Why do you vote?

[The Great Ag]

This may seem like a silly poll, but I am curious as to the reason a GIMer votes. Personally, I do not vote, and have not voted in almost 4 years for my own reasons, and answered the poll accordingly. It is my belief that "voting" is the greatest scam foisted onto peoples around the world. The notion that the ability to cast my vote and have my political voice heard is the greatest swindle ever created by the so-called "elite." That is why I do not vote.

For those who chose, "My vote makes a difference," did your vote actually make a difference? Please explain.

For those who chose no, please explain why you do not vote.

Thanks for your participation.

The Great Ag

PS: In keeping with historical voting procedure, this poll is private so no one will know your response.

[mispillion]

i have voted regularly (national elections, anyways), but may not vote from now on. the u.s. is on the brink of disaster and all we can field are these three p.o.s. there is no hope and it is a lesson in futility. this is probably the last election anyhow. i'm not quite sure if the problem lies in a retarded electorate or a hopelessly corrupt system, but i'm throwing in the towel. as voxfux said a few years back, "it's all over now, just try and protect you and yours"
http://voxfux.com/
his site is old and no long has: new material added and i couldn't find his "sign-off". simply stated, " the bastards have won"

:goodnight

[TruAuBug]

I picked don't vote. Because I feel that my vote doesn't really count in the end. The powers to be will decide who gets elected. By saying your vote counts is another way to make the sheep feel safe and happy.


TAB

[Wingmaster05]

I voted (in the primaries) because I'm 21 years old and I want to believe that my participation through government is worthwhile. A non vote only shows apathy towards the system, it doesn't change much. We only get 40 percent of the people to vote anyway.

I've already read some of the things on GIM here, saying how voting ties you into the system by "rebelling" and whatnot...I haven't come to a conclusion just yet. It's kind of over my head.

[Master_Ho]

I voted (in the primaries) because I'm 21 years old and I want to believe that my participation through government is worthwhile. A non vote only shows apathy towards the system, it doesn't change much. We only get 40 percent of the people to vote anyway.

I've already read some of the things on GIM here, saying how voting ties you into the system by "rebelling" and whatnot...I haven't come to a conclusion just yet. It's kind of over my head.

What Wingmaster said - with an additional comment..........

I know some people do not vote because they do not think their votes counts and it ties them into the system........

Let's accept (for the sake of argument) that they are correct.

But, as Wing said, not voting shows apathy towards the system, it doesn't change much........in that I have to disagree........it changes something very major!

It tells TPTB that we are apathethic........that we do not care, that we are not watching, that we are not interested..........and, as such, that they can do anything they want cause we, the people, have, in essence, willingly said "Do whatever you want - we don't care!"

I vote because - even if its a useless process and makes no difference (and I am not saying it doesn't, I am merely working with the given premise)........its a way to say: "I care, and I am watching you (drops the F word for something more PC) monkeys!!"

Sorry - but those who do not vote are not making a difference by sitting it out - that is exactly what TPTB want - you are playing directly into their hands.......do you really think they are going to say "Wow, more and more people aren't voting, they must be upset, we should do something different!"

But that it also your right.

"Apathy will lead to the slow extinction of democracy." - Anonymous

[Tn...Andy]

I've always voted, thinking it might make some difference. I have come to the conclusion the game is rigged from the get go, and voting only adds some air of legitimacy to it, therefore, once I get a chance to vote for the slimiest democrat they can run this time, I plan to toss my voter registration in the fire.

[Twisted Avatar]

Those who vote decide nothing ........those who count the votes decide everything.

Josef Stalin


T

[Twisted Avatar]

One more thing......

If voting could ever really change anything....... THEY WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL!!
T

[Smaug]

As a former Chairman for one of the major parties in my region, I can tell you unequivically that your vote counts. And the more local the election, the more important it is. Anyone who doubts that votes count has never run for office.

Not only does your vote count, your lack of voting counts just as much. Winning elections is not just about getting people to vote for your candidate. It is also about keeping the people who will vote against your candidate, home. When you decide not to vote, you are still voting.

