Election Conspiracies

[Mick West]

A topical article on election conspiracies here:

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/09/ten_of_the_rights_craziest_election_conspiracies/

Including Agenda 21:

10. The Green Plot to Enslave the World
Conservatives have never taken to science. So it should come as no surprise that many of them regard global warming as a hoax whose purpose is to enrich Al Gore and a few socialist wind farmers. But there is another faction of the anti-environment movement that has uncovered something even more dastardly lurking behind the effort to maintain a clean, sustainable planet. Agenda 21, a little known and non-binding resolution adopted by the United Nations is viewed by some on the right as an attempt to control the lives of people throughout the world by regulating everything they do. Amongst their paranoid fears is that Agenda 21 will cede U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. and a one-world government. The truth is that Agenda 21 is a set of principles to guide the development of practices to preserve a sustainable environment for future generations. It is entirely voluntary and was agreed to by the U.N. in 1992 and signed by President George H.W. Bush. But to hear doomsayers like Glenn Beck put it, it will “suck all the blood out of [our communities], and we will not be able to survive.”

Content from external source

And more seriously, a look at potential dangers from conspiracy theories:

http://www.alternet.org/election-20...ight-unleash-wave-domestic-terrorism-if-obama

It's an exceptionally dangerous game that the right-wing media are playing. If Obama wins – and according to polling guru Nate Silver, he'd have a 95 percent chance of doing so if the vote were held today – there's a very real danger that this spin -- combined with other campaign narratives that are popular among the far-right -- could create a post-election environment so toxic that it yields an outburst of politically motivated violence.

Content from external source

And an Alex Jones conspiracy kind of almost makes it into the mainstream:

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...g-that-black-people-will-riot-if-romney-wins/

The Drudge Report, Mitt Romney’s favorite website, is stirring up another race-baiting conspiracy theory. Since Friday, Drudge has linked to two articles on conspiracy site Infowars.com warning of“massive riots” of black people attacking white people should Mitt Romney win the election.

Infowars excitedly posted the second article, above, after their first one “was picked up by the Drudge Report over the weekend and has since gone viral.” Drudge linked to the second story on Monday.
The Infowars story from Monday collects 11 tweets — all from accounts with African American avatars — talking about rioting if Obama loses the election. Infowars claims they only included 11 because “there are simply too many to track.”

Content from external source

 

[Charlie Primero]

Reminds me of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

 

[Mick West]

Reminds me of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/romney-cites-vast-left-wing-conspiracy/

 

[Mick West]

There's some interesting claims coming out of voting machines not working as they should:

​

Could be:

A) Broken machine (hardware - like the screen calibration is off)
B) Software bug
C) Deliberate fraud changing Obama votes to Romney (but why not do this behind the scenes?)
D) Fake video (or video exploiting a broken/buggy machine) trying to motivate Obama supporters to vote to avoid the election being stolen, or just trolling

 

[Fourthmeal]

What amazes me is that anybody is left in this country that doesn't realize it is nothing more than another reality show. All pre-determined, all planned and executed well, well in advance.

The illusion of choice is just another magic trick used to keep the peasants busy and make them feel like they are free. If you really had a choice, you would have heard and seen equal coverage from ALL parties that are running. Meanwhile candidates like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson can't possibly be included in the debates. If they were, the wrong questions would be asked, and the wrong (non-scripted) answers would come out. Hell, Jill got ARRESTED trying to gain entry. She's not my vote but she deserves to be there as much Robama.

 

[Mick West]

Do you think the winner is picked in advance (out of Romney/Obama)? How does that work?

 

[Fourthmeal]

Please pick up the book "Billionaires and Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps". This will give you a strong background on the subject.

 

[MikeC]

Corruption, vote rigging, stealing and disenfranchisement are not quite the same thing as picking who wins the election though - they still allow a competition for which side can do them best!!

 

[Fourthmeal]

But I suppose I need to add, it doesn't matter which one wins. America loses. Both of these parties follow their puppet masters and toe the line they are told to, and the agenda set forth by mega-corporations and their rich little men that run them (aka the Elite) continues unabated, with merely a few unimportant differences between candidates.

 

[Fourthmeal]

All you need to know about these bankster billionaires is that they think of one thing, and one thing only. ROI.

