Jump to content
The Education Forum

US Elections Over: Nothing will Change.


Recommended Posts

As someone who lives in the UK it does seem that it matters who is elected as president of the US. Of course I am aware that big business is behind all the main candidates. That was true of Bush and Kerry last time. Yet I think it would have been different if Bush had not been elected. I am especially interested in the prospective candidates opinions on foreign policy and climate change. After all, these are the two policies that will have the main impact on people living outside the US. Any information on this will be very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Election ended tonight. If either Hillary Rodham Buh or O' bomb em wins absolutely nothing will change.

Do you think John Edwards is no chance?

I still think he's a chance to win the nomination because he ran second in Iowa. There's still a long way to go.

I think McCain will win the GOP nomination. He's the best political salesman out of that scary bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Election ended tonight. If either Hillary Rodham Buh or O' bomb em wins absolutely nothing will change.

In Diebold we trust...New Hampshire resurrections a speciality!

Exactly.

The last two election cycles have taught me that presidential elections (and probably others) are often stolen in the primary cycle.

In 2004 Howard Dean should have had the nomination, but he was not the candidate of the Ruling Elite/Establishment. John Kerry, fellow Yale alumni/Skull and Boner of Bush's was the chosen candidate of the Ruling Elite. Accordingly in the Iowa caucus he *somehow* managed to come from way behind to beat the heavily favored Dean. Incidentally, the Iowa Democratic caucus is VERY easily corrupted by outsiders (either from other states or other parties). In addition, when caucus results are uploaded en masse they can be tampered with.

Bottom line the Establishment insured that Kerry "won" the nomination and the fix was in at that point. The Bush klan could, and did, proceed to blatantly steal the election with the aid of pals in Ohio, the key state. Kerry could be counted on to take a dive, i.e., promptly concede the election in spite of overwhelming evidence of vote tampering in Ohio, which he did. One Skull and Boner helping out another; is this a great country or what?

Now, in 2008, we see the same scenario playing out. Obama is way ahead in the polls, no one can stand the sight of Hillary, but she is the pro-war candidate of the Ruling Elite. Accordingly in the New Hampshire primary she *somehow* managed to come from way behind to beat the heavily favored Obama. Incidentally, as Paul indicated, the New Hampshire primary results are "counted" (81%) by Diebold, the very company behind the 2004 election fraud in Ohio.

Clearly Hillary is the new Kerry, except in this case they'll likely allow her to move into the White House because they can count on her to maintain the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last two election cycles have taught me that presidential elections (and probably others) are often stolen in the primary cycle.

I've often wondered if that isn't equally true of assassinations, and discreditation, ops, too. Bury your target promising pol, for example, in a list of "serial killings" or somesuch. Avoids all that nasty publicity etc.

Clearly Hillary is the new Kerry, except in this case they'll likely allow her to move into the White House because they can count on her to maintain the status quo.

My problem with all - any - of the prospective Democrat occupants of the White House is this - what will all those neo-cons be doing in opposition? Will they go quietly into the good night? Doubt it. Unless, of course, a series of major trials were to tie them up in legal knots for the duration...

Can't see it, can you?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last two election cycles have taught me that presidential elections (and probably others) are often stolen in the primary cycle.

I've often wondered if that isn't equally true of assassinations, and discreditation, ops, too. Bury your target promising pol, for example, in a list of "serial killings" or somesuch. Avoids all that nasty publicity etc.

Clearly Hillary is the new Kerry, except in this case they'll likely allow her to move into the White House because they can count on her to maintain the status quo.

My problem with all - any - of the prospective Democrat occupants of the White House is this - what will all those neo-cons be doing in opposition? Will they go quietly into the good night? Doubt it. Unless, of course, a series of major trials were to tie them up in legal knots for the duration...

Can't see it, can you?