Someone quoted Stalin above, that the people who count the votes decide everything. I do not know what makes Stalin an authority, but the people who count your votes are your neighbors.

Here is how it works in Pennsylvania, I am sure the systems are simular in other states.

At every poll there are appointed and elected officials form both major parties. They are well know people from the neighborhood. They are paid next to nothing and are for all purposes volunteers. These officials count the votes, in public, in a room that typically has 6 to 12 people looking over their shoulders.

In addition, there are "watchers" at every poll who make sure there is no hanky panky. Any candidate who runs for ANY office can appoint his own watcher to each poll to make sure everything is fair.

After every vote is counted and the tallies are publically posted on the door of the polling place.

A representative form each party takes the results back to their local headquarters to be documented. Then, they are sent to the county headquarters and compaired against the "official tally" and against the tallies from the other party.

They are then sent to the state headquarters to be compared against official tallies.

It is near impossible to significantly alter the results of an election. There are way too many good people involved in the process.

[Weho Dave]

I vote. It is like picking a team in the Superbowl. To have a horse in the race.

Me and everybody I know voted for Ross Perot the first time he ran. He was not allowed to win. Then Bush got elected twice!!! I know Americans are dumb, but there is no way in hell they could be that stupid. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, can't get fooled again...

Now Ron Paul wins every internet poll by huge percentage points and only gets a small percent in the elections. Come on now. Who's foolin' who?

Maybe local elections are honest, but no way would they let the people make the choices that count.

[Smaug]

Now Ron Paul wins every internet poll by huge percentage points and only gets a small percent in the elections. Come on now. Who's foolin' who?
.

Do you know how many thousands of people would need to be in on the conspiracy to make your hypothesis correct?

What is harder to believe, that Ron Poll has a very small, but zealous following, that is insufficient to get him elected, or, that there are thousands of conspirators who can keep their mouths shut?

[Olmstein]

I always vote against every incumbant as a protest.

I do vote libertarian when there is one running.

I also vote against every bond measure and tax increase.

The problem seems to be that the rest of the sheep treat it like a day at the track and try to pick the winner.

We may just have gov we deserve.

[Tn...Andy]

After every vote is counted and the tallies are publically posted on the door of the polling place.

A representative form each party takes the results back to their local headquarters to be documented. Then, they are sent to the county headquarters and compaired against the "official tally" and against the tallies from the other party.

They are then sent to the state headquarters to be compared against official tallies.

It is near impossible to significantly alter the results of an election. There are way too many good people involved in the process.

How about when there is no paper record ? HOW do "they count" the vote ?

We vote on a totally electronic machine.....not a paper ballot that is run thru an electronic counting machine, so there is still an ACTUAL PAPER RECORD of my vote. I punch a button on a machine and so does everyone else and then at the end of the day, the election official punch a button to print out a paper tally, AND THAT'S IT.

SO, is there any record of any individual vote I asked......."no".

Your faith in the system comes down to who had access to the machine, who programed it to DO WHAT, and so on. Looks to me like a very small number of folks could influence what the "tally" prints out at the end of the day.

But even putting that aside, for I tend to agree.....the actual ballot box is probably the LAST place that elections are influenced.

The FIRST place they are influenced is in the so called "race" itself. Take the primaries of this year for example. The news media, influenced by SOMEBODY at some level, came out early on with Ghouliani as "the front runner".....HUH? according to WHO ???? The guy didn't do as well as Ron Paul in the actual votes finally, but for MONTHS AND MONTHS, he was the media darling.....in the so called 'debates', he was given 3-4 times the air time as lesser candidates, and so on. I contend this is NOT some accident, but a plan.

That influence carries right on down to the state and county level. Take Fred Thompson.......NEVER a serious candidate.....simply in it to dilute down the field, siphon off some of the Souther conservative vote, and then bow out after the job was done.

