The American presidential race is a con trick


Blackleaf
#1
Is it just me, or can American presidential races be embarrassing to watch?

On Monday, Hilary Clinton actually cried on TV. There is NO WAY than in more reserved, less emotional Britain, that a politician would cry on TV during an election campaign.

But other things about this campaign irritate Brian Reade....


Race is con trick


Brian Reade
10/01/2008
The Mirror

I can never take US presidential primaries seriously for a variety of reasons...

a) They're asking people in Iowa to pick the most powerful leader on Earth (a hillbilly state where 90 per cent of the population call their sister "mom").

b) The frozen-smiled candidates all look like Madame Tussauds dummies. (I once spoke to Hillary Clinton and shivered as the words "imagine staying for an extra couple of pints after the match and turning up to face that" went through my mind).

c) Whenever they take to a podium it is to convince us they are the only person who can truly "change the world" as a mob of hand-picked, overfed, brace-toothed robots holler behind them (why do crowds of Americans often sound like a group of monkeys?).

This time the Democrats are even more annoying than the Republicans because they smugly believe they will win.

Because Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama is black they're convinced they offer a radical alternative to Bush's macho politics.

Yet who was the calculating brain behind Bush?

The one who helped formulate the neo-Con policy of American world domination through naked aggression, then toured the planet attempting to sell it?

Condoleezza Rice.

Who is both black and female (and someone else I've spoken to who looked like they'd come straight from Dr Who central casting).

America set for a radical, caring, unmacho future if a black man or a woman becomes president?

Tell that to the parents of the next bunch of kids who get slaughtered in a high school because entrenched forces like the gun lobby are the ones who truly run the country.

mirror.co.uk
 
Lester
No Party Affiliation
#2
Hilarious lmao, except for the last part,that is sadly true.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#3
Quote:

This time the Democrats are even more annoying than the Republicans because they smugly believe they will win.

I don't think Democrats are expecting to win because they're black or a woman, but for the simple fact that the Republicans just spent close to 8 years showing us what they can do for changing the world.... good job fellas.

Being black or a female is just a bonus.

Is the election a joke and a farce like the last two? We'll soon see when it's all said and done and when the winner is put to the test.

It's interesting to say the least to see the level of interesting which is going on who will "Save the Americans from Bush" and how they're trying to relate it to the JFK days.

Then again those didn't end so well.
Last edited by Praxius; Jan 10th, 2008 at 02:33 PM..
 
Lester
No Party Affiliation
#4
One president the other vp doesn't matter...best of both worlds
 
Colpy
Conservative
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Is it just me, or can American presidential races be embarrassing to watch?

On Monday, Hilary Clinton actually cried on TV. There is NO WAY than in more reserved, less emotional Britain, that a politician would cry on TV during an election campaign.

But other things about this campaign irritate Brian Reade....


Race is con trick


Brian Reade
10/01/2008
The Mirror

I can never take US presidential primaries seriously for a variety of reasons...

a) They're asking people in Iowa to pick the most powerful leader on Earth (a hillbilly state where 90 per cent of the population call their sister "mom").

b) The frozen-smiled candidates all look like Madame Tussauds dummies. (I once spoke to Hillary Clinton and shivered as the words "imagine staying for an extra couple of pints after the match and turning up to face that" went through my mind).

c) Whenever they take to a podium it is to convince us they are the only person who can truly "change the world" as a mob of hand-picked, overfed, brace-toothed robots holler behind them (why do crowds of Americans often sound like a group of monkeys?).

This time the Democrats are even more annoying than the Republicans because they smugly believe they will win.

Because Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama is black they're convinced they offer a radical alternative to Bush's macho politics.

Yet who was the calculating brain behind Bush?

The one who helped formulate the neo-Con policy of American world domination through naked aggression, then toured the planet attempting to sell it?

Condoleezza Rice.

Who is both black and female (and someone else I've spoken to who looked like they'd come straight from Dr Who central casting).

America set for a radical, caring, unmacho future if a black man or a woman becomes president?

Tell that to the parents of the next bunch of kids who get slaughtered in a high school because entrenched forces like the gun lobby are the ones who truly run the country.


mirror.co.uk

WOW!

I never.....is this guy actually under the impression he is a journalist?

He is certainly an obnoxious idiot...........

Obviously, the Mirror is not good enough to paper the floor of a birdcage..........

Someone is miffed Britain no longer rules the world........
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#6
Who rules the world Colpy?

