The 2012 "Election" thread

[Nordic]

"oh sure, you shut down the discussion about avatars just when it was getting interesting.
well, why wouldn't you when you have an avatar that has a cabbage for a head?!?"

No offense to anybody at all, but that comment is simply funny.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

I have a question with regard to the powers of the president. I have seen this a few times around the web and wonder if it is true?
Because of electronic voting (and especially the 9 states with right-wing or ultra-right governors/secretaries of state), couldn't Obama enact an executive order that authorizes and demands a paper trail for votes in all states?
It looks to me that this would be such a simple solution to the whole problem of vote-stealing, disenfranchisement and the like.
Whatever my opinions on anything discussed here, I would very much like to see paper trails set up and also the electronic voting machines thrown out.
Bush era propaganda worked well in that I have heard several people state that because it is electronic it will be more accurate-sigh

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Electronic or paper, votes have been rigged as far back as votes have been tallied.

Obama would only enact such an order if it would benefit the owners, not the public at large.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

.
Electronic or paper, votes have been rigged as far back as votes have been tallied.

Obama would only enact such an order if it would benefit the owners, not the public at large.

This is why I can't imagine he doesn't do it. If he is truly fighting for re-election, the dems, whatever. I just cannot believe Obama is so naive or stupid-especially after 2004, that he doesn't realize the far right will steal this one if they can. Far right here being fascist. John Judge is correct (and this was from his 2002 talk) the only 'acceptable' MSM debate is between moderate conservative and open fascist, which of course has only gotten worse since 2002.
There doesn't seem to me, to be a reason for him not to authorize a nationwide paper trail for 2012 if he is fighting any kind of fight for him or his people. If I am wrong, and there is some legal issue with this (lol just can't imagine after other crap that is 'legal') I stand corrected.

[JackRiddler]

I cannot imagine that the president has or has ever asserted such a power by executive order. Governing the voting process is left to the states. Originally who gets to vote and how was left entirely to the states. All changes or attempts to impose federal standardization of state election processes that I know of have involved constitutional amendments, legislation like the civil rights acts and things with Orwellian names like "Help America Vote Act," or judicial interpretation of laws on the books.

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^ Certainly the appropriate response under the current set of laws/regulations. However, we've witnessed over the years how events -- staged or otherwise -- are utilized as a catalyst to invoke sweeping new powers/laws at the executive and other levels.

In any event, the 'Bama and Mitt are ultimately colleagues advocating for the same cause -- and it sure as hell got little [or nothin'] to do with whatever concerns we may have about the direction of this country/planet, near or long-term.

[JackRiddler]

In any event, the 'Bama and Mitt are ultimately colleagues advocating for the same cause -- and it sure as hell got little [or nothin'] to do with whatever concerns we may have about the direction of this country/planet, near or long-term.

Okay, who's disagreed with that? Wall Street, national security state, multi-death corporations, rule of the rich, aggressive foreign policy, low-intensity war with many countries, Pentagon budgets. Sure. Of course, there are some apparently minor-to-you differences that are enormous for the millions of people they will actually affect, but... whatever, right? They're close enough to being the same!

Ideological understandings nevertheless count. In this stage-show of an election, the tacit question from the power elite to the American public is nevertheless as I described: "How badly do you want to be fucked? Badly? Or really very much more badly than that? Are you actually stupid enough to vote for the one who is openly promising to butcher your kind for spare parts? (If you don't vote, by the way, that's wonderful. You should all shut the fuck up.)"

This point is elementary enough to understand, even if you disagree, but mostly the response is to ignore it.

Not only that, but to the mass psychology there is a difference, and even those who vote for the loser will later believe that the majority really supports the ideology of the winner, so what's the point in contesting it? Which of these fakers is in charge affects the conditions under which social change movements can operate.

[Lottie McLotsaluck]

Thanks- gotcha about HAVA being effed up and the states running the elections. Still and all, with everything that has happened before in the name of legality, the WoT, everything and the kitchen sink, I just don't understand why ordering a paper trail only- nothing else- just a paper trail, would be so onerous. Again, this is considering everything that has gone on since 2001.
I am not trying to be bitchy or argue or anything else, and perhaps I am just very obtuse.
And of course, the same offices could probably find a way to screw it up anyway with a paper count, but if something isn't done about the electronic voting, especially in the 8 or 9 states, I think Obama can kiss the election good-bye.
again- everyone- this is friendly dialogue from me - not arguing-please don't disembowel me anyone!
I could also be very wrong about the e-voting in the 'swing states'-I have been wrong many times about US elections before. I mean looking at it from where I sit - ultra right steal the election? Of frikking course!
They don't give a fig how 'legal' or 'honest' anything looks.
All I am saying, basically, is that it is sort of a waste of time imho to talk about this like we are if we are just going to get a 2004 redux and nothing (or not much) is being done about the stealing/e-voting part.
Lottie-on that note I bid you all a great eve or morn and a wonderful day tomorrow!

