Even if your vote is counted, who do you really have to vote for? Which of the two lying corporate shills do you choose. The power is not with those who vote, it's with those who put up the candidates. If there was a real choice between parties and candidates, there would be some sense of change when a new administration came in. With all the talk of "hope" foisted on us by the Obama campaign, have things really gotten any better than it was under the Bush cabal? Hardly.
I'm not really sure voting matters either, but no matter how cynical we are we can't be sure EITHER WAY. So let me put this simply:
IF IT DOESN'T COUNT - Don't vote, voice unheard. You vote, voice unheard.
IF IT DOES COUNT - Don't vote, voice unheard. You vote, SOMETHING changes.
I get where you're all coming from, but I think its better to ACT worrying it might not help than whine about how it won't and do nothing. Unless you're voting anyone other than Ron Paul...then please stay home :D
Political philosophy of pure genius. A man ahead of his time. Barb' would make a powerful speech writer for a definite new way forward. There no doubt will come along, a powerful "frontman" who could present Barb's ideas to the hungry (for "real truth") public, in such a way that will re-educate diplomatically. Barb' is the fuel, and the "frontman" would be the vehicle. Any takers ?
The new NDAA is now in effect folks! I love how Obama first says he'd veto it then turns around and signs it, then comments that he's not fully for it when HE was the one who fought to get the language to affect American citizens kept in the damn document! He was being guided the whole time to go about it this way, smh. The office of President is nothing but a puppet show. Soldiers have been stepping forward to warn us of the "fire on citizens" program training. Get your guns ready, people.
This shit is DIRE now. Over the past 24 months look at what the US Gov't has been doing: *ramping up over 1 million troop orders to combat what they call a "possible civil unrest", *training troops in civil control war training, *manipulating by downgrading precious metals investments leading to outright theft of pm investments (see MF Global scam). *Road search checkpoints in major markets *Now the NDAA's citizenry focus.
Unreal! Guns may not be enough for what's coming next!
democracy is choosing your master... or rather, your fellow slaves attacking you for wanting to be free from coercion and illusion choosing your overlord for you.
I almost forgot to mention this... I don't know if you've had a chance to check out the 2003 Memoirs of David Rockefeller (I'd encourage everyone to do it), but you should definitely check out page 405 of chapter 27 of the book where he admits word for word that he and his family have been a direct part of the control of the American and International political systems (among other systems)... He also goes on to try to rationalize it! More proof that politics are an illusion.
I'm not American, but voter apathy is a problem here in the United Kingdom as well and for the same reasons.
My personal view is that there is no net benefit from refusing to vote, unless you really don't feel like leaving the house that day, and that high volumes of people voting for a third party can send a message of protest or even cause a coalition government (like our current one).
However, I think the choice to vote is irrelevant, democratic systems everywhere need fundamental overhaul.
"The average American is so out of touch with reality that ANY behaviour - absolutely anything - can be introduced, debated, normalised and accepted within a period of a decade maybe even less"
So very true - having had shit like gay marriage rammed down our throats we are now slowly being groomed by the mass media to accept things like paedophilia as normal - you're kidding yourself if you think this isn't the case.
@MrOriginalstevo Very important points. The PROMOTION of homosexuality is for a completely different purpose than "freedom". They are ramming it down our throats as you said.
100% agreed, Barbarossa. I don't really like the show, but I remember a South Park episode, about a decade ago "Vote of Die?" don't know the name of it. But basically the town had to choose between the 2 worthless candidates, much like what we do in real life. And yes, its always interesting that not a single candidate ever addresses the real issues for fear of alienating the female vote along with their drones.
As if a rich corporate paid candidate ever represented by best interests.
"... it's meaningless, this country was bought and sold a long time ago, the shit they shuffle around ever couple of years ( makes jacking off motion and fart sound) doesnt mean a fucking thing" - George Carlin
More than likely. When you see a guy get this far by saying all the right things, it sends a red flag, not because the information isn't right but because it contrasts too greatly from all the other candidates to the point of being suspicious. I also have a hard time believing in his so-called party crash, because the political system is set up to prevent that and hasn't missed a beat since the two-party system began. When something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
@182511419139208 Ron Paul is controlled opposition, so is Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney and all those others. In fact, the entire truth mvmt is co-opted (and every other mvmt, including the MRM, as well as the feminazis), they give you folks like Alex Jones, David Icke, Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell (who all promote theosophy and matriarchy), but theyr all disinfo shills. U have to be your own leader. The whole political process is rigged from the very foundation.
@182511419139208 Basically it's revelation of the method, once you know the enemy's tactics then you can better fend for yourself. They always send in puppet agents to infiltrate any mass collective of ppl, be it a party, religion, nation, movement, culture, business, they play all sides of all fences. If they can infiltrate it, they will (they already have). Stay far away from group identities...
@182511419139208 I'm a supporter of Ron Paul. Honestly, I think he's our nation's only hope. He has the most consistent voting record out of all the candidates and the ONLY candidate who will end the war, end the Federal Reserve, and elaborate on what needs to be done instead of using a cookie cutter speech that addresses the problem and not the solution. Ron Paul lived in an era when our country was free, so he would know a thing or two about REAL FREEDOM. Ron Paul 2012.
Live the change you want to see. If you're tired of the government wasting your money, shelter your income and find ways to move your wealth outside of the tax system. If you're tired of government running up massive debt, just make sure you don't carry any debt of your own. Unplug and take as much of your power out of the system as you can, while getting the lifestyle you want.
You're a smart man and I agree with you, but what am I really giving up by "pulling the lever"? 30 minutes of my time waiting in line? And what am I giving up by not voting? My voice in the future policy of my home country. It may be bogus, but its not a scam because I have nothing to lose by voting
@Gendo3s2k I think the election and re-election of George W. Bush is, in my opinion and the opinion of millions of Americans, a prime example of election scam or fraud if you prefer that term. Most Americans vote in every elections. Well, what exactly has changed for the better? We essentially have only two party running this country, and they are seemingly distinct when in fact they are the two sides of the same coin; and they both are servant of the power-that-be.