Paul

__________________

Noisy Republican Senators. This is just one of the variables that will produce an equation of no change. When the Republicans are in Minority, they ALWAYS SOMEHOW manage to be on TV AND LOUD making the headlines anyway. Contrast that with the Vociferous Harry Reid. There will be some fake cultural issue a la the gays in the military--psychlogically warfarishly timed in 1993-- to create the APPEARANCE of opposites if there is a Dem prez. Then the dem prez will work with 20% of dem majority and ALLl the Republicans to do whatever War Oil banks and drugs and the MIC want. If it already worked that way under Clinton, HOW MUCH MORE RIGHTWARD WILL IT WORK NOW?

Ain't it funny how we get an oppostion party-- the second a Democrat is in the White House!!

The elections are the exact opposite of politics. They are a psy-op, a pacification program to prevent the coherence of an opposition.

Politics is media,now. Nothing will change until pressure or some kind of cost is felt by the coroporate media. That will not happen until the concept of left-gatekeeping is more widely understood. The so called "left" media are doing everything to avoid an open challenge the credibility of the Corporate Media.

Just so, is the "new media" the crutch of the old. "Here, paly with this", Lucy said, as she throws Linus the rubber band, and walks out with 57 toys.

Anyone who doubts that the Media make elections a tertiary consideration may not have seen the NH ABC-Faceboook debate last Saturday. The ABC NEWSANCHOR who hosted it took the first half hour to pose questions predicated on Pakistanis with nuclear weapons, and took no time to quible over outdated subtlties in the history of the ISI. It sounded like he had just got through writing the FOX torture show called "24" and dropped in to chat with fans.

Suddenly eight years of Bush disaster were dreams from another planet. The discourse was titlted into MICC territory before Bill Richardsons chins could grin.

Myscepticism about Edwards chances are not based so much in his performance, as in just how stacked this Corporate Media Deck is towards one of the two Lieberman's little helpers( Recall that BOTH HRC and O'bomb'em campaigned for Colt Gunner Joe, AFTER HE HAD ALREADY LEFT THE DEMS AND BOLTED THE PARTY!) GEEZ, THEY GROW 'EM WEIRD IN CONNECTICUT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exit polls show that there was a dramatic swing by women voters towards Clinton over the last couple of days. Two possible reasons for this:

Gender: (i) Clinton got close to tears when asked about the pressure of running for office. This was interpreted as someone who was suffering for the good of her country. This “emotion” apparently went down well with women voters. (ii) A couple of men held up anti-feminist placards “Iron my Shirt”. This allowed Clinton to raise the issue of sexism. This again went down with women voters. (It is assumed by some political commentators that the men were “Clinton plants).

There was also another reason why the polls got it so wrong - race. White people were willing to tell pollsters that they intended to vote for Barack Obama. However, when it came to a secret ballot, they could not bring themselves to vote for a black man.

A Republican strategist told the BBC that the American electorate is not ready for a black or female president. As far as the Republicans are concerned, they will win the election if Clinton or Obama is elected.

As an outsider I think it is a good thing that it is going to be a close race between Clinton and Obama. So far they have been far too vague on policy issues. Maybe they will now have to be more specific about their proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything". ---- Joseph Stalin

I have not heard that one before. Of course elections were always held in Communist countries. But as Stalin admitted, it is party officials who do the counting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exit polls show that there was a dramatic swing by women voters towards Clinton over the last couple of days. Two possible reasons for this:

Gender: (i) Clinton got close to tears when asked about the pressure of running for office. This was interpreted as someone who was suffering for the good of her country. This “emotion” apparently went down well with women voters. (ii) A couple of men held up anti-feminist placards “Iron my Shirt”. This allowed Clinton to raise the issue of sexism. This again went down with women voters. (It is assumed by some political commentators that the men were “Clinton plants).

There was also another reason why the polls got it so wrong - race. White people were willing to tell pollsters that they intended to vote for Barack Obama. However, when it came to a secret ballot, they could not bring themselves to vote for a black man.

A Republican strategist told the BBC that the American electorate is not ready for a black or female president. As far as the Republicans are concerned, they will win the election if Clinton or Obama is elected.