THE WHOLE DAMN THING IS AN ORCHESTRATED TV WRESTLING MATCH !

Please......don't bother telling me anymore that "my vote counts".....it's a total crock of shit.

[GoldWampum]

I didn't for years. That didn't make any difference either. None. Not a lick. I re-registered to vote for Ron this year, and to be honest, I think if the majority put it in their face, including record voting numbers, it would still stand a better chance than not voting. Thinking that not voting could mean anything is dumber than voting when there is an actual choice IMO.

It the lack of a paper receipt that screws us most. That should be mandatory.

[Weho Dave]

Do you know how many thousands of people would need to be in on the conspiracy to make your hypothesis correct?

What is harder to believe, that Ron Poll has a very small, but zealous following, that is insufficient to get him elected, or, that there are thousands of conspirators who can keep their mouths shut?

In a close race, it would not take thousands. Bush/Gore came down to one state -- Florida. In Ron Paul's case, they have used the controlled media to marginalize him and paint him as trivial from the beginning, while pumping up their chosen candidate(s).

The one candidate who stands for real change and tries to represent "we the people" has his support siphoned off by the media, which goes to show that it is not "we the people" who are chosing our leaders, dontchathink?

[Smaug]

The FIRST place they are influenced is in the so called "race" itself. Take the primaries of this year for example. The news media, influenced by SOMEBODY at some level, came out early on with Ghouliani as "the front runner".....HUH? according to WHO ???? The guy didn't do as well as Ron Paul in the actual votes finally, but for MONTHS AND MONTHS, he was the media darling.....in the so called 'debates', he was given 3-4 times the air time as lesser candidates, and so on. I contend this is NOT some accident, but a plan.

That influence carries right on down to the state and county level. Take Fred Thompson.......NEVER a serious candidate.....simply in it to dilute down the field, siphon off some of the Souther conservative vote, and then bow out after the job was done.

THE WHOLE DAMN THING IS AN ORCHESTRATED TV WRESTLING MATCH !
.

And how do you know all this? The fact is you don't. You are just surmising. You have no first hand experience or evidence of any kind.

Could it be that Gullianni was actually considered a viable candidate at one point? Or that Fred Thompson actually wanted to be President and filled a void and had appeal to some of the voters?

Who do think is orchestrating this farce? And how do they keep thousands of co-conspirators quite for years and years.

I have participated in management positions on local, statewide and congressional campaigns. Although I have never been a delegate, I am friends with 8 people who are or have been delegates to the presidential nomination. Did I miss a memo or something?

It is what it is - an imperfect system that gets about as close to representative government as this planet has ever seen. It is a dissapointing system for those who want dramatic and rapid change, but that is the way the founding fathers wanted it. They wanted competeing interests, balances of power and a slow moving system that was difficult to swing hard left - or right. Thankfully, that is exactly what we got.

[Smaug]

In a close race, it would not take thousands. Bush/Gore came down to one state -- Florida. In Ron Paul's case, they have used the controlled media to marginalize him and paint him as trivial from the beginning, while pumping up their chosen candidate(s).

The one candidate who stands for real change and tries to represent "we the people" has his support siphoned off by the media, which goes to show that it is not "we the people" who are chosing our leaders, dontchathink?

No, I do not think that at all.

Who exactltly are "they." And how do they control the media?

Could it be that the vast majority of voters simply think that Ron Paul has a few good ideas and is very well intentioned, but is too much of a crackpot to actually be President? That they do not want a President with unrealistic policies that do not have a chance in hell of actually becoming law.

Just because you are in the minority it does not mean that there is a conspiracy.

[Dude]

No, I do not think that at all.

Who exactltly are "they." And how do they control the media?

Could it be that the vast majority of voters simply think that Ron Paul has a few good ideas and is very well intentioned, but is too much of a crackpot to actually be President? That they do not want a President with unrealistic policies that do not have a chance in hell of actually becoming law.

Just because you are in the minority it does not mean that there is a conspiracy.