@Botkilla2K12 How is having more parties going to help? We already have the Constitutional Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc. There isn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats since they all work for the same system. What's more important that being labeled under a certain party is having a president who believes in the Constitution and is willing to change our unjust laws to give us our Constitutional rights. Honestly, what "party" is going to save us?
I can see the point user 'SoTilted' is trying to make here. In the end, whoever gets elected, will surely end up fucking you in the ass. Guaranteed.
I can learn a thing or two from the ruling class, as far as knowledge is concerned, but expecting them to serve the interests of the common man is a waste of time. They can't possibly be on the same wave-length as someone living check to check, and that's not their fault. Let's hope the mass gets wiser, because until then.. ain't nothing changing.
Very good video.Politicions wether right or left feed the american public all the BS they want to hear just so they can get elected and once they are elected go back on there word and instead focus on their self interest.The amount of american people who are aware of this and dont fall for it are few and far between.You either have people who are blinded by this fact or worse people who are fully aware but vote anyway hoping things automaticly get better.
You are correct in what you say. My only argument is a personal one and this is that in the instance that votes are counted and elections are actually held I see no problem taking an hour out of my life every four years to vote for my nations well being.
I have always said elections are fake. There is major money involved in running a country, do you really expect investors to allow us to pick our leaders?
Voting takes 1 hour of your time. Meaningless or not, you're not it's not going to kill you and its a pretty big fucking deal if your vote *does* count and you "not voting" just makes the people who do vote twice as effective
The other point I'll make is that America's Democractic mask is just that, a mask. What America is really is a Corporatocracy. The exclaimation point on that was set in stone once the Government signed over its monetary power to the Federal Reserve which is not a Federal company but instead a private corporation. We all know that whomever controls the money makes the rules, and so here we are at the mercy of the banksters. They don't teach this in the U.S School system, no surprise as to why...
@AllPro777 This much is true. Both parties answer to the same corporatocracy now. My point is that votes are counted and voting does matter. Al Gore does not = George Bush, Barack Obama does not = John McCain. Regardless of how similar, there are still numerous differences between them and the idea that voting doesn't matter is very juvenile. For example, how can anyone say with a straight face that Dick Cheney NOT being Vice President after 911 would have made no difference? Seriously?
I don't think it's "juvenile", that's entirely too dismissive. At its most basic level, it simply looks at the process as window-dressing, and who can argue against that when official after official takes office only to continue the same nonsense as the last? And there are a number of key issues that all of those people you mentioned have in common. Hell, we could probably make connections of similarity to every President post-Federal Reserve signing, except for JFK who opposed it.
@SoTilted When George Bush was running his opposite was John Kerry. Both were members of Yale's Skull and Bones society. You have two faces on the same head. Your 'vote' counts for shit.
@dharmashooter John Kerry was a terrible candidate and not very different from Bush at all. Gore was not however. Again, if you think Dick Cheney losing in 2000 would have made no difference in the world, I don't know what else to tell you.
"if you think Dick Cheney losing in 2000 would have made no difference in the world, I don't know what else to tell you."
no it wouldn't have made a difference. the act of merely saying it would've without illustrating why is not sufficient. we dont will political theatre into existence, cheney displays all of the characteristics of the generic puppet politician on the neoconservative side
@barbarossaaaa If you think Dick Cheney is a generic puppet, it's pretty clear you don't have an understanding of global politics. Google his dealings with Haliburton, Haliburton's role in Iraq, and come back here and tell me with a straight face "it wouldn't have made a difference" if Al Gore won. This argument has gone from absurd to willful ignorance.
"If you think Dick Cheney is a generic puppet, it's pretty clear you don't have an understanding of global politics."
what you just did is an attempt to manifest the illegitimacy of a statement without a valid reason why the statement actually is irrelevant. as the video discussed you are attempting to frame conversation, and establish borders on idea exchange, straight out of fox news talking point stratagem.
@barbarossaaaa Your statement shows clear ignorance of the topic at hand. You seem like a smart guy, but you just said Dick Cheney is interchangeable with a 1999/2000 Democratic candidate ("it wouldn't have mattered who won"), which means unfortunately, you don't have a clear understanding of politics. I know you know your math and feminism, but that doesn't cross over to this subject. Again, Google Haliburton. This isn't about "winning an internet argument." You're just way off base.
i agree it isnt about winnin an internet argument, but you are simply incorrect. what about hallibuton give some context, he's the former CEO and?. this further proves my point that he is a generic neocon, which falls under the purview of the GOP, one half of the political makeup, which is clearly pushing an individual agenda. the two party system is a circus show, and the fact that you cite cheney of all people, it only proves that you partake of the mainstream kool-aid heavily
i agree it isnt about winning an internet argument, but you are simply incorrect. what about hallibuton give some context, he's the former CEO and?. this further proves my point that he is a generic neocon, which falls under the purview of the GOP, one half of the political makeup, which is clearly pushing an individual agenda. the two party system is a circus show, and the fact that you cite cheney of all people, it only proves that you partake of the mainstream kool-aid heavily
@barbarossaaaa How does Al Gore winning in 2000 help the neocon GOP global agenda? You just said it made no difference who won, now you're admitting it would have. Again, you really don't seem to understand politics very well.
"How does Al Gore winning in 2000 help the neocon GOP global agenda? You just said it made no difference who won, now you're admitting it would have. Again, you really don't seem to understand politics very well."
lol ok im going to just start demanding you cite what you claim i said. please cite when ive said or implied that al gore winning in 2000 would help the neocon agenda. neocon's and liberals are providig the illusion of choice, they are one in the same.
@barbarossaaaa Again, the idea that 1999/2000 liberals and neoconservatives were the same is several steps beyond ridiculous. It's something people say who don't follow politics at all. "Obama's just like Bush! They're the same!" You sound like every college kid who doesn't really understand the world yet but has an opinion on the process.
"Again, the idea that 1999/2000 liberals and neoconservatives were the same is several steps beyond ridiculous"
again no reason given as to why this claim is ridiculous, i see you have a habit of countering arguments with "thats ridiculous foolish etc" yes yes these are quite the excellent rebuttals. you sound like every kool aid imbibing pundit that refuses to see the american political process for the defunct scam that it is. lol make sure to vote in 2012, it your right!
