0
0

[–] flyawayhigh ago 

Both sides commit election fraud (as I mentioned earlier.)

Not really. The halcyon days of election stealing took place starting in 2002 after Bush stole the election. Take a look at what happened in Georgia that year. First, there was "red shift," then there were "adjusted exit polls," and finally, they just tried to discredit and eliminate exit polling altogether. On a separate thread, there were mandated electronic voting machines, paperless ballots, and restrictive voting laws. Sorry, but this was all to benefit Republicans. Until the 2016 primary, facts were very much one-sided with a few exceptions: Hillary stole the 2008 New Hampshire primary from Obama!

insinuates that it's in some way the republicans tactic to steal elections

Actually, yes. Even in the famous "Chicago" election theft in 1960, the fact is -- Nixon dropped out after sample recounts increased Kennedy's lead.

It is no coincidence that Hillary Clinton is a "moderate" -- and that so many Republican officials are now supporting her. It is only in 2016, in this seemingly bizarre election, that the Media is supporting the Democrat. I've watch enough of these to know. There are plenty of studies on the subject too.


Let me paint some really big picture here:

In the general halls of governance, under any system at any time, there are always two camps -- the establishment and the opposition.

The establishment sect has more power by definition.

The establishment sticks together to maintain authority.

The opposition has less power.

The opposition is splintered.

Both the establishment and the official opposition agree on certain points in the paradigm that maintain the power of both.

The opposition is compromised and shilled out -- it is a branch of the establishment.

Both sides are not equal. They never are, they could never be.

When the establishment is supported, it rubber stamps elitist power.

When the opposition is supported, both groups make concessions to gain or to hold power.


2016 is an oddity -- or it appears to be. Hillary Clinton seems to be representing the establishment. I have my doubts. I watched the Tea Party closely. It was never serious opposition. Trump may not be either.

I don't plan on voting for either.

0
1

[–] OhBlindOne [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I don't plan on voting for either.

We can definitely agree on that front.

I do have to disagree about the Republican's being the forefathers of election fraud.

Election Fraud has been going on all over the world for ages, by both sides

I'm not trying to say that the republicans are good and the democrats are evil, because, in my opinion, both sides are neutral, it all depends on who's currently running in them. Both sides, currently, are filled with corruption, have been for decades.

I agree that it's always the establishment v the opposition, but might it be that both the democratic and republican parties have become the establishment?

There have been many examples of the illusion of choice that have crept up in governments across the globe, might this be another one of those examples?

There are those in power who want to control people, who want things their way, we don't usually hear about these people in the media, etc. because they have a vested interest in keeping themselves hidden. This always sounds like a sci-fi novel, but it's just common sense. There are incredibly rich and powerful people in the world, we can agree on that. If I was super rich and powerful I wouldn't really want to be in the public's eye. I would want to keep hidden and control from the background. The people can't revolt against a force they don't know exists.

Personally, I don't like either of the candidates running for either parties. When it comes down to the actual issues, I'm right in the middle of the spectrum. I'm neither a democrat, nor a republican. Why? Because I don't believe either side has all the right answers. I don't prefer a two-party system wherein you're either one side or the other, because what if both sides aren't ideal? Then what? You're stuck with the whole "less or two evils is still evil," situation.

I suppose I'm just going on a tangent at this point, my main idea is that it's not really the republicans or democrats that are evil, it's the people running in those parties that are evil.

As we have seen in the past, there are evil republicans, we have a current perfect example of an evil democrat. Does that make either party inherently evil? No. It just means there are evil people in the world.

(Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, gotta stop at some point.)

Edit: p.s. I do enjoy having a discussion with you.

0
1

[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'll give you the last word on all of that. On a bright note, join me in supporting Russ Feingold for Senator from Wisconsin in 2016!!

He's the only candidate I really like so far. :)