You got that right.
Case and point.
Ron Paul wants to do away with the current Public Education System. Subtract millions of votes right there. Some of you want to believe that all public schools and teachers can't do anything right. Way too much experience in this category to discuss here, and while I am not a teacher, my wife has 18 years and I've got 2 boys in college.

[Weho Dave]

No, I do not think that at all.

Who exactltly are "they." And how do they control the media?

Could it be that the vast majority of voters simply think that Ron Paul has a few good ideas and is very well intentioned, but is too much of a crackpot to actually be President? That they do not want a President with unrealistic policies that do not have a chance in hell of actually becoming law.

Just because you are in the minority it does not mean that there is a conspiracy.

"They" are the wealthy power brokers who own and control the media and decide what stories to run and how much time to give the candidates. Somebody does this.

I don't know what the "vast majority of voters" think, and neither does anybody else. They just push the buttons they are told. Perhaps you believe the opinion that Ron Paul is "too much of a crackpot to actually be President" because this is what you have been told. By whom?

As far as I know, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land and if you call supporting and defending it "unrealistic policies that do not have a chance in hell of actually becoming law" then I don't see how you will ever be able to understand the basis of Ron Paul's ideology.

I am quite comfortable being in the minority and there is no conspiracy here. It is obvious to anyone willing to see it.

[Smaug]

"They" are the wealthy power brokers who own and control the media and decide what stories to run and how much time to give the candidates. Somebody does this.

[COLOR="Blue"]How do you know this? Is it something you have been told or do you know these people personally? Are the editors of all the major newpapers and TV Networks all in on the plot? In my opinion, the only bias the major media have is towards making a profit.

Perhaps you believe the opinion that Ron Paul is "too much of a crackpot to actually be President" because this is what you have been told. By whom?

That is my observation after listening to people respond while watching the debates on TV. Since I spend more time on this web site than I do watching TV or reading Newspapers, I suppose you could say I have been told countless times why I should vote for Ron Paul

As far as I know, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land and if you call supporting and defending it "unrealistic policies that do not have a chance in hell of actually becoming law" then I don't see how you will ever be able to understand the basis of Ron Paul's ideology.

I did not say anything about the Constitution, or wether I thing Ron Paul's policies support and defend it. But I have been involved in poltics long enough to know when someone is spinning his wheels.

I am quite comfortable being in the minority and there is no conspiracy here. It is obvious to anyone willing to see it.

For what is is worth, I was rooting for Ron Paul to do better than he actually did, so that he his ideas would get more exposure.

[SWRichmond]

Smaug, I have a great deal of respect for your trading ability.

To determine the existence of a "conspiracy" in the main stream media, look no further than the dearth of truth in financial reporting, and in the total lack of reporting of our true economic condition in the MSM. Half the media are owned by dedicated repubs, the other half by dems. These people are stakeholders in the status quo, and have a vested interest in seeing it maintained. Call it a "conspiracy of interest", a term which I believe best describes it. The masses are routinely lied to by the MSM by acts of commission and omission. How many of J6P know that "Nonborrowed Reserves" went NEGATIVE in January? Has ANY talking head actually told anyone on TV what the condition of the banks really is? I have caught the media lying to me so many times they disgust me. I get more news about the condition of America from BBC than I do from 60 channels of American cable and a newspaper.

You use truth to trade, not news as reported by CNBC or the MSM.


Dude,

Teaching may be an honorable profession but it has been neutered by layers of educationist bureaucracy. Ask your wife if it isn't so.

[Weho Dave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weho Dave
"They" are the wealthy power brokers who own and control the media and decide what stories to run and how much time to give the candidates. Somebody does this.

[color="blue"]How do you know this? Is it something you have been told or do you know these people personally? Are the editors of all the major newpapers and TV Networks all in on the plot? In my opinion, the only bias the major media have is towards making a profit.


I worked for a big city newspaper for five years in the 1980's. And yes, the editors and publisher were handpicked by the family who owned the corporation. They owned several newspapers and TV stations as well. The editors and publisher were promoted because their political beliefs fell in line with the wishes of this family. How can it be more obvious than this?