@barbarossaaaa Yes, because anyone with a basic understanding of politics knows that liberals and neocons were not interchangeable in 1999. Implying that Dick Cheney is interchangeable with Democratic candidates was an obviously ignorant statement and requires no further explanation. I'm sorry I'm not here to educate you, but we both know you have no interest in learning something outside of your current view regardless.
@barbarossaaaa Like I said, I'm not here to educate you on basic politics. Your statements are similar to saying "there's no difference between rottweilers and pitbulls. They're both dogs!" To someone who doesn't know anything about dogs, that's true. To someone who knows dogs, you've exposed yourself as ignorant. You're in college, right? When you return, I want you to find a professor and ask him if there's no difference between a 1999 liberal and neo-conservative. Let me know what he says.
"When you return, I want you to find a professor and ask him if there's no difference between a 1999 liberal and neo-conservative. Let me know what he says."
you consider college political professors to be authority figures on politics? i see, that tells me a lot, it shows that you look to be informed of what the satus quo is when determining political reality. i would never ever ask a useless college professor for political insight. only a fool would to be honest
@SoTilted youve bought the red vs. blue political ism schism lie. you are acting as though there are separate agenda's for both political parties. i got news for ya, obama continued the wars just like bush. the fact that you believe this left vs right bullshit shows that i is indeed you, who has a glaring political illiteracy
@barbarossaaaa Each new comment is exposing you as someone who doesn't follow politics closely. Obama didn't "continue the wars just like Bush." Bush actually wrote the end of the Iraq war into law before he left, and we've been withdrawing since. Obama is focusing efforts in Afghanistan (not a good idea), which is a separate agenda from the one Bush started, and there's now the issue of Iran, who Bush empowered and Obama has to deal with. Again, you don't really understand what you're saying.
" Bush actually wrote the end of the Iraq war into law before he left, and we've been withdrawing since. Obama is focusing efforts in Afghanistan (not a good idea)"
lol yes yes now i understand, why cant i see the difference between two tremendously costly unnecessary wars in the middle east, everything is clear now. you really believe that bait and switch talking point huh? your further gone than i thought
@barbarossaaaa Like I said, you sound like every college kid who doesn't understand global politics at all. Lumping Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan together and subsequently Bush and Obama, is a clear lack of basic understanding. No wonder you don't think voting matters, you don't even have a full grasp on the issues that you're voting on.
there it is once again. until this point, pakistan has not appeared, even once anywhere in my commentary or on any, yet you make the claim that i have lumped them together. you are aware that inserting your generalities into my comments does not change what i have said?
Most of your videos are great, but this is nonsense. You start by demanding that we provide irrefutable proof that votes are counted, then you continue on a rant without a single shred of evidence that they aren't. You say you're not a conspiracy theorist, but it would take a massive conspiracy to discount millions of votes, in hundreds of districts across 50 states. In your opinion, what happens to all of these local ballots when they're all added up and verified by independent parties?
the evidence is bountiful, both political parties have actively sought to exclude even major independent candidates.. (The Commission on Presidential Debates and what they did to perot) we have an electoral college in place that can overide the popular vote, we have the florida fiasco. as per the votes tallied, i never said i had proof that they arent counted however the onus is on you to prove that they are since the political system in place is one that is favorable to the assumption
@barbarossaaaa Both parties are corrupt, they do conspire to keep third parties out of debates and off the ballots. This is 100% true. You said in the video that votes aren't counted though. Not only is there no evidence this is true, but it would make absolutely no sense to prevent third parties from entering the race if the outcome was already predetermined without our votes. Everything you just typed nullifies the argument you presented in the video. Think about it.
"You said in the video that votes aren't counted though." i did not say this, i said that they dont matter, and there is a very real difference. the votes are counted by volunteers or electric scanning machines....so what, there obviously is an ultimate destination for the tally, one which the average american citizen is not privy to, we are then given the results through, for profit media outlets. verifiability is of the utmost importance given the stakes here.
@barbarossaaaa You're playing semantics. 20 seconds into the video, you said we have no way of knowing our vote's been counted (we do). A minute into the video, you say we have no real way of verifying results and go on to say it's inaccurate (with no evidence). Your conclusion is what you're saying now, that votes don't matter. All of that is false for a number of reasons, the most obvious being your last response to me.
"20 seconds into the video, you said we have no way of knowing our vote's been counted (we do)"
if we do then provide it. we arent talking about local elections here, once again on the federal level, there is of course a point in time where the votes are compiled from all 50 states, by a group that the average american citizen will simply never sit in on. can you even tell me where the final count is tallied? and if you can do you have any access? enlighten me please.
we are talking about a tally conducted in 50 separate locations, which are then compiled and ultimately re-tallied in (im assuming you know where because i dont). and the average american citizen doesn't either, and logistically speaking you see no possibility of mass voter fraud in this scenario? not only does the possibility exist, but history has shown it to have happened already ie florida
@barbarossaaaa Notice how you're saying 2 different things in one breath. The 2000 election was tampered with on a LOCAL level, because of Bush's pull in the state of Florida. That goes against everything you said in this video, and proves voting was not rigged on a FEDERAL level at the last minute. Voting did in fact matter, votes WERE counted, and blatant state corruption is evidence that the national results are NOT fixed. How do you not understand that you're undermining your own argument?
your definition of locality is relative, as the votes of a state the size of florida would entail millions of votes, ive said that as one approaches the federal level, the possibility of voter fraud increases, or in other words as one gets further away from the smallest levels of local governance, the possibility of fraud increases.. did you not listen to the video correctly?
@barbarossaaaa Again, why would the 2 parties spend so much effort to keep specific candidates off the ballot if voting didn't matter in the first place? Your argument makes no sense, and that's before you add the amount of conspiracies required to make your conclusion plausible.
"Again, why would the 2 parties spend so much effort to keep specific candidates off the ballot if voting didn't matter in the first place?"
This question misses the point. Think about what you're asking... if you and I wanted to stage a fight and invite a bunch of fans in with the secret intent to kill them, and a person wanted to join in but had no intent of killing anyone, we'd of course work together to keep the third person out. It's not really hard to understand at all.
