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.


Do all politicians know that the 2 party system's a sham?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 01:33 AM
I'm wondering about something.

Many conspiracy researchers say that the 2 party political system in most countries is a sham and illusion of democracy created by the elite, and that in reality, both parties represent the same elite corporate interests, which is why no matter what party is in power, government policy stays the same. The differences between them are all a public show, using social wedge issues to project an illusion of a genuine debate between them.

This is how the Democrats and Republicans work, they say.

Now, if that's true, then are all the politicians in the Senate, Congress, and everyone in public office in on this conspiracy? I mean, do they all know that the 2 party system is a sham and illusion? Or do they genuinely believe that a free open debate and true democracy is going on between both parties? How can that many people, such as everyone in the House of Representatives, be in on it?

How does it work? Are all politicians in on it? Or are they victims of the sham too?

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 01:37 AM
I would guess that most of them who've been in the 'system' for a while are in on it at least in the slightest respect. Although I would assume that the incoming 'freshmen' for the most part believe in the sham, not having been exposed to how things work in Washington yet.

Just my $0.02

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 01:40 AM
reply to post by WWu777

Gotta say, WW,

We had elections here in NZ yesterday, and the rich people's party roared into power - even though a lot of us are poor.

And we have MMP, so at least we have a few MPs to keep them in line. But they still got in.

But yes, allow the minor parties to get in there to avoid a dictatorship.

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 01:58 AM
Those within the Political Realms are required to keep the facade of the paradigm,

though at times, they may just believe they are promoting legislation for their political ideology,

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 02:04 AM
I don't think they see it so much as a sham but as the best option. there to close to view it objectively.

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 02:07 AM
I think they understand but somehow justify it through their mob group mentality and the echoing approval in the media and general public. Their own egos bolstered by mindless parties' candidate worship and constant propaganda they feed each other in a cyclical fashion probably create a deep state of denial where they are sure they are doing the right thing.

edit- also most politicians benefit the status quo, and the two party system helps maintain it..
edit on 27-11-2011 by CREAM because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 02:13 AM
reply to post by CREAM

Hi Cream,

Yes, there is a lot of ego involved - but it is a sad fact that the best guys don't usually win - the schemers win.

Here in NZ, our Labour leader, Phil Goff, is so honest - what you see is what you get.

But National is full of tricks - and they won - that makes me sad.

It seems that lies win and honesty loses, worldwide.

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 02:17 AM
Is the two party system a sham? Now, over the intervening years from like 1945 to say 1980 you may be right. But, one must consider that over that time, conservatism and libertarianism has risen. Reagan was screwed by believing the leftist/statist. He agreed to raise taxes by promises to cut spending. Every conservative has been lied to, every time the leftists agree to terms, they renege on them. If this was a war, there would be no quarter given. There would be no more agreements. Therefore, the war is not a war, but a delusion.

The Tea Party has begun to see this. One of the most fervent, has decided to no longer pay into the federal system. She has said enough is enough.

When will we be so patriotic? The leftists have stated that to collapse the system is a noble cause, therefore it is our duty, nay our god given instruction to deny them our labor.

Light vs Dark, it only takes one.

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 04:09 AM
A two party system has one big advantage: It prevents a large number of unpopular bills from being introduced in congress. Instead, a large party can post it's own set of rules and standards as guidelines, making it really hard for individuals to come up with those ideas that would otherwise not stand a chance.

The problem is not having a two party system (so long as their members are allowed to vote as individuals), the problem is having two parties that get paid to do nothing.

On one side we have Obama, wasting millions of dollars promoting bills that he knows are not going to pass. In fact, this is nothing more than an early campaign for re-election, using taxpayer's money. Instead of going wild with our money, he should sit down and come up with something that both parties would support.

On the other side, we have a party that won't pass anything the president promotes (ie. jobs bill), and don't get me wrong, I personally consider this to be a good thing, the problem is that they don't offer an alternative. Pretty much they get paid to say 'no' and go home, like the country doesn't need them. Virtually all GOP candidates have some sort of plan for when they become presidents, but do they really need to wait until 2012 to introduce their own legislation? No they don't, a president doesn't introduce bills, congress does. They also need to sit down and work to find something that the current president would sign.
edit on 27-11-2011 by daniel_g because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:46 PM
Dang check out this post on my other forum. Is it true? Is this how the world really works? If so, that's so depressing isn't it?

"Damn Winston. For someone your age, you sure are naive. Instead of trying to debunk UFOs, maybe you need to read more on politics. Democracy itself is a scam. Why do you think America pushes for democracy so hard on countries, often with the use of bombs and missiles. Once a country becomes a democracy, it becomes easy for the USA to control. If you control the media, then you pretty much control the election results. A few examples include south Korea, Japan, Taiwan(not a country), Hong Kong. All of these countries/provinces are democracies, but they are also pupet regimes of the USA. If the media backs 0bama, then he'll win no matter what. If they don't back him, then they can frame him for a sex charge, and talk about it non stop in the media. This method was used against Dominique Strauss Khan, who was about to run for French president. The political scam is not a conspiracy. It's reality. The real conspiracy is that democracy represents the majority somehow. It does not matter if there's 2 political parties, or 20, as long as those parties all represent similar interests, then it's basically a dictatorship. Take a look at Ireland. They got a bunch of political parties, but at the end of the day, they all represent casino capitalism interests. That is why their economy is screwed, and now they are under the control of the IMF, and world bank. This was no accident or coincidence, and was planned years in advance. The same goes for Greece, even before they joined the European Union, and the banksters cooked by books to get them into the EU. If you take a look at 0bama, and Bush, what really is the difference between the two of them? They both represent capitalism, multinational corporations, torture, surveillance, war, imperialism, the rich, terorism, and prison industrial complex. The entire system in most "democracies" are illegitimate, and do not allow any free or open debate. All of the debate is controlled in these so called democracies. Every single person in the house of representatives is corrupt, otherwise, they would have never obtained their position. In order to run for office, you need money. Where does that money come from? They would need the support of multinational corporations, meaning they have to be corrupt, and represent the interests of multinational corporations, rather than the working class majority, which is the exact opposite of what a real democracy stands for. In a real democracy, as soon as the politician stops representing the majority, then he is pulled down. As far as I can see, this has never happened to politicians in the fake democratic world. In fact, you can argue that the exact opposite happens. Eliot Spitzer was overthrown because he threatened to prosecute Wall Street for causing the financial crisis. Since Wall Street essentially runs America, it was Eliot Spitzer who was punished, and not Wall Street. All politicians are not in on it, however, most Canadian, Australian, European, NZ, American, HK, SK, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore politicians are in on it. If they're not in on it, then you can count on them being assasinated, or overthrown soon. One example of someone who didn't play ball was John F. Kennedy. As you can see, he paid the price for it. His crime was that he was going take down the CIA. Here's who's not "in on it"- Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea. Libya was also not "in on it". Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa and refused to allow western countries to rob his country. Notice how all these countries are on the hit list of America, because they're the ones who are actually not corrupt. In this world that you live in, good is bad, and bad is good. If you want to get a better idea of how politics works, you should read from"

new topics

top topics


log in