Perhaps you believe the opinion that Ron Paul is "too much of a crackpot to actually be President" because this is what you have been told. By whom?

That is my observation after listening to people respond while watching the debates on TV. Since I spend more time on this web site than I do watching TV or reading Newspapers, I suppose you could say I have been told countless times why I should vote for Ron Paul.

Well, I don't think he is a crackpot. But I agree that he will never actually be president, because, in my observation he has been marginalized and trivialed and labeled a "crackpot." This is how elections are won in the USA, my friend.


As far as I know, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land and if you call supporting and defending it "unrealistic policies that do not have a chance in hell of actually becoming law" then I don't see how you will ever be able to understand the basis of Ron Paul's ideology.

I did not say anything about the Constitution, or wether I thing Ron Paul's policies support and defend it. But I have been involved in poltics long enough to know when someone is spinning his wheels.

So you call standing up for ones beliefs "spinning his wheels?" I call it integrity. Perhaps you have been in politics TOO long...

[Tn...Andy]

You got that right.
Case and point.
Ron Paul wants to do away with the current Public Education System. Subtract millions of votes right there. Some of you want to believe that all public schools and teachers can't do anything right. Way too much experience in this category to discuss here, and while I am not a teacher, my wife has 18 years and I've got 2 boys in college.

ahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

This MAKES my case exactly that the media controls WHO the general public gets to vote for......you can't find ONE SINGLE QUOTE or POSITION of Ron Paul where he states "he wants to do away with the current Public Education System"...not one......

What he HAS SAID time and again is he would do away with the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION at the Federal level. YET the media has managed to craft the idea that "RON PAUL WILL KILL PUBLIC EDUCATION" as a scare tactic....and done it well enough to convince Dude this is the absolute truth of the matter.

What most folks don't bother to go find out is that States and local govt pays about 90-95% of the funding for schools.....the FEDs take a "X" amount of funds in the form of taxes from people, fund a big agency like the "Dept of ED" that basically DOES NOTHING, and returns "X-Y" ( Y being the cost of the weenies on the federal level ) to the local schools with all kinds of strings and hoops to jump thru attached if the locals take the money.

Ron Paul merely suggests that maybe you folks out there in America would like to keep ALL of the money and decide how it will be spent rather than fund another DO-NOTHING FEDERAL AGENCY......and this was only one of the ones on his list.

[Tn...Andy]

And how do you know all this? The fact is you don't. You are just surmising. You have no first hand experience or evidence of any kind.

Nope.....but if it walks, talks and acts like a duck......

Could it be that Gullianni was actually considered a viable candidate at one point? BY WHO ???? REMEMBER, there has BEEN NO ACTUALLY VOTING DONE AT THIS POINT !! Yet, he was a "!st tier candidate".....according to the news media.....so in the so called debates, he got 3-4 times the questions over the so called '2nd or 3rd' tier candidates.


Or that Fred Thompson actually wanted to be President and filled a void and had appeal to some of the voters?

Who do think is orchestrating this farce? And how do they keep thousands of co-conspirators quite for years and years.

I have participated in management positions on local, statewide and congressional campaigns. Although I have never been a delegate, I am friends with 8 people who are or have been delegates to the presidential nomination. Did I miss a memo or something?

It is what it is - an imperfect system that gets about as close to representative government as this planet has ever seen. It is a dissapointing system for those who want dramatic and rapid change, but that is the way the founding fathers wanted it. They wanted competeing interests, balances of power and a slow moving system that was difficult to swing hard left - or right. Thankfully, that is exactly what we got.