The main point is, both main American political parties are not really different, they simply go about the same business under a different clothing so to speak. The perfect most recent example is how Obama is pretty much furthering a great deal of Bush's policies even though Bush's policies are what would be squarely called Republican. However, the main point can't be missed that Obama like all President's are simply puppets for the elite and the corporations.
I'll say that I believe most local voting for local officials is carried out alright because local officials tend to have little or no significant impact on anything outside of of their city lines and the elites have no interest in it. But at the Whitehouse/Capitol Hill level, I firmly believe that by the time they parade the "candidates" out in front of us, the person(s) the banksters and others of the ruling elite class want in power have been selected before they're elected.
"Both parties are corrupt, they do conspire to keep third parties out of debates and off the ballots. This is 100% true."
and yet your shocked at the accusation that they or, perhaps an entity controlling them, could conspire to override the american vote in the furtherance of their own interests? i see
@barbarossaaaa I'm not shocked at all, I'm just letting you know that your argument is severely flawed. If voting doesn't matter, the political parties would not spend millions of dollars a year to suppress voter turn out, and millions more to keep third parties off the ballot. All of that clearly implies that voting does indeed matter, votes are counted, and the results are not fixed. This is basic.
"If voting doesn't matter, the political parties would not spend millions of dollars a year to suppress voter turn out"
if in fact the success of a co-opted political system depended on the illusion of choice, then it would be of the utmost importance to maintain such an illusion... this is basic, understand the concept of subterfuge, as i said in the video true power is wielded invisibly hence my refusal to speculate on who's really running the show
@barbarossaaaa Again, this makes absolutely no sense. If votes don't matter and the results are fixed, it would make no difference if 2, 3, or 5 candidates run. It would make no difference whether there are 2 major parties, or 4 smaller ones. In fact, the more parties running, the bigger the distraction, more media subterfuge, the easier for the invisible hand to pick a winner with an even SMALLER majority vote. Everything you type goes against your own argument. Think about it for 5 minutes.
once again you are incorrect, you can have two fixed parties and keep the variance in tact with a large number of candidates all expected to tow the party line but each with individual deviations, to create the illusion of choice, limiting the parties does not limit the ability to conduct subterfuge within them, you are wrong again.
@barbarossaaaa I'm not wrong at all. You're saying the 2 parties in power are going out of their way to keep extra parties from running, which means votes do in fact matter. Then you say they're spending those millions to keep third and forth parties out of the running to PRETEND to give the illusion that voting matters, even though the vote is fixed on a federal level. That makes no sense whatsoever and you know that. Where is your proof of any of this?
Don't you see the point that it's fixed to keep disrupters of the agenda out? It definitely matters how many are running when the system is setup to only be two-headed. All they're doing is using a Good Vs. Evil tactic. Good Cop Bad Cop. The concept is as old as time, man. A third party just isn't needed in their eyes, so they have no reason to entertain it with any strong attention, and they haven't.
In 1992, Reform Party candidate Ross Perot had a seven percent rating in the polls before the presidential debates. On election day, Perot had 19 percent of the vote, the largest-ever jump for a presidential candidate [source: PBS]. Proving himself a risk to the other candidates, the Dole and Clinton campaigns excluded him from the presidential debates through the CPD when he ran again in 1996.- ive provided a documented instance of govt limiting the candidacy to 2 preferential groups
of course since the system in place, is one in which the efficacy of the vote is an assumed reality, it is once again your responsibility, to prove that it is an accurate representation of the popular vote.
@barbarossaaaa Again, where is YOUR evidence that your conclusion is plausible, let alone true? You've made a lot of demands but offered nothing but conjecture. You're making outrageous claims that would require a massive conspiracy, and saying it's MY responsibility to prove it doesn't. That's absolutely absurd.
@SoTilted So there's zero evidence that that votes are counted on a federal level and there is no evidence that the votes are just dismissed or ignored. Verdict: Average Americans can't/don't know. So why would anyone place legitimacy on something that is unverified?
again the onus is on you to provide the evidence that a political system which endows so much power onto its elected officials is in fact legitimate, i said clearly in my video that if in fact what im saying is true, that any epi-politic power structure would be invisible. yet you are making the claim that the system we see has fidelity... ok then prove it.
@barbarossaaaa No. You're making a claim that votes don't matter because election results are fixed on a federal level, which goes against your other claims that votes are tampered with on a local level, which also contradicts the concept of 2 parties working to keep candidates off the ballot (for which a vote doesn't mater). You haven't presented a case for conspiracy, only voiced gripes about the political system. Where is your evidence of anything?
"which goes against your other claims that votes are tampered with on a local level"
again not what i said, please try to keep what ive said accurate, i said as you approach the federal level the possibility of voter fraud drastically increases, this does not discount the possibility of it on the local level,
@barbarossaaaa You brought up the 2000 election, which was possibly rigged on a local level. If Florida was rigged, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that votes are counted, and DO matter on a federal level. If the results of a Presidential election are predetermined and/or tampered with on a federal level, why would they have to rig it by going to a few counties in Florida? Your argument keeps falling apart here. Either votes in local districts matter or they don't, it can't be both.
"If Florida was rigged, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that votes are counted"
lol wow your dense once again ive not said... not even once that the votes arent counted, ive said that there are multiple counts, one of which is final and at the federal level, of which we.. the general public have no oversight... are you not listening correctly?
@barbarossaaaa Were you watching the news during the 2000 election Florida count? Have you ever seen live reporting by county, where they stay up all night counting votes by hand? I'm not trying to be condescending, but you seem to be making things up as you go along now. At what point do you think Bush stole the election? When did the vote change from live broadcasting on a local level to a federal recount? How bizarre of a theory are you willing to make up?