[Nordic]

Lottie. What in the world would lead you to believe that the people who really run things -- the people who created Obama and put him in power in the first place -- would want to fire him and to replace him with Moron Mitt?

Obama has done wonders for the ruling class. Profits are at an all time high, the stock market is soaring, organized labor is as weak as its ever been, the anti wR crowd has sll but disappeared, the Total Surveillance State is beciming a reality, and we are spreading war profiteering and endless combat to all parts of the globe. Obama is the absolutely PERFECT "leader" for them, especially considering "liberals" are still under the delusion that he represents THEM. I really dont know rhe last time the ruling classes had it so good here! You'd have to go way way back. Or maybe just to the 50s. Although during the 50's they seemed to at least be willing to share the wealth with the middle class. Those days are long gone.

Seriously, there is no credible threat to four more years of Obama.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

JackRiddler: Ideological understandings nevertheless count. In this stage-show of an election, the tacit question from the power elite to the American public is nevertheless as I described: "How badly do you want to be fucked? Badly? Or really very much more badly than that? Are you actually stupid enough to vote for the one who is openly promising to butcher your kind for spare parts? (If you don't vote, by the way, that's wonderful. You should all shut the fuck up.)"

Is that what the power elite are asking of the public? That would imply they are empowering the American Public with a choice, no? In my view, the American Public has no true "choice". The public is presented with 2 "choices", both mouthpieces for the very select few and detrimental to the interests of the American Public.

I'm not sure at this point how much of a "choice" the public has anymore. How many millions will vote based on media suggestions/manipulation? Or mis/disinformation? Indeed, the controlled media has almost mastered the fine art of conditioning/manipulation at this point. Of course, outside of the media's influence, there's the added element of straight-up vote fraud/tampering.... In essence, the next President has likely already been selected for some time -- we're merely witnesses to the spectacle, the grand theatre/ritual that comes around every 4 years to provide us the framework for 'democracy in action'.

You say that one of these 2 choices would negatively impact "millions" of lives... but i'm not sure how one can reach such a conclusion with such ease.. for we know not what the next 4 years have in store for us, and there are varying opinions as to the level of knowledge and/or involvement the 'power elite' may or may not have on future events.

Humor me for a moment with a simplistic hypothetical/rhetorical scenario: Let's assume for the moment that 9 1 1 was indeed carried out by certain elements within the 'power elite' and in fact had been planned for some time prior to 2001... Is there a thought among any here that the aftermath/repercussions that followed that event would have been substantially different if Gore was President? And IF Gore was President, would that not have also been part of the power elite's plan, as well as any deviation to any post-event actions that actually occurred?

In essence, my point reduced may be: how much do WE indeed play a role anymore in what may occur? And is the "choice" made really going to make a difference in what events transpire in the next 4 years, or do the events that are planned to transpire over the next 4 years dictate who will be "Our President" in 2013?

[I'm beginning to re-think posting this after returning from a social event and well over the legal limit, but whatev.. I'll let it fly]

[compared2what?]

.


Humor me for a moment with a simplistic hypothetical/rhetorical scenario: Let's assume for the moment that 9 1 1 was indeed carried out by certain elements within the 'power elite' and in fact had been planned for some time prior to 2001... Is there a thought among any here that the aftermath/repercussions that followed that event would have been substantially different if Gore was President? And IF Gore was President, would that not have also been part of the power elite's plan, as well as any deviation to any post-event actions that actually occurred?

That's an interesting question.

...

I don't know the answer. But I guess that the deviation, if there had been one, would have been Iraq. It was a major business priority for Bush's big donors and running buddies in a way that it wouldn't have been for Gore's. And there wouldn't have been all those neocons in key cabinet positions, Defense, and State. Presumably.

Just thinking aloud. I suppose there would have been other ways to get there, had it been where someone wanted to go. I'm just not sure who would have wanted to go if the Big Oil/neocon crowd hadn't been around.