To the sane people of the planet what the journalists has done is in the finest tradition of sarcasm and therefore definately funny. If the specticle of an American politician in tears beging the love of the demented electorate of that demented nation does not compel an uproar of laughter in the audience we can safely assume the audiance is completely brain dead, gone over to the other side no longer among us. The American electorate long ago ceased to be able to determine the difference between HollyWood and Washington for a good reason, there is none. All she had to do to produce the tears was to imagine actually enacting universal healthcare or paying her household staff living wage, the tears and wailing automatically pour forth and the electorate are enthralled and overcome with emotion and they'll continue the murder for Mrs Clinton to preserve the love and compassion. What a stupid excuse for a nation, how in hell can that ever be changed? Of course I do not doubt that our own fascist fat man Harper will one day soon be able to on stage, weep for the love of our nation and condemn us to the same empty future. He forgot to mention that piece of sactimonious crap Tony ( little dog) Blair who's almost as funny as Mrs Clinton.If you want a good laugh watch the news this evening it just keeps getting funnier and funnier with every new precision bombing mission and every corporate theft.
 
gerryh
#7
Quote:

a) They're asking people in Iowa to pick the most powerful leader on Earth (a hillbilly state where 90 per cent of the population call their sister "mom").


I read to here, and promptly dismissed the rest as more dribble from a moron.
 
Walter
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

On Monday, Hilary Clinton actually cried on TV. There is NO WAY than in more reserved, less emotional Britain, that a politician would cry on TV during an election campaign.

There's no way Maggie would cry. Mrs. Clinton staged the whole thing.
 
Lester
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

WOW!

I never.....is this guy actually under the impression he is a journalist?

He is certainly an obnoxious idiot...........

Obviously, the Mirror is not good enough to paper the floor of a birdcage..........

Someone is miffed Britain no longer rules the world........

I think they have a hard time realizing that the days when the sun never set on the british empire are long gone, but they still think they do
 
Lester
No Party Affiliation
#10
I think they have a hard time realizing that the days when the sun never set on the british empire are long gone, but they still think they are an empire (stupid cat jumped on the keyboard)
 
Toro
#11
Brian Reade is an idiot.

He must have dropped out of grade 10, or whatever they call it in Britain, then probably went on to hone his "craft" at one of those embarrassing rags the British call a "newspaper" where the primary driver of sales is some 18 year old skank with four front teeth missing prominently displaying the only two things that make her interesting.

Its hard to come to any other conclusion when someone claims that Condi was the architect of Bush's foreign policy.
 
Kreskin
#12
Did he get paid to write that? Talk about conning people if he did.
 
Lester
No Party Affiliation
#13
It's pure British caustic wit - it's main purpose is make some laugh and some mad, and all the while reminding the world of their superiority and that we are just former Colonists. You have to humour them kind of like your senile old Aunt.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro View Post

Brian Reade is an idiot.

He must have dropped out of grade 10, or whatever they call it in Britain, then probably went on to hone his "craft" at one of those embarrassing rags the British call a "newspaper" where the primary driver of sales is some 18 year old skank with four front teeth missing prominently displaying the only two things that make her interesting.

Its hard to come to any other conclusion when someone claims that Condi was the architect of Bush's foreign policy.

I suppose you think Bush was.
 
Stretch
Free Thinker
#15
In 1989 Australin Primeminster Bob Hawke cried over the Tiananmen Square massacre, some say it was more to do with a family problem...but hey, it works
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

I read to here, and promptly dismissed the rest as more dribble from a moron.

I think you mean drivel gerry, dribble is something you get when you're older.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

There's no way Maggie would cry. Mrs. Clinton staged the whole thing.

There's no way Mrs Thatcher could cry, her heart was disconnected just after the war so she could join the conservative party.
 
Walter
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

There's no way Mrs Thatcher could cry, her heart was disconnected just after the war so she could join the conservative party.

Best PM they've had this last half century.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Best PM they've had this last half century.

Yeah, but you didn't qualify they, you sneaky devil.
 
EagleSmack
#20
Just another typical Blackleaf hit and run. Why is he even here? He does not even discuss issues any longer. He posts his supposedly superior British articles and dissappears.

This One is for YOU Blackleaf... and sooooo true.