I'm not trying to be condescending, but you are in effect telling me that the t.v. is your accurate representation of reality, ive said, (i think this is the fifth time now) that an ultimate tally, not the state determines the vote. you are basing floridas ultimate role in deciding the election on the unconfirmed legitimacy of the other 49. i dont know if your not comprehending this im trying to explain it as simply as possible
@barbarossaaaa So you're now back to claiming Bush rigged Florida, to win an election that was already predetermined. Again, what sense does it make to rig votes in a few counties in one state if the entire thing is rigged federally? How is that not a wildly absurd conspiracy theory? You're presenting something completely far fetched and asking the burden of proof to be on Occam's razor. You're better than this.
no your back to assuming conflating the assumption of the possibility of voter fraud on the county level with it being a fact. ive stayed consisten in saying that ultimately a tally on the federal level will be conducted in a way that the average american citizen has no access to. you can continue to add to that and pretend that ive said your doctore version of my statement as counter argument if you wish
@barbarossaaaa I don't have to doctor your statement, because you're not actually making statements. You're asking questions, trying to shift burden of proof on the side of Occam's razor. You haven't actually made one claim, because that would require you to actually back it up. Like I said, all you've offered is conjecture. You can't explain why Bush would have to rig a few counties in one state for an election that's rigged federally, so your argument fails.
"You can't explain why Bush would have to rig a few counties in one state for an election that's rigged federally,"
yes i cant explain it... the main reason being that ive never said it to be the case. you some to believe genuinely that if you pretend someone said something hard enough that they actually said it. again i posited the possibility of voter fraud on every level, with the likelihood increasing as one approaches the federal level, read clearly please
@barbarossaaaa You're a bright guy, this isn't difficult. Follow your argument. You said in the video (and in several comments) that voting does not matter because the results are fixed on a federal level. You agree Florida was rigged in 2000, which proves local country votes DO matter. Both cannot be true. Local district votes can't both count and NOT count. Your argument is a failure in logic, so you went on to say the other 49 states may have been rigged too, which doesn't change my argument.
"You said in the video (and in several comments) that voting does not matter because the results are fixed on a federal level."
wow just wow, your porpensity for twisting what was actually said is getting worse with eac comment. what was said AGAIN is that we cannot disprove that the results arent fixed on the federal level, and then i made claims to support why this is probably the case.. at no point did i say this was absolute. do you want me to quote the video?
@barbarossaaaa Of course you didn't say it was absolute, because you don't want the burden of proof for your conspiracy theory. You have no evidence for anything you presented in this video, and have no explanation for why someone would rig local county votes for a federally rigged election. Logic fail.
wikipedia /wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
wikipedia /wiki/Neoconservatism
Again, the differences are self-evident to anyone with a basic grasp in politics. What's self-evident about your federal->local->federal rigged vote conspiracy?
the differences are self evident if you havent devoted a scrap of critical thought to these "differences", ive provided many instances in my videos of how both sides of the political spectrum contribute to the same things in slightly different ways. things such as misandry in its left wing (feminism) and right wing(chivalry) forms. they are the same political cocktail with slight variances in flavor nothing more
@barbarossaaaa You're 100% right, they both contribute to misandry. They also both answer to corporate lobbyists, they both bend over to banks, they both promote lies about our health care system, they both fuck over our veterans. They're similar in HUNDREDS of ways. They're also different in several ways also. Like I said, saying "liberals and neocons are the same" is like saying "rottweilers and pitbulls are the same." It's a 100% true statement, if you have very little knowledge of dogs.
they are the same in enough ways that it renders their differences insignificant, its more like comparing white pitbulls and brown pitbulls. they both do the same thing in the long run. extraneous differences are irrelevant
@barbarossaaaa Again, that's simply not true. They aren't different enough in ways that you and I would like, but they are different. Obama has been significantly better than Bush on Stem cell research, interest rate disclosure, private sector job increases, etc. The idea that he's "the same" as another candidate because he's not different enough is a view that most kids your age hold. I thought the same thing until I started following politics closely. I'm very glad McCain isn't President.
"Obama has been significantly better than Bush on Stem cell research, interest rate disclosure, private sector job increases, etc"
Are you sure you want to use THOSE as a basis? Considering the fact that we're on the brink of an economic collapse--which at this point is imminent--Quite frankly, none of those mean a damn in the face of what's on the horizon. But the argument is futile, because the Presidential role is really just a figurehead now and has been for a very long time.
@AllPro777 I'm not saying Obama's an ideal candidate. I just made the case that it does matter who you vote for. If Al Gore and Bush would have had similar economic policies in 2001, that doesn't mean they would have handled 911 in the exactly the same fashion. If Obama and McCain would have both bailed out the banks, that doesn't mean they would have both continued to withdraw from Iraq. Democracy doesn't mean choosing from 2 polar opposites and never has meant that. Also see Clinton/Dole.
But that's just it, the way the system is set up, combined with the way media portrays the process--which is where Americans have their ideals of the process shaped--we're led to believe that the candidates really are polar opposites. It's their schtick. You mentioned two critical points of subject, bailout and war withdrawal, but I see those as moot because there is simply no way a public leader in a Corporatocracy can have any real power over decisions that critical to the elite.
"there is simply no way a public leader in a Corporatocracy can have any real power over decisions that critical to the elite."
Unless he himself is part of the elite. I don't believe Obama is a high-ranking official of the elite class. But we know GW is since he's been a Carlyle Group exec (which profits from the sale of weapons and weapons grade materials), and we know Cheney is since he's been a Halliburton executive and a Carlyle Group exec.
@barbarossaaaa And candidates who TRULY are different, on a fundamental level, are a threat, which is why the 2 parties go through such lengths to marginalize them. Which all points back to my original point, voting DOES matter. If the vote was fixed, they wouldn't care who was on the ballot. It would make no difference. This is common sense and Occam's razor.
oh man this is just going around in circles now. tell ya what go vote, if you want to tell yourself its going to make a difference you can. the reality is that this is not the case, but by all means suit yourself
oh man this is just going around in circles now. tell ya what go vote, if you want to tell yourself its going to make a difference you can. the reality is that this is not the case, but by all means suit yourself
oh man this is just going around in circles now. tell ya what go vote, if you want to tell yourself its going to make a difference you can. the reality is that this is not the case, but by all means suit yourself
for you to make the claim that florida decided the election, you have to furnish proof that the other 49 where accurate on the federal level. the county by county readout is irrelevant, and not only that, but your premise would have to rely on the fidelity of the counties, it makes no sense
@barbarossaaaa LOL So the Presidential election was already predetermined on a federal level, but they decided to rig a few counties in Florida just in case the federal rig conspiracy machine broke? They had a BACK UP conspiracy? Is that what you're saying?