[JackRiddler]

The system is deeply invested in the study and manipulation of public opinion. It doesn't mean a choice is given as to policy. Even the Nazis obsessively tracked and feared German public opinion throughout the war. Public opinion defines what power elites think they can get away with. Power is never absolute. The power elites are not a single factionless monolith that will always act in the same way. It's incredibly naive to think that these kinds of resources are invested without an expectation of return. Different interests line up behind different candidates with expectations of different rewards and results depending on whether their own candidate wins.

Humor me for a moment with a simplistic hypothetical/rhetorical scenario: Let's assume for the moment that 9 1 1 was indeed carried out by certain elements within the 'power elite' and in fact had been planned for some time prior to 2001... Is there a thought among any here that the aftermath/repercussions that followed that event would have been substantially different if Gore was President? And IF Gore was President, would that not have also been part of the power elite's plan, as well as any deviation to any post-event actions that actually occurred?

Assuming such an operation, it is inconceivable to me that it would have gone forward under a government other than the Bush Regime that came to power through the stolen election and judicial coup of 2000. Far too risky. You may think of some vague "elements within the power elite." Actual evidence of inside orchestration points to specific members of the Bush mob, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney. The Bush mob was a tight-knit group of spook criminals with a long record working together in the execution of war crime, coup d'etat, plunder and terror operations dating back to the 1970s. No other faction or group in American politics can remotely compare as a coherently-structured crime syndicate. Execution of 9/11 as an insiders plot would have required direct and specific foreknowledge and enabling by people in administration positions, doubtless with involvement in planning prior to the election. The Bush regime was an essential engineer. Gore hadn't spent the previous 20 years rehearsing continuity of government scenarios, and for all his acceptance of the warfare state, he also didn't dream or advocate wars and invasions of the Middle East on the scale of the PNAC plan. I think there is no doubt about the naive Democratic point (assuming 9/11 had happened anyway, even without its likely central planners in power) that Gore would have responded to "Al-Qaeda" by invading Afghanistan only, certainly not Iraq with its millions of casualties and refugees and destroyed lives.

But I suppose the hidden question you have raised is, who in the world do you think "did" 9/11?

.

[Belligerent Savant]

Humor me for a moment with a simplistic hypothetical/rhetorical scenario: Let's assume for the moment that 9 1 1 was indeed carried out by certain elements within the 'power elite' and in fact had been planned for some time prior to 2001... Is there a thought among any here that the aftermath/repercussions that followed that event would have been substantially different if Gore was President? And IF Gore was President, would that not have also been part of the power elite's plan, as well as any deviation to any post-event actions that actually occurred?

Assuming such an operation, it is inconceivable to me that it would have gone forward under a government other than the Bush Regime that came to power through the stolen election and judicial coup of 2000. Far too risky. You may think of some vague "elements within the power elite." Actual evidence of inside orchestration points to specific members of the Bush mob, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney. The Bush mob was a tight-knit group of spook criminals with a long record working together in the execution of war crime, coup d'etat, plunder and terror operations dating back to the 1970s. No other faction or group in American politics can remotely compare as a coherently-structured crime syndicate. Execution of 9/11 as an insiders plot would have required direct and specific foreknowledge and enabling by people in administration positions, doubtless with involvement in planning prior to the election. The Bush regime was an essential engineer. Gore hadn't spent the previous 20 years rehearsing continuity of government scenarios, and for all his acceptance of the warfare state, he also didn't dream or advocate wars and invasions of the Middle East on the scale of the PNAC plan. I think there is no doubt about the naive Democratic point (assuming 9/11 had happened anyway, even without its likely central planners in power) that Gore would have responded to "Al-Qaeda" by invading Afghanistan only, certainly not Iraq with its millions of casualties and refugees and destroyed lives.

But I suppose the hidden question you have raised is, who in the world do you think "did" 9/11?

.

All valid points, and I certainly would not argue against the Bush mob's deep-rooted involvements in such activities, going back generations. However, at the higher levels Bush/what he represents and Gore/what he represents are ultimately tools to achieve ends; their "badges" as 'Republican' or 'Democrat' serve only as a means of influencing/swaying the public towards one agenda or another --- when necessary.