 

[Mick West]

So, I'm not clear - do you think it's predetermined, or not? I totally agree that there's a lack of alternative voices in national politics, but from what I can tell the competition between Republicans and Democrats is real (i.e. they would both prefer that they were in power).

Everyone wants to run the country.

And how do they keep ALL the puppet masters satisfied? Arn't there thousands?

 

[Fourthmeal]

Its predetermined in that the choices that are left to vote on (unless you actually look at the ballot and realize there are indeed other choices) are the two that are part of the same club, two sides of the same coin. The competition between dems and reps is only real if you pretend that blue vs. red is something important. To the average person who allows themselves to get caught up in the false emotions of the difference between the two, it feels quite real. Programming and constant barrage from media sources telling you that these things matter is what whips everyone in a frenzy. What is the difference between a red candidate that votes for NDAA, Patriot Act, etc., and a blue candidate that does exactly the same thing?

Get the peasants whipped up into meaningless frenzies with things like abortion, marriage, who wants to bomb a country more, etc. Make mountains out of molehill issues, while downplaying or downright completely ignoring the actual issues that matter. It is just like watching sports. A distraction goes a long way.

Mick, the ruling class still exists. They gave up their crowns so they didn't lose their heads anymore, but agendas carry on unabated.

As far as puppet masters, there are only a few. They are beyond rich, beyond powerful. It goes deep and I'm sure you'll agree, it doesn't always go to plan. There are factions vying for power every single day, and they all have different agendas. They only agree on one thing, and that is that they want to remain in control.

But as the book definitely proves, it isn't red and blue. It is all about the money and ROI. Billionaire A will put their effort into Obama 2008, and Romney 2012, laughing at those who are part of "parties". For them it is whoever makes good business sense, who will give them what they want. Power/control/wealth.

So, I'm not clear - do you think it's predetermined, or not? I totally agree that there's a lack of alternative voices in national politics, but from what I can tell the competition between Republicans and Democrats is real (i.e. they would both prefer that they were in power).

Everyone wants to run the country.

And how do they keep ALL the puppet masters satisfied? Arn't there thousands?

 

[Mick West]

As far as puppet masters, there are only a few. They are beyond rich, beyond powerful. It goes deep and I'm sure you'll agree, it doesn't always go to plan. There are factions vying for power every single day, and they all have different agendas. They only agree on one thing, and that is that they want to remain in control.

But as the book definitely proves, it isn't red and blue. It is all about the money and ROI. Billionaire A will put their effort into Obama 2008, and Romney 2012, laughing at those who are part of "parties". For them it is whoever makes good business sense, who will give them what they want. Power/control/wealth.

Okay, I just sped-read it (you can download it from http://www.gregpalast.com/ballotbandits/ 305 pages but not a lot of words.)

It seemed to be mostly about billionaires financing dirty tricks to get certain people elected. Mostly for Republicans, and most probably because Republicans favor billionaires with taxes and other policies. There were what seemed to be a smaller number of billionaires (Penny Pritzker) doing similar things for democrats, but it seemed like the majority of the voter disenfranchisement was aimed at disenfranchising the poor democratic voters.

But it really did seem to me to be red vs. blue. The billionaires mostly wanted red, because red is what gets them the most money and freedom from regulations. It did not seem like a single bunch of rich people rigging the election, it seemed like democrat and republican rich people trying to rig the election in two different ways.

 

[Fourthmeal]

Yes, its where their ROI is taking them, from their perspective. You got it. That's just this election cycle though, it wasn't always rep's its been back and forth as things go. And yes, there are different factions.

But BOTH parties still have no answer to the big, big questions. The Republicans, while Ron Paul was still in it, had a platform going that I could get behind. The platform was to take on the Federal Reserve, and start to ask the big questions like, is NDAA and the Patriot Act Constitutional. Never did though.

 

[MikeC]

One oddity with you yanks - in the rest of the world it is the socialists who use red, and the right wing that uses blue.....I do understand the historical reasons y'all are butt-over-keyster on this issue...but it's worth noting from time to time anyway

 

[Mick West]

One oddity with you yanks - in the rest of the world it is the socialists who use red, and the right wing that uses blue.....I do understand the historical reasons y'all are butt-over-keyster on this issue...but it's worth noting from time to time anyway

Yeah, I get confused, with my younger brain being british.