"LOL So the Presidential election was already predetermined on a federal level, but they decided to rig a few counties in Florida just in case the federal rig conspiracy machine broke?"
wow your powers of selectively manipulating what ive said are simply breathtaking. read it again.. slowly, ive posited the possibility of voter fraud on every level, and clearly said in the video that the likelihood of it increases as one approaches the federal level. conspiracy is your addendum
@barbarossaaaa "ive posited the possibility" LOL Another way of saying "I have no proof for anything I'm saying, I'm just sayin..." I'm sorry the burden of proof is not on the world to convince you that every random conspiracy thought that enters your mind is not fact.
we also have to ask ourselves if the votes have any efficacy in transmitting the will of the people, why do we see congress at a 12% approval rating, obviously this precious "vote", is not rendering the intended consequence. even if you can disprove me saying that we cannot prove if the final tally is legitimate(you cant), the intended result of the vote is not being delivered.
"which also contradicts the concept of 2 parties working to keep candidates off the ballot (for which a vote doesn't mater)."
sigh... again...
if in fact the success of a co-opted political system depended on the illusion of choice, then it would be of the utmost importance to maintain such an illusion... this is basic, understand the concept of subterfuge, as i said in the video true power is wielded invisibly hence my refusal to speculate on who's really running the show...
@S theres a movie about this very topic. and check out bradblog(dot)com. brad friedman has practically made it his life work bringing this issue to bay. i know that in the state of texas the republican party has bought the green party out. if you cast a straight green ticket ballot, the diebold machines have been known to mark the ballot as being a republican straight ticket. coincidence? i dont know but usually coincidences dont have such strong benefit for one side of an issue.
From my grandfather to my father They've done some unbelieveable shit. At the cost of there sanity and ultimately there lives. It might sound misguided, but my right to vote deals little about the choices . It's more about the legacy.
One citizen's vote does not sway elections. But a thousand sure do. While I agree that our politics narrows down the choices to just a couple of options, it's also a reflection of the culture on the whole, in one sense. We are a nation of groups, each vying for as much of the swill from the trough as possible; which is why you might hear some people agree that some sort of reform needs to happen, but don't you dare touch their pet program (Social Security, Medicare, Farm Subsidies, etc.).
@MaxxTheMerciless Believe it or not, you have a lot more influence in things than you realize. What you do and say, and what you fail to do and say, have an influence. If our society has become this emasculated feminized state, who's fault is that? Well, it's ours. We let this happen.
Clearly, the media plays a large part in steering the outcome of elections as well as influencing public support for or against certain policies. The internet is now countering their efforts somewhat. The thing is, POLICY is not changed all that much by elections, and policy is the part of government that matters most.
Encouraging people not to vote is the same as voting for the Republican candidate since they will do better in the case of low voter turn out. Arguing that your individual vote won't matter is straw man argument. Voting as a collective indisputably matters.
does it? where is your proof that your vote swayed any political election youve voted in? or that your vote as well as the vote of the collective was ever even counted? unless you have definitive proof of this then you cannot prove the efficacy of a vote on an individual or collective basis
@barbarossaaaa It it obvious that vote counting exist. When I vote a local volunteer is tasks with counting my and everyone in my district's votes. In almost every election the popular vote has chosen the President. It seems like the internet conspiracy theories are skewing your view of reality.
i didnt ask if a local volunterr counts the vote, i asked you to provide proof that this tally is then applied decide elections. there is no conspiracy here, im asking you to furnish proof that votes are the irrefutable deciders of major american elections. its simple if you say an amount a causes a result b then you need to be able to prove the amount of a and whether or not there is any correlation between a and b.
The owners of this nation know the media is there to shape opinions. From political shows, movies, talk shows, radio. Its all there to influence minds. "NO SOVEREIGN CONSCIOUSNESS" Well said my friend. Mind if I steal that phrase?
Politics and media is a joke. Look what they are doing to Ron Paul now that he is #1 in Iowa. The government~media complex is real. NWO is real and its all bull shit.
Do not believe a single word the Politicians say.
They lie as easily as they fart. The politicians only serve themselves and a great numbers of those feeble-minded, pathetic, sanctimonious do-gooders will always pander to whoever shouts loudest, in attempt to feel like a better person; and feminists are the shrieking gorgons who shout the loudest.
From what I've been hearing/researching. You're not supposed to let anyone represent you unless you sign a specific contract with them. This is something like a two signer agreement. Where as voting is slave to master UNwritten agreement.
Now if this is true. Then ALL VOTING is pretty much null and void!!!
There's a video series on it from Veritas radio. If I find it I might send it to you.
barbarossaaaa, the only disappointing thing about your videos is that they are too short sometimes. Please make them longer if you have time! They are like a breath of fresh air.
@barbarossaaaa Democrats and Republicans are two opposite sides of the same coin. People do not have true choice and freedom in the USA. Soon we shall likely lose the last place of freedom which is the Internet. No matter what the people do SOPA or some laws shall get past to censor the web.
Very insightful video! It's to bad politicians are all about putting themselves first, not to mention the majority of americans are just to blind and ignorant to exactly give a fuck. Just like at what they feed us on the news
Even if your vote is counted, who do you really have to vote for? Which of the two lying corporate shills do you choose. The power is not with those who vote, it's with those who put up the candidates. If there was a real choice between parties and candidates, there would be some sense of change when a new administration came in. With all the talk of "hope" foisted on us by the Obama campaign, have things really gotten any better than it was under the Bush cabal? Hardly.
warwolfii 1 week ago
I'm not really sure voting matters either, but no matter how cynical we are we can't be sure EITHER WAY. So let me put this simply:
IF IT DOESN'T COUNT - Don't vote, voice unheard. You vote, voice unheard.
IF IT DOES COUNT - Don't vote, voice unheard. You vote, SOMETHING changes.
I get where you're all coming from, but I think its better to ACT worrying it might not help than whine about how it won't and do nothing. Unless you're voting anyone other than Ron Paul...then please stay home :D
Valudshen 1 week ago
Excellent video
SocietyIncollapse 3 weeks ago
Bro. All your vids are On Fuckin' Point !!!
dracomaniabeats 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from barbarossaaaa
This is true. Anyone who thinks their vote counts or determines anything is ignorant.