We can only speculate as to how the "Gore camp" would have responded, and whatever actions enacted would of course have been part of "the plan" regardless. The outward machinations may have contrasted from how it was handled under Bush [and again, we can then speculate on how much of a difference it may have made Re: how lives may have been impacted differently one way or the other; C2W also provided plausible 'hypothetical' scenarios of how it may have transpired under Gore, but I'm of the opinion that at the higher levels, regardless of any difference in varying degrees of philosophy, they are collaborators. In other words, even the "Big Oil/Neocon" gang are tools to serve ends/agendas, not necessarily actual beliefs held by this 'power elite']; the choice or decision to move in the Bush rather than Gore direction was out of our [The Public's] hands.

Clearly in the above rhetorical example the 'power elite' chose to opt for the Bush/more outwardly aggressive position, but I would theorize that with Gore installed the desired outcome for the select few would not have been much different; certainly marketed differently to the Public, perhaps -- and here one can make the argument that lives may have been less negatively impacted to achieve said goals, but again the Public is/was not involved in such decisions.

[pardons for the redundancies]

Re: carrying out 9/11, I've been of the opinion -- from the day that it occurred -- that nothing we would be told about that day would be of any merit. Those responsible continue to be actively involved in decisions made.
In fact, in many respects, that day was a bold step by the mongrel elite from performing relatively covert actions [at least with regards to mass awareness] to OVERT actions jarring individual/collective consciousness at large. As has been discussed here at length, it signaled a distinct and marked change in approach [to put it euphemistically] regarding their methods of control over the mass populace.

[JackRiddler]

However, at the higher levels Bush/what he represents and Gore/what he represents are ultimately tools to achieve ends; their "badges" as 'Republican' or 'Democrat' serve only as a means of influencing/swaying the public towards one agenda or another --- when necessary.

No person and no class is entirely invisible. Who is this higher level? Who are the members, where and how do they execute decisions? What makes them "higher" rather than "one of various groups and factions within an extreme concentration of power, wealth and prestige"?

Re: carrying out 9/11, I've been of the opinion -- from the day that it occurred -- that nothing we would be told about that day would be of any merit. Those responsible continue to be actively involved in decisions made.

Told by whom? Thousands of sources have something to say about some part of 9/11. To exclude everything "we" are told as having no merit excludes almost all evidence. Are all recorded images also excluded from your concept of merit? Seems to me this just leaves a prior presumption that anything that happens is due to some invisible "them" and "we" will never know jackshit, although we can claim anything we please (and feel smug in this form of self-invented higher knowledge).

Note: The evidence accumulated and released so far from the 9/11 Commission itself can also be used to demonstrate that the 9/11 Commission Report is deceptive at its core.

But maybe I'm self-deluded because I've invested so much time in actually studying history and such shit, as if I could learn something from inquiry I didn't already know by global assumption?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

No person and no class is entirely invisible. Who is this higher level? Who are the members, where and how do they execute decisions? What makes them "higher" rather than "one of various groups and factions within an extreme concentration of power, wealth and prestige"?

--- F'd if I know. I'm merely theorizing; I may very well be wrong on all fronts, not that it would matter [though on edit it seems you're over-analyzing semantics]. Surely I would not be one to know of such things with any level of certainty, though I never claimed I did. By all means, you are welcome to provide your insights on this topic, though I disagree on the point that no person/class is entirely invisible.

Told by whom? Thousands of sources have something to say about some part of 9/11. To exclude everything "we" are told as having no merit excludes almost all evidence. Are all recorded images also excluded from your concept of merit? Seems to me this just leaves a prior presumption that anything that happens is due to some invisible "them" and "we" will never know jackshit, although we can claim anything we please (and feel smug in this form of self-invented higher knowledge).

Note: The evidence accumulated and released so far from the 9/11 Commission itself can also be used to demonstrate that the 9/11 Commission Report is deceptive at its core.

But maybe I'm self-deluded because I've invested so much time in actually studying history and such shit, as if I could learn something from inquiry I didn't already know by global assumption?

I was referring specifically to the mainstream narrative, Shakespeare. the 9/11 Commission and subsequent report[s] are also part of the mainstream narrative of lies/BS sold to us.

"Self-invented"? -- sure. It's all in my mind. Most of my comments are primarily theories based on observations, analysis, intuition, if you will. I've taken numerous theoretical liberties in my responses -- and as such may very well be inaccurate. I have no inside intel, needless to say.

Congratulations on picking apart comments from an anonymous forum post. How does that change anything about what may or may not occur over the next several years? The outcome of National elections have been and will continue to be controlled by a select few, regardless of any disagreements you or I may have about the root drivers of such activities.

Perhaps my writing style may come off as smug... it sure is special to have Shakespeare call me smug, though, huh? That's quite an achievement