LIVING ON A THIN LINE by The Kinks

All the STORIES have been Told
Of kings and days of OLD
But THERE'S NO ENGLAND NOW
ALL the wars that were won or LOST
Somehow don't seem to matter very much anymore
All the LIES we were told
All the LIES of the people running round
Their Castles have BURNED
Now I see change,
But inside were the same as we ever were.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#21
Sing it in the mirror hayseed.....
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#22
Now the January, 2008 election: dateline New Hampshire. Zogby International has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy. It's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers showed Obama at 42% v. Clinton's 29% - an impossible gap to close in a few days or even weeks. Yet magically it happened. Clinton miraculously snatched victory from certain defeat with 39% of the vote to Obama's 36% with the loser saying no more than "I am still fired up and ready to go." Where to he should ask after this type reversal with obvious grim signs for his hopes.
Consider final New Hampshire vote tallies for all candidates compared to Zogby's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers. For Republican and Democrat candidates alike, they were dead-on right with one glaring exception. Something to ponder and question.
On the Republican side, something fishy happened as well to its one outlier - Ron Paul. The candidate's "war room" hand count showed he got 15% of the vote, but official counting gave him 8% and 9% in total when electronically tabulated votes were included. His web site said he scored 10% or better in every township and listed percentages for them all. They ranged from 34% to 10.25%. If these numbers are accurate, Paul got a minimum of 10% of New Hampshire's vote for a third place finish.
Another disturbing report also emerged. The town of Sutton admitted it voided all Paul votes. He got 31, but none made the official tally. It was blamed on "human error" that might account for a slight variance but highly unlikely to erase his entire total. Yet it did and raises strong suspicions of fraud. Once this information got out, other districts where Paul scored zero changed their final count adding votes for him never counted. Something clearly is rotten in New Hampshire. It doesn't say much for the process ahead, or past ones either for that matter.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=7770
 
EagleSmack
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Sing it in the mirror hayseed.....

Wasn't written for us troll.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#24
US Elections: Just Like the Movies. - by Ramzy Baroud - 2008-01-11

New Hampshire primary scandal: Kucinich calls for recount - by Michael Carmichael - 2008-01-11

Fraud US-Style: Fake Videos and Elections - by Stephen Lendman - 2008-01-11


2008 presidential charade promises deepening of government criminality and expansion of war - by Larry Chin - 2008-01-10
Economic Democracy and a Guide to the 2008 Presidential Election - by Richard C. Cook - 2008-01-10

NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama - 2008-01-09

I think the machine has made a big mistake. They've shown thier hand way to early, there's the better part of a year that they have to mold the results, if recognituion of the scam becomes widespread, and relativly speaking it already is, thier machinations will become very obvious. Here's the fly in thier ointment, they have to highlight the event (specticle) of election the rhetoric will become further and further from the observable reality. This may be an entirely different campainge than they forsaw. I see the sloppiness of thier rigging as an indication of how thin they have spread in an attempt to control all aspects of public life. When thay can no longer exercise enough power through the media they will exercise it through the police state, See you in camp this summer folks.haha
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#25
US Elections: Just Like the Movies.