FerrariSorry 1 month ago
Major LOL! As I'm watching this youtube displayed an ad for "Barack Obama needs your help!" overlaying the bottom of your vid!
tpellman 1 month ago
Votes carry the most weight on the local level....on the national stage, yes i does lose it's value.
kishaba1980 1 month ago
Completely agree.
The logical thing to do is to not vote, Unless that vote is to change the corrupt political system, Which of course will never be put to a vote.
Any vote is exercising your support for the corrupt system.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago 2
Political philosophy of pure genius. A man ahead of his time. Barb' would make a powerful speech writer for a definite new way forward. There no doubt will come along, a powerful "frontman" who could present Barb's ideas to the hungry (for "real truth") public, in such a way that will re-educate diplomatically. Barb' is the fuel, and the "frontman" would be the vehicle. Any takers ?
tuptaff 1 month ago
Looks like 6 highly patriotic brainwashed American conservative republicans from the southern bible belt area found this video so far.
blueshogun96 1 month ago
The new NDAA is now in effect folks! I love how Obama first says he'd veto it then turns around and signs it, then comments that he's not fully for it when HE was the one who fought to get the language to affect American citizens kept in the damn document! He was being guided the whole time to go about it this way, smh. The office of President is nothing but a puppet show. Soldiers have been stepping forward to warn us of the "fire on citizens" program training. Get your guns ready, people.
AllPro777 1 month ago
@AllPro777
This shit is DIRE now. Over the past 24 months look at what the US Gov't has been doing: *ramping up over 1 million troop orders to combat what they call a "possible civil unrest", *training troops in civil control war training, *manipulating by downgrading precious metals investments leading to outright theft of pm investments (see MF Global scam). *Road search checkpoints in major markets *Now the NDAA's citizenry focus.
Unreal! Guns may not be enough for what's coming next!
TheChallenger1000 1 month ago
From 02:5 "behavior" TRUTH! ! !Simply the TRUTH! ! !
fomiz 1 month ago
@fomiz 02:50
fomiz 1 month ago
democracy is choosing your master... or rather, your fellow slaves attacking you for wanting to be free from coercion and illusion choosing your overlord for you.
Sivels 1 month ago
@barbarossaaaa
I almost forgot to mention this... I don't know if you've had a chance to check out the 2003 Memoirs of David Rockefeller (I'd encourage everyone to do it), but you should definitely check out page 405 of chapter 27 of the book where he admits word for word that he and his family have been a direct part of the control of the American and International political systems (among other systems)... He also goes on to try to rationalize it! More proof that politics are an illusion.
AllPro777 1 month ago
I'm not American, but voter apathy is a problem here in the United Kingdom as well and for the same reasons.
My personal view is that there is no net benefit from refusing to vote, unless you really don't feel like leaving the house that day, and that high volumes of people voting for a third party can send a message of protest or even cause a coalition government (like our current one).
However, I think the choice to vote is irrelevant, democratic systems everywhere need fundamental overhaul.
Ulfhedjinn 2 months ago
"The average American is so out of touch with reality that ANY behaviour - absolutely anything - can be introduced, debated, normalised and accepted within a period of a decade maybe even less"
So very true - having had shit like gay marriage rammed down our throats we are now slowly being groomed by the mass media to accept things like paedophilia as normal - you're kidding yourself if you think this isn't the case.
MrOriginalstevo 2 months ago
@MrOriginalstevo Very important points. The PROMOTION of homosexuality is for a completely different purpose than "freedom". They are ramming it down our throats as you said.
BobbyL5757 2 months ago
I call "conversation framing" a "canned debate." It is certainly a very real thing.
EvilsOfFeminism 2 months ago
The #OccupyWallStreet Deception
watch?v=mCcqOKQR0BY
watch?v=tMNHDM-PCkc
American Autumn Was An Inside Job
watch?v=v7KKYIBAcFc
watch?v=_7F94Y4m1dUx
muskduh 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa :
Thanks Again for a Great Video ! If you haven't already, check out Lessig's channel -
watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk
watch?v=nYPmGyKETc8
watch?v=n3kuQ8hcZiY
watch?v=AxCo2bE9Gtk
Here is the Equation : US = "Democracy" + Hypocricy - (Moral Values) = Corruption + (Destroyed Society) .. it is just a question of time...
watch?v=E9q6aDaRAII
MenAreG00D 2 months ago
100% agreed, Barbarossa. I don't really like the show, but I remember a South Park episode, about a decade ago "Vote of Die?" don't know the name of it. But basically the town had to choose between the 2 worthless candidates, much like what we do in real life. And yes, its always interesting that not a single candidate ever addresses the real issues for fear of alienating the female vote along with their drones.
As if a rich corporate paid candidate ever represented by best interests.
NinjaZ1001 2 months ago
1 word: Diebold.
Madkre8tor 2 months ago
dam right, ive said this for a long time now, great video
Grock123 2 months ago
"... it's meaningless, this country was bought and sold a long time ago, the shit they shuffle around ever couple of years ( makes jacking off motion and fart sound) doesnt mean a fucking thing" - George Carlin
pervmanyesican 2 months ago
what about Ron Paul?
182511419139208 2 months ago 4
@182511419139208 Ron Paul is a fraud.
TagMahirTzedek 1 month ago
@TagMahirTzedek
More than likely. When you see a guy get this far by saying all the right things, it sends a red flag, not because the information isn't right but because it contrasts too greatly from all the other candidates to the point of being suspicious. I also have a hard time believing in his so-called party crash, because the political system is set up to prevent that and hasn't missed a beat since the two-party system began. When something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
AllPro777 1 month ago
@TagMahirTzedek yup
inunaruharu 1 month ago
@182511419139208 Ron Paul is controlled opposition, so is Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney and all those others. In fact, the entire truth mvmt is co-opted (and every other mvmt, including the MRM, as well as the feminazis), they give you folks like Alex Jones, David Icke, Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell (who all promote theosophy and matriarchy), but theyr all disinfo shills. U have to be your own leader. The whole political process is rigged from the very foundation.