Then drop back and look at the 2004 presidential race. The two who 'somehow' managed to become their parties candidate just "somehow" happened to both have gone to the same university, and of all the people who went there, just happened to have "somehow" ended up being tapped for a secret society ( skull and bones ) and yet manage to end up being the ONLY two 'major' candidates to choose from in 2004. 15-20 new members per year, means there are what, 800 to 1000 of them alive at any time ( the organization began in 1832 ).....so they represent, as a group, say 1000/200,000,000 adults in this county, or .000005% of the population, yet TWO OF THEM manage to end up the front runners of the parties for President. Statistically greater odds a meteorite will destroy the world.

Nah.....nothing to see here folks, move along.....ahahahaaaaaaaaa

Ross Perot comes along in 1992.....polls show him likely winning the election, or throwing it into a 3 way tie at a minimum. Ross suddenly leaves the scene....very suddenly.......and is not heard from again in any public manner for years.

Nah.....nothing to see here folks, move along.....ahahahaaaaaaaaa


So, you just keep on believing in fairy tales......Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and Your Vote Counts.

After 40 years of voting, I am not convinced it means nothing.

[Dude]

ahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

This MAKES my case exactly that the media controls WHO the general public gets to vote for......you can't find ONE SINGLE QUOTE or POSITION of Ron Paul where he states "he wants to do away with the current Public Education System"...not one......

What he HAS SAID time and again is he would do away with the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION at the Federal level. YET the media has managed to craft the idea that "RON PAUL WILL KILL PUBLIC EDUCATION" as a scare tactic....and done it well enough to convince Dude this is the absolute truth of the matter.

What most folks don't bother to go find out is that States and local govt pays about 90-95% of the funding for schools.....the FEDs take a "X" amount of funds in the form of taxes from people, fund a big agency like the "Dept of ED" that basically DOES NOTHING, and returns "X-Y" ( Y being the cost of the weenies on the federal level ) to the local schools with all kinds of strings and hoops to jump thru attached if the locals take the money.

Ron Paul merely suggests that maybe you folks out there in America would like to keep ALL of the money and decide how it will be spent rather than fund another DO-NOTHING FEDERAL AGENCY......and this was only one of the ones on his list.

Although I could have used the phrase "Department of Education" (and it would be more accurate), he wants to do away with the way the current Public Education System is run, in effect, eventually morphing it where public no longer becomes a proper qualifier. He has made comments to the effect that he would like to see movement towards private education. Dramatic change like this scares most all public school teachers. That's my point.

[Tn...Andy]

From the Ron Paul website, my underlining and comments.

The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.

I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources. Remove from the FEDS, return to the States.....JUST LIKE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS...what's wrong with following the rule book ?

To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.

Guess that is where the media finds the 'destruction of public education'....the actual freedom to get to use a lousy 5 grand of your own money to educate how you wish.....the nerve of it.....and still get to keep paying property taxes to fund public schools....


Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.
Hmmm....your wife see that ?

I have also introduced legislation to help families cope with the out-of-control costs of higher education. H.R. 193, the Make College Affordable Act, creates a full tax deduction for undergraduate college tuition, reasonable living expenses, and interest on qualified student loans.


You have a quote that backs up: "He has made comments to the effect that he would like to see movement towards private education. ".....or did you extrapolate that from the what the media told you, as you were supposed to........

[Tn...Andy]

Ya'll ever seen somebody do this card trick ?

I was at a little gathering the other day, and the speaker pulls out a deck of cards....says, folks...I'm gonna do a little card trick to open my talk.

How many cards in a deck ? Audience: 52

How many suits ? A:4

Name them. A: Hearts, Diamonds, Spades, Clubs

Pick two of those ( here is where the control starts ) A: Hearts and Diamonds

OK....we'll toss those out ( BUT had the Audience said Clubs and one other, he would have said "OK...we'll toss out the other two...because he is leading you to CLUBS )

OK, pick one of the two remaining A: Clubs

OK....we'll keep that and toss out the other.....(Or "toss that out" had they said Spades.....Making it ALL seem like you the audience were randomly picking this at your choice.)

He continues by dividing the Clubs into groups and tossing or keeping until it gets down to "WHAT'S LEFT".....and "voter" in the audience says "4 of CLUBS !!!" like they KNOW the answer !!! Heck, you're caught up in the moment.....watching the entertainment, not trying to see HOW the trick works....that only comes later when you think about it.