This page has a very interesting visual look at the red/blue (and yellow) split:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php

 

[Mick West]

But as the book definitely proves, it isn't red and blue. It is all about the money and ROI. Billionaire A will put their effort into Obama 2008, and Romney 2012, laughing at those who are part of "parties". For them it is whoever makes good business sense, who will give them what they want. Power/control/wealth.

So, Obama won, so where does this leave the theory? All the big billionaires lost? Not a very effective elite, are they?

Or was this all part of the plan?

 

[George B]

So, Obama won, so where does this leave the theory? All the big billionaires lost? Not a very effective elite, are they?

Or was this all part of the plan?

All part of the plan . . . it is just a ball game . . . one cheers for one side or the other . . . the same people own both teams . . . they can't lose . . . just entertainment to keep the cattle pacified so they won't stampede and make a mess . . .

 

[MikeC]

'cos they are all the same and there is only the illusion of choice of course - all candidates are vetted by the NWO duh!!

where were you when the memo came out??

 

[George B]

'cos they are all the same and there is only the illusion of choice of course - all candidates are vetted by the NWO duh!!

where were you when the memo came out??

Most corporations contribute to all major candidates . . . in both major parties, seems it is a common practice to appear to support the eventual winner no matter his or her stated politics . . . the people with money and power always win . . . it is rather easy to be everyone's friend or maybe they are everyone's controllers or try to be . . .

 

[Jazzy]

It's an eighteenth century voting method for an eighteenth century party politics system offering a small element of hope. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

By now someone should have noticed and quantified the burden on (theoretical) democracy these two systems have placed. Short-termism and non-issues. They will be replaced one day, or we'll all go down the AGW drain.

Until then it's a mess, but far cheaper than alternatives.

 

[George B]

'cos they are all the same and there is only the illusion of choice of course - all candidates are vetted by the NWO duh!!

where were you when the memo came out??

I assume you are being sarcastic . . .

 

[George B]

It's an eighteenth century voting method for an eighteenth century party politics system offering a small element of hope. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

By now someone should have noticed and quantified the burden on (theoretical) democracy these two systems have placed. Short-termism and non-issues. They will be replaced one day, or we'll all go down the AGW drain.

Until then it's a mess, but far cheaper than alternatives.

AWG . . . Global Warming caused by humans??? So what will replace our democratic process??

 

[Fourthmeal]

So, Obama won, so where does this leave the theory? All the big billionaires lost? Not a very effective elite, are they?

Or was this all part of the plan?

Hardly. Goldman paid into Obama's campaign just like he did Romney.

Exactly what was supposed to happen to continue the agenda, DID.

Meanwhile, if you voted, did you notice the multitude of OTHER candidates on the ballot? If money wasn't the driving factor and if things were not already pre-determined, how come you never saw any of those people in the "debates"? Because, the other candidates aren't willing to be puppets. I applaud their efforts though.

 

[Fourthmeal]

All part of the plan . . . it is just a ball game . . . one cheers for one side or the other . . . the same people own both teams . . . they can't lose . . . just entertainment to keep the cattle pacified so they won't stampede and make a mess . . .

EXACTLY. It is a reality show, one that (like most reality shows) is not really based in reality. It IS a game, a pitting involving Hegelian Dialectic mentality. Choices are predetermined by posing position A and position B in front of the public, and ONLY those two. As the ballot clearly showed, there are MANY more to vote on but these other people aren't part of the game, part of the reality show. They are outsiders, and will NEVER get their proper time as should be allotted.

And until money from corporations becomes illegal to give to candidates, until election reform removes the Electoral College, and until the "Debate Committee" is abolished and a completely open and fair system is installed in its place, you can bet we'll stay on this same agenda-filled track. Every president who has gone against the grain of the Banksters has met a bullet in the head. Symbolically that is powerful.

Lastly, I praise Ron Paul for at least attempting to fix the Republican Party from the inside out. At least it proved beyond all doubt that rampant election fraud exists and in plain sight. And that woke a lot of people right up.

 

[Mick West]

Hardly. Goldman paid into Obama's campaign just like he did Romney.

Exactly what was supposed to happen to continue the agenda, DID.

