continue pushing the Bush/Obama policies forward. Paul is backtracking away from what separates him from the pack, but that's only hurting his case. Against an ideal (my ideal) candidate he wouldn't get my vote. For all I like about him, there's a ton I dislike. However, against a more-of-the-same candidate like Clinton, I'd cross party lines and vote for him. Just for the sake of change.

Sanders has the best chance of really effecting change in Washington. He's not perfect, but there's a lot to like if you have and open mind. And he's different. And right now, the last thing we need is more of the status quo.

Live your destiny and not theirs. That is the only way.

a reply to: amazing

There are a few out there, but Rand Paul doesn't come across right. Like he's not polished enough. I don't think he appeals to moderates or the Left.

Excuse me but that is the point of his whole campaign. His campaign slogan is " unleash the American dream, defeat the Washington machine". That is the same message he's carried since 1992.

He is trying to appeal to the very people that are on this thread "disillusioned voters" . He is courting voters like on ATS and mimics the majority of their positions.


But I will agree, if the current crop of voters continue to practice their disillusionment and don't vote. The most qualified candidate for the people won't stand a chance against the establishment.


People if you want to defeat the Republican Party. What better way then registering as Republicans and voting a Republican in that most Republicans don't want nominated.

imo Bush has already been selected by those with the real power in the US and it certainly isn't the electorate.

The pattern is established and I'll bet green money that Jeb takes the POTUS in 16.

I think Zappa got it right....

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry.
Frank Zappa

originally posted by: American-philosopher
Is it to late for us who are opposed to the globalist agenda to stop or thwart the coming Bush Clinton ticket? To me this signifies the in your face were in control there's nothing you can do. No matter who you choose the globalist win. Stopping a bush Clinton ticket would at least give a chance for there to be some hope of a decent person winning the election.

But then on the other hand I think would this not be the best evidence the best example that our country is controlled. that we will have the choice of two power dynasty families and that's it. I mean if that doesn't convince someone I am at a loss for what will. I mean to think that we will not have a chance for someone who is there own person there own master and not controlled by other interest or power groups.

Does everybody else think that It is already written in stone Bush Clinton? Or Can WE the people force an actual choice?

Although it may be futile, I will refuse to vote for either of them should that be the choice. I will go third party.

I have come to believe that half of the challenges that we face as a globe continue precisely due to one variable: "collective acquiescence." In a given generation, a vast majority of people simply either don't care or don't know. Even out of those who know, many will choose simple to go with the flow, be comfortable, and not make any kind of radical changes or put themselves out there. They would rather just live their lives. A very small percentage both knows many of the issues in the world and is dedicated to both personally and at a macro level making a change.

For example, voting is one example. Most people simply choose to go with the "lesser of two evils" or say "eff it" and choose one of the two parties. However, as Dekarte said, every choice must be made evaluated against if everyone in the world made the same choice.

If we analyze if from that ethical lens, then I should choose an independent or third party candidate because if everyone did that, the duopoly would gradually diminish.

The major problem, however, is that the mainstream media is both owned by special interests and the so-called military-industrial complex but also is trusted by most people. Hence, "whoever controls the media controls the mind."

I really think our number one problem is countering the reach and power of the media/propaganda.

originally posted by: FatherStacks
a reply to: amazing

Cutting across party lines is the rub on this issue. The tribalism of team red vs. team blue is so engrained as to be disturbing. Politics isn't a damned sport, but too many schmucks treat it as such. What is it going to take for a significant percentage of the country to wake up and realize neither party truly has the interests of the people at heart? While both parties are full of diaperheads, a legitimate, serious third party candidate isn't happening anytime soon. So you have to make do with what you've got and put aside the ego and tribalism and make a choice based on policy and who can do the best/least worst job for the country, rather than on which party do they belong to.

And that means really examining which candidate is the lesser evil. Right now, I see Clinton and nearly all of the Republican candidates as being essentially the same and will continue pushing the Bush/Obama policies forward. Paul is backtracking away from what separates him from the pack, but that's only hurting his case. Against an ideal (my ideal) candidate he wouldn't get my vote. For all I like about him, there's a ton I dislike. However, against a more-of-the-same candidate like Clinton, I'd cross party lines and vote for him. Just for the sake of change.

Sanders has the best chance of really effecting change in Washington. He's not perfect, but there's a lot to like if you have and open mind. And he's different. And right now, the last thing we need is more of the status quo.

Agree generally.

Sanders so far is the best one out there. I can't stand the Bushes nor Clintons.

You want odds??

Well, if you bet a dollar, and end up winning, there would not be enough money in the world to pay out.

I think we have a better chance to get struck by a moon sized asteroid, and get sucked into a block hole, all in the same day.

Numerically, I think the odds are 1 : horizontal eight.

a reply to: American-philosopher

With heavy Jamaican accent.

You can't kill what can't be killed.

He is from the other side man.

(Predator 2 movie)

Seriously though, these are satanists you are dealing with, they only understand bullets and they sure bought lot of them.

a reply to: FatherStacks

I can agree with what you said We need Freedom and liberty and not democrat and republican

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: American-philosopher

I have switched from Hillary to Bernie. If he makes it, he has my vote.

en.wikipedia.org...

Bernie Sanders was born on September 8, 1941, in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Eli and Dorothy (Glassberg) Sanders.[13][14] His father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland, while his mother was born to Jewish parents in New York.

Bernie would be the first POTUS who was Jewish, that is
if your don't count the son of David Jacob Eisenhower.

JFK was the 1st Catholic, but some said America wasn't
ready for that... then BOH was the 1st African, and some
said America wasn't ready of that, so the question is:
why not a Jew?

"Is America ready for that?"

Sorry, but somebody had to ask.

a reply to: wasaka

Why do you think I care if he is Jewish? I care how he votes. I care what he has to offer to get our country out of this state of entropy.

a reply to: American-philosopher

I'm sorry to say, I would be surprised if as you say: “the people forcing a choice”


The mainstream, that huge massive block of stupidity and ignorance is too programmed to change


It would be like moving a mountain with a marshmallow

a reply to: American-philosopher

It's easy to stop. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Rudy Guiliani could all easily win their parties nomination, and all three are strong enough candidates to win the general.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: wasaka

Why do you think I care if he is Jewish? I care how he votes. I care what he has to offer to get our country out of this state of entropy.

"The US shouldn't give high clearances to Jews, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of our country, Israel." -- Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980's.