By Ramzy Baroud

Global Research, January 11, 2008

The United States political process bears an uncanny resemblance to mainstream filmmaking. Elections and speeches are scripted to the letter, politicians put on a tirelessly rehearsed act, catering endlessly to the whims of the target audience. A successful Hollywood filmmaker can't afford to risk raising issues in a way that don't immediately reflect audience sympathies. Good politicians vying for votes are similar in that they speak according to the already existing expectations -- and prejudices -- of the voting public.
Rarely do candidates stand behind a podium without amending or overriding their personal beliefs in return for generating applause. You would hardly hear, for example, of a US presidential candidate getting booed by an audience.
Candidates do not bring fresh principals to the table, but instead shape their views based on what national and local polls tell them matters to the voting public. And what matters is largely manipulated by the media and the state. Their combined scare tactics convinced most Americans of outright falsehoods, such as Saddam's ties to 9/11, his stockpiles of WMDs, the "liberation" of women in Afghanistan, and so forth.
In a healthy democracy, the media is expected to represent the interests of the people -- all the people, while the government serves as a conduit to carry and defend these interests without violating the constitution. But in the age of evangelical fanatics, lobby groups, international corporations and lucrative Iraq contracts, democracy itself can be placed on hold.
Indeed, maintaining the image of a democracy while violating its genuine principles has consumed the efforts of successive US administrations. No other administration, however, has compromised the interest of the American people and flouted the constitution as much as the brazen Bush administration. No wonder Republicans were squarely defeated in the Congressional elections of 2006. Americans clearly voted for change, but change in a system so skilfully corrupt doesn't come easy. The way in which Democrats supported the recent spending bill for 2008, their vacillating stance on Iraq, and their downright hawkish stance on Iran say volumes about their contribution to maintaining the status quo.
Democrats are also bound by the rules of the game. They need the money, media coverage and lobbyists. Currently there are 35,000 registered federal lobbyists representing all sorts of special interests, including foreign powers such as Israel, whose collaborative role in the Iraq fiasco is too blatant to overlook.
Barack Obama, who does indeed have little experience of understanding how the system works still possesses a talent for pleasing the crowd. Thus his initial assertion that lobbyists "won't work in my White House". Then, possibly after being told by his campaign managers that special interests are more influential than the rest of the country, he tweaked his vow slightly whereby lobbyists "are not going to dominate my White House." Although his pledge changed its substance almost entirely, he was able to receive victory in Iowa.
For now, analysts can extract temporary comfort from the prevailing interpretation of the Iowa caucuses' results. Obama was elected by the Democratic caucuses with 37 per cent because he was the only nominee that managed to present a truly new message -- that he and only he can advocate real "change". As for former Arkansas governor, Republican Mike Huckabee, he was the best possible candidate to represent the Republican voters' conservative concerns. The former Baptist pastor is the rising star of the Christian evangelicals who boast 40 million followers, all tied by an outrageous message of doomsday.
Rev Stan Moody of the Christian Policy Institute, writes, "Huckabee is a Rapturist" in reference to the mid-19th Century interpretation of biblical text which culminated in 1909 as the Scofield Desk Reference Bible. This envisions -- and not metaphorically -- a Greater Israel as a precondition to the return of Christ, who, with the true Christians, will defeat Satanic forces, convert 144,000 Jews and exterminate the rest. It has no Harry Potter twists, but it puts Hollywood horror movies to shame. The actual concern is that this group has cultivated an alliance with the Israeli government since the late 1970s and is a major powerbroker in US foreign policy in the Middle East.
In her article, which appeared in The Jerusalem Post on 3 January, Hilary Leila Krieger reported from Iowa that Huckabee "has also been staunchly supportive of Israel, writing in Foreign Affairs that, 'I will not waver in standing by our ally Israel.' It is a country he has visited several times, leading groups there as well as taking his family."
According to the same article, "Huckabee has drawn on his experience in the Holy Land in making his pitch to voters, which has especially resonated with evangelicals."
With the notable exceptions of Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich, most visible presidential candidates were eager to compromise the interest of their country to guarantee that of Israel's. Clinton and Obama exemplify this. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) wrote, "Obama has always enjoyed strong Jewish support since entering state politics in Illinois in 1996, although some in the pro-Israel establishment are wary of his calls to negotiate with rogue states such as Syria and Iran." JTA, of course, nonchalantly substitute the word 'Zionist' for 'Jewish', but that's another story.
While supporting Israel, right or wrong, is business as usual for US politicians, Huckabee's advent -- described as the "second coming" of Ronald Reagan by a producer at an Iowa TV station, is the truly alarming trend. He cannot simply be dismissed as a lunatic Armageddonist who thinks that he can win an election; he actually captured the Republican endorsement in Iowa.
Huckabee knows well how to carry the momentum to the next destination -- he needs to keep up the religious fervour, as narrow-minded and irrational as it may be. We are told that this is what voters are expecting. To win, like a good filmmaker, Huckabee must deliver.
Life can indeed resemble the movies, but in the case of US elections the movie has become so familiar and predictable that it's no longer even entertaining.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).







 
Zzarchov
#26
Yes, Huckabee shares the same religion as a massive number of American's, so he, like them, should be forbidden from participating in democracy.

You really don't like the concept of a free and open democratic process do you darkbeaver.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Yes, Huckabee shares the same religion as a massive number of American's, so he, like them, should be forbidden from participating in democracy.

You really don't like the concept of a free and open democratic process do you darkbeaver.

It's a concept Zzarchov, and it rarely rises above concept into reality. Certainly dosen't in American federal politics, and certainly not in this round. If you'll check that christians own words you'll discover for yourself that he serves god first, Isreal second, and the the United States third, and people dead last.
 
Zzarchov
#28
So what? If alot of other American's think the same way and they deserve a vote and a say in government just the same.

Thats democracy. People you don't like, who think you are dead wrong (as you think about them) having a say in government just like you.

And that really bothers you, the thought of people not like you being able to speak their mind and participate in their own governance.

You have this totalitarian tone in all your posts that if people don't agree with your new world order they deserve to be imprisoned for daring to have independant thought.
 
dancing-loon
#29
Quote:

gerryh

I read to here, and promptly dismissed the rest as more dribble from a moron.


darkbeaver
Quote:

I think you mean drivel gerry, dribble is something you get when you're older.

No, dear Beaver, dribble or dribbling refers to the maneuvering of a ball around a defender.
Something you get when you're older is called dripple, like when you fart when you have diarrhea and a little wet turd slips out!

 
darkbeaver
Republican
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

So what? If alot of other American's think the same way and they deserve a vote and a say in government just the same.

Thats democracy. People you don't like, who think you are dead wrong (as you think about them) having a say in government just like you.

And that really bothers you, the thought of people not like you being able to speak their mind and participate in their own governance.

You have this totalitarian tone in all your posts that if people don't agree with your new world order they deserve to be imprisoned for daring to have independant thought.



Well don't you worry Zzarchov because I have yet to see an independent thought from you, I think I can safely save some prison space and let you do the free range thing without to much worry on my part.
 

Similar Threads

4
40
Browser image trick
by Kreskin | Jul 17th, 2007
3
Card TRICK
by Pemmican | Feb 27th, 2005