That does not gel at all with the book you asked me to read. Are you saying that Karl Rove actually wanted Obama to win? And all his dirty tricks in the other direction was just a distraction?

Meanwhile, if you voted, did you notice the multitude of OTHER candidates on the ballot? If money wasn't the driving factor and if things were not already pre-determined, how come you never saw any of those people in the "debates"? Because, the other candidates aren't willing to be puppets. I applaud their efforts though.

I voted by mail. I think we did not see the other candidates in the debates because there was no chance of them being elected. I've heard Roseanne Barr talk, she should not be in a serious debate. I would be happy to see Gary Johnson in a debate though, we need more voices in American politics. He got 1% of the vote here in California.

 

[Fourthmeal]

That does not gel at all with the book you asked me to read. Are you saying that Karl Rove actually wanted Obama to win? And all his dirty tricks in the other direction was just a distraction?



I voted by mail. I think we did not see the other candidates in the debates because there was no chance of them being elected. I've heard Roseanne Barr talk, she should not be in a serious debate. I would be happy to see Gary Johnson in a debate though, we need more voices in American politics. He got 1% of the vote here in California.

Reciprocal argument. They have no chance of being elected because their views never make it to the mainstream.

Here's an idea: Let's give it a shot. We can't possibly do worse than the giant douchebag / shit sandwich choice set.

Back to the book, it is a two part issue, and that book merely addresses one part. It simply talks about the billionaires involving themselves in the election and using dirty tricks to try and get their way. Part two of the issue is that no matter who you get out of the two, we're still on the exact same pre-planned agenda track.


We're the peasants. We don't really get our way. I've learned this a long time ago.

 

[MikeC]

apparently Donald Trump is not part of the pre-decision making process...or perhaps he's part of the coverup??

 

[Jazzy]

We don't really get our way. I've learned this a long time ago.

Good. It's part of democracy's charm that it be so.

It seems you haven't learnt to live or work with it, though. Join the club.

 

[haarp]

Think it's a big game. Kissinger and Brzezinski probably have bets with each other seeing what useful idiot gets elected next. If the GOP really wanted to win they would have put Ron Paul as a runner. No more unnecessary wars? Get the troops home? Only mainstream candidate not to talk to lobby groups? Seems like what most Obama supporters want. Obama's nearly bombed what... 10 countries since he's been in office? Nobel peace prize winner...

 

[Met Watch]

As an aftermath of the election. I know this has happened before, but I've never seen it at this magnitude.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548572/states-petition-to-secede-from-union/

My only question is - can the American public get any more stupid on the political front than they already are? This is appalling.

 

[MikeC]

given the scaremongering the conservative political machine put out I dont think it is a surprise at all.

We've had people post on here that Obama's election will cause WW3 and a financial collapse (the later by April 2013 - put it in yuor callender), and elsewhere I've seen posts about the election being he start of the United Soviet/Socialist States of America, the end of democracy, etc.

 

[Pete Tar]

Can anyone say what it is about Obama that makes the right so insanely rabid (other than what basically seems sadly to be people's not-so-suppressed racism)?
Has he really done anything bad?
Do people really think having health-care is the worst thing that can happen to them?

There is one thing I can think of that should be investigated and that is the claims of the anti-muslim video being the cause for the attack on the embassy - that was never true and they had no reason to say that, and should be made to explain themselves.
But as to claims of taking away freedoms and all that - the previous administration did WAY more in that area than Obama, why do people have such selective memories?

 

[George B]

Can anyone say what it is about Obama that makes the right so insanely rabid (other than what basically seems sadly to be people's not-so-suppressed racism)?
Has he really done anything bad?
Do people really think having health-care is the worst thing that can happen to them?

There is one thing I can think of that should be investigated and that is the claims of the anti-muslim video being the cause for the attack on the embassy - that was never true and they had no reason to say that, and should be made to explain themselves.
But as to claims of taking away freedoms and all that - the previous administration did WAY more in that area than Obama, why do people have such selective memories?

To a dyed in the wool Republican all he has to be is a Democrat . . . that isn't hard to understand and has nothing to do with racism . . .

 

[MikeC]

but racism DOES have plenty to do with it -

Obama To Unleash Racial-Preferences Juggernaut

Content from external source

I have no great beef with the article as political criticism....but have a read of the comments.......