As an outsider I think it is a good thing that it is going to be a close race between Clinton and Obama. So far they have been far too vague on policy issues. Maybe they will now have to be more specific about their proposals.

=--------------------

This has some interesting stats suggesting the possibility of vote fraud. SE THE PARAGRAPHS ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEEN HAND COUNTED AND MACHINE COUNTED BALLOTS. WITH SUCH A HIGH SAMPLE, IT STRIKES ME AS SIGNIFICANT.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01112008.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

These elections are overer than ever. This was the most cut off engineered and tailored by Corporate Media Dem primary in history. The Democrats ONLY eist to make the Republican right wing extremism seem mainstream.

Only an UPLANNED cirisis could make the dems pretend to be something else now.

I dont know which is the more unbelievable Bush Enabler Hillary or Obomb'em Its like we are living through some 22 year olds Masters Thesis in Communications Research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

CORPORATE MEDIA TO OBAMA: YOU WERE ONLY TO BE HILLARY'S AIR-BAG

Air-Bag as in protection.

The Corporate Media hit on Howard Dean and obvious and huge boost that they gave to Kerry in 2004 was too much to attmept again in 2008. People would catch on.

Solution:3 in the spotlight. Blow up another candidate as the UnHillary to split the vote with a more specific, union type (this time Edwards would play that role) Of course most of the TV time, would be the Hillary and Obama show.

Some are saying this is crazy Obama is naturally charismatic. etc. Umm how did he get nationally know? He was on page 1 of nyt as a state senator from Ilinois a half a year before the Senate election. He was promoted by elites within the democratic party, to use race as a decory from the Harry Reid Mummification of the Democratic party and how they said nothing for eight years to really contest Bushs lies.

Notice that that the MEDIA ONLY BEGAN ATTACKING OBAMA ( and I agree that he obviously got a free ride-- he was supposed to in his role as Hillary's air-bag)ONCE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE WAS TO THE RIGHT, NAMELY CLINTON INC. profressional Bush enablers.

It is almost comical how the media are rushing to claim momentemm for Hillary. THey said she had to win big in Texas , she didnt, and now it doesnt matter she stil has momentem. Again, the point is not that Obama doesn't deserve criticism, he does. Its when that criticism is being relayed by the Corporate Media. Conspiracy theory? Really? Maybe to someone who has read nothing about media and politics. Recall how Adam Nagourney quoted ONLY dem "party insiders" to whittle Deans 44% day after day after day after day in december January 2004 in Iowa. Party insiders have a way with Adam Nagourneys when the crucial primaries approach. How about the hilarious spectacle of the NYT portraying Hillary as SCRAPPY??? when she has raised around 300 MILLION DOLLARS FROM CORPORATE AMERICA, INCLUDING THE DRUG COMPANIES AND DEFENSE CONTRACTORS WHE IS SUPPOSED TO BE REGULATING?

You would never have seen this headline or article while another option besides Hillary was in the race.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/polit...09obama.html?hp

_________________

Operation Mockingbird Spartacus:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

Operation Mockingbird Education Forum

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5142

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Election ended tonight. If either Hillary Rodham Buh or O' bomb em wins absolutely nothing will change.

I'll bet there will be a new Attorney General of the USA.

BK

________________________________

Yes Bill there's still a chance of that!

But remember, even if a dem is elected, the Legislative Branch will have woken up and Republicans (minority, no matter) will be on TV every night, unlike the current Senata and house Mummy majority leaders. Any new AG will have to pass through this crew, and besides look who was just appointed at the suggestion of NY dem Chuck "American Expres" Schumer. Its a shell game with two shells and both may as well be owned by shell. Sure you can find a micro-difference, but after looking at the last eight years, I have concluded that Lesser of Two Evilism -- as media-managed-- IS the evil. No way Bush could have done this without a completely toothless Democratic party. And it pays them well to be gummy!

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...