Then he points to a woman in the audience and says "Madam, would you take that book sticking out of you purse there, and thumb thru it for us" She does so, and is STARTLED to see the 4 of Clubs fall out ( which he had slipped in that book prior to the start of the meeting....ahahahaa)

Thus, with the TOTAL appearance of the audience picking "random" choices, which in fact he guided precisely, he got them down to the EXACT choice he had preselected for them from 52.

THIS is a card trick....but it is EXACTLY what the news media does on a national scale.

You get guided down from a full deck to a pre-selected choice or two.....BOTH OF WHICH "THEY" ALREADY OWN.

[GoldWampum]

Ya'll ever seen somebody do this card trick ?

I was at a little gathering the other day, and the speaker pulls out a deck of cards....says, folks...I'm gonna do a little card trick to open my talk.

How many cards in a deck ? Audience: 52

How many suits ? A:4

Name them. A: Hearts, Diamonds, Spades, Clubs

Pick two of those ( here is where the control starts ) A: Hearts and Diamonds

OK....we'll toss those out ( BUT had the Audience said Clubs and one other, he would have said "OK...we'll toss out the other two...because he is leading you to CLUBS )

OK, pick one of the two remaining A: Clubs

OK....we'll keep that and toss out the other.....(Or "toss that out" had they said Spades.....Making it ALL seem like you the audience were randomly picking this at your choice.)

He continues by dividing the Clubs into groups and tossing or keeping until it gets down to "WHAT'S LEFT".....and "voter" in the audience says "4 of CLUBS !!!" like they KNOW the answer !!! Heck, you're caught up in the moment.....watching the entertainment, not trying to see HOW the trick works....that only comes later when you think about it.

Then he points to a woman in the audience and says "Madam, would you take that book sticking out of you purse there, and thumb thru it for us" She does so, and is STARTLED to see the 4 of Clubs fall out ( which he had slipped in that book prior to the start of the meeting....ahahahaa)

Thus, with the TOTAL appearance of the audience picking "random" choices, which in fact he guided precisely, he got them down to the EXACT choice he had preselected for them from 52.

THIS is a card trick....but it is EXACTLY what the news media does on a national scale.

You get guided down from a full deck to a pre-selected choice or two.....BOTH OF WHICH "THEY" ALREADY OWN.

Good analogy.

I guess I don't think it needs to be that way forever. All it takes is more people agreeing it's a trick and saying so, out loud. Whether that will happen, I don't know. It can though.

It certainly takes more than the vote, but I don't think that has to be excluded. That's why I'm stickin' to my guns up to and through this election cycle and beyond.

[Smaug]

Then drop back and look at the 2004 presidential race.
.

I could just as easily point out numerous candidates and Presidents who came from humble beginnings.

I will never convince of the error of your ways you and you will never convince me of the error of mine. So we will just have to dissagree.

However, before dismissing me completely, keep in mind that I have been on the inside, not on a Presidential level, but on Congressional, Senatorial and Gubetorial levels.

[Smaug]

[QUOTE=Weho Dave;981965]I worked for a big city newspaper for five years in the 1980's. And yes, the editors and publisher were handpicked by the family who owned the corporation. They owned several newspapers and TV stations as well. The editors and publisher were promoted because their political beliefs fell in line with the wishes of this family. How can it be more obvious than this?
QUOTE]

This is exactly how it is supposed to be. If I owned a newpaper you could be dam sure that it tilted towards my beliefs.

What I have been asked to believe is that there is colusion between all the major media outlets to quash certain candidates, that they have acted in concert (without turning on each other) and that they have effectively rigged an election. In other words, despite outward appearances, the media outlets, like the NY Times and The National Review, are acting in unison to prop up puppet candidates like Guilianni and Thompson and to sabatage candidates like Ron Paul.

Now that is a fairtale.