 

[Pete Tar]

To a dyed in the wool Republican all he has to be is a Democrat . . . that isn't hard to understand and has nothing to do with racism . . .

Seems to be a factor for Bill O'Reilly...

The Fox News anchor, Bill O'Reilly says the demographics of the United States are changing, and the white establishment is no longer the majority. O'Reilly says African Americans, Hispanics and women are likely to overwhelmingly vote for Obama, because they expect he will give them 'stuff'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/vid...ll-oreilly-white-establishment-minority-video

Definitely seems to be about race to him, and not feeling properly 'represented'. If that's the standard, wouldn't that mean if the president was white that blacks aren't being represented? But it's not the job of the president to 'represent' anyway, as long as he runs the country according to the principles of democracy that's all he needs to do.

 

[George B]

Seems to be a factor for Bill O'Reilly...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/vid...ll-oreilly-white-establishment-minority-video

Definitely seems to be about race to him, and not feeling properly 'represented'. If that's the standard, wouldn't that mean if the president was white that blacks aren't being represented? But it's not the job of the president to 'represent' anyway, as long as he runs the country according to the principles of democracy that's all he needs to do.

When were women a race . . .? They may be technically considered to be a minority . . . seems if there is racism involved it is on the part of the racial and ethnic groups you mentioned as well . . . it has been shown the aforementioned groups (excluding liberal women) have strong family and moral values and are more likely to be against, for example, gay marriage and unrestricted abortion for example . . . however, they refuse to vote for a platform that supports those values . . . instead they voted against a white candidate . . . and for a candidate of color who does not support their family values . . .

 

[Pete Tar]

When were women a race . . .? They may be technically considered to be a minority . . . seems if there is racism involved it is on the part of the racial and ethnic groups you mentioned as well . . . it has been shown the aforementioned groups (excluding liberal women) have strong family and moral values and are more likely to be against, for example, gay marriage and unrestricted abortion for example . . . however, they refuse to vote for a platform that supports those values . . . instead they voted against a white candidate . . . and for a candidate of color who does not support their family values . . .

Ha, fair point. The title of the quote article however was 'white establishment minority' or something like that, so race seemed to be the main point.
It seems to be presumptious that they voted against their 'values' just to spite whitey though, although it's conceiveable I suppose.
TBH I haven't really looked into any post-election analysis which may bear out your take, I can thankfully afford to avoid it (american politics) and have done so.
(although I miss Jon Stewart and Colbert, I'll happily observe american politics through them).

One other factor that really must rile 'middle america' is that Obama's family background is muslim? That's got to be a big challenge to their preconceptions about what america means.

But what about the baarrage of racist tweets released after the election?

http://www.floatingsheep.org/2012/11/mapping-racist-tweets-in-response-to.html

Anyway, I was after any other legitimate reasons as to anti-Obama hysteria. Maybe it is just the mentality of team sports, dem vs rep.
If so, geeze, that stuff's bad for the integrity and mental health of individuals, but I guess it's good for group-bonding.

 

[MikeC]

George apparently you are wrong with those generalisations.

 

[George B]

Ha, fair point. The title of the quote article however was 'white establishment minority' or something like that, so race seemed to be the main point.
It seems to be presumptious that they voted against their 'values' just to spite whitey though, although it's conceiveable I suppose.
TBH I haven't really looked into any post-election analysis which may bear out your take, I can thankfully afford to avoid it (american politics) and have done so.
(although I miss Jon Stewart and Colbert, I'll happily observe american politics through them).

One other factor that really must rile 'middle america' is that Obama's family background is muslim? That's got to be a big challenge to their preconceptions about what america means.

But what about the baarrage of racist tweets released after the election?

http://www.floatingsheep.org/2012/11/mapping-racist-tweets-in-response-to.html

Anyway, I was after any other legitimate reasons as to anti-Obama hysteria. Maybe it is just the mentality of team sports, dem vs rep.
If so, geeze, that stuff's bad for the integrity and mental health of individuals, but I guess it's good for group-bonding.

IMO most people in this country vote along pocketbook issues first (market driven capitalism vs a government managed economy), union and party affiliation, religious and moral values and way down the list is race . . . I admit there are a few that would never vote for a person of color or a woman for example. . . but these are a small segment of the voting public . . .