InvisibleMan542 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos 2
@182511419139208 Basically it's revelation of the method, once you know the enemy's tactics then you can better fend for yourself. They always send in puppet agents to infiltrate any mass collective of ppl, be it a party, religion, nation, movement, culture, business, they play all sides of all fences. If they can infiltrate it, they will (they already have). Stay far away from group identities...
InvisibleMan542 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@182511419139208 Just another Elite puppet.
Manginakilla 1 month ago
@182511419139208 I'm a supporter of Ron Paul. Honestly, I think he's our nation's only hope. He has the most consistent voting record out of all the candidates and the ONLY candidate who will end the war, end the Federal Reserve, and elaborate on what needs to be done instead of using a cookie cutter speech that addresses the problem and not the solution. Ron Paul lived in an era when our country was free, so he would know a thing or two about REAL FREEDOM. Ron Paul 2012.
preprocker1987 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Excellent !
Mavrilon 2 months ago
Well said.
Live the change you want to see. If you're tired of the government wasting your money, shelter your income and find ways to move your wealth outside of the tax system. If you're tired of government running up massive debt, just make sure you don't carry any debt of your own. Unplug and take as much of your power out of the system as you can, while getting the lifestyle you want.
vention4wh 2 months ago
You're a smart man and I agree with you, but what am I really giving up by "pulling the lever"? 30 minutes of my time waiting in line? And what am I giving up by not voting? My voice in the future policy of my home country. It may be bogus, but its not a scam because I have nothing to lose by voting
Gendo3s2k 2 months ago 3
@Gendo3s2k I think the election and re-election of George W. Bush is, in my opinion and the opinion of millions of Americans, a prime example of election scam or fraud if you prefer that term. Most Americans vote in every elections. Well, what exactly has changed for the better? We essentially have only two party running this country, and they are seemingly distinct when in fact they are the two sides of the same coin; and they both are servant of the power-that-be.
crmarquet 2 months ago
Even if you think the elections are legitimate... it's still a 2 party system, which couldn't be a more illegitimate form of government.
DackIsBack 2 months ago 21
@DackIsBack I agree. We need more parties in our government,
Botkilla2K12 1 month ago
@Botkilla2K12 How is having more parties going to help? We already have the Constitutional Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, etc. There isn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats since they all work for the same system. What's more important that being labeled under a certain party is having a president who believes in the Constitution and is willing to change our unjust laws to give us our Constitutional rights. Honestly, what "party" is going to save us?
preprocker1987 2 weeks ago
@preprocker1987 *What's more important than...(typo correction)
preprocker1987 2 weeks ago
Love this dudes video, voting is the biggest scam ever.
ThinkingAgent12 2 months ago 3
I was all for voting until these electronic voting machines came around.
NemesisPrime1989 2 months ago
I can see the point user 'SoTilted' is trying to make here. In the end, whoever gets elected, will surely end up fucking you in the ass. Guaranteed.
I can learn a thing or two from the ruling class, as far as knowledge is concerned, but expecting them to serve the interests of the common man is a waste of time. They can't possibly be on the same wave-length as someone living check to check, and that's not their fault. Let's hope the mass gets wiser, because until then.. ain't nothing changing.
Client404 2 months ago
Once again I am very impressed with your insight. Thanks. Keep it up.
KingNayilz 2 months ago
Very good video.Politicions wether right or left feed the american public all the BS they want to hear just so they can get elected and once they are elected go back on there word and instead focus on their self interest.The amount of american people who are aware of this and dont fall for it are few and far between.You either have people who are blinded by this fact or worse people who are fully aware but vote anyway hoping things automaticly get better.
bloodymary12100 2 months ago
You are correct in what you say. My only argument is a personal one and this is that in the instance that votes are counted and elections are actually held I see no problem taking an hour out of my life every four years to vote for my nations well being.
That being said, you unbellyfeel INGSOC!
UcanbeGOD 2 months ago
I have always said elections are fake. There is major money involved in running a country, do you really expect investors to allow us to pick our leaders?
Ivorkornuta 2 months ago
Voting takes 1 hour of your time. Meaningless or not, you're not it's not going to kill you and its a pretty big fucking deal if your vote *does* count and you "not voting" just makes the people who do vote twice as effective
Gendo3s2k 2 months ago
The other point I'll make is that America's Democractic mask is just that, a mask. What America is really is a Corporatocracy. The exclaimation point on that was set in stone once the Government signed over its monetary power to the Federal Reserve which is not a Federal company but instead a private corporation. We all know that whomever controls the money makes the rules, and so here we are at the mercy of the banksters. They don't teach this in the U.S School system, no surprise as to why...
AllPro777 2 months ago
@AllPro777 This much is true. Both parties answer to the same corporatocracy now. My point is that votes are counted and voting does matter. Al Gore does not = George Bush, Barack Obama does not = John McCain. Regardless of how similar, there are still numerous differences between them and the idea that voting doesn't matter is very juvenile. For example, how can anyone say with a straight face that Dick Cheney NOT being Vice President after 911 would have made no difference? Seriously?
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
I don't think it's "juvenile", that's entirely too dismissive. At its most basic level, it simply looks at the process as window-dressing, and who can argue against that when official after official takes office only to continue the same nonsense as the last? And there are a number of key issues that all of those people you mentioned have in common. Hell, we could probably make connections of similarity to every President post-Federal Reserve signing, except for JFK who opposed it.
AllPro777 2 months ago
@SoTilted When George Bush was running his opposite was John Kerry. Both were members of Yale's Skull and Bones society. You have two faces on the same head. Your 'vote' counts for shit.
dharmashooter 2 months ago
@dharmashooter John Kerry was a terrible candidate and not very different from Bush at all. Gore was not however. Again, if you think Dick Cheney losing in 2000 would have made no difference in the world, I don't know what else to tell you.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"if you think Dick Cheney losing in 2000 would have made no difference in the world, I don't know what else to tell you."
no it wouldn't have made a difference. the act of merely saying it would've without illustrating why is not sufficient. we dont will political theatre into existence, cheney displays all of the characteristics of the generic puppet politician on the neoconservative side
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa If you think Dick Cheney is a generic puppet, it's pretty clear you don't have an understanding of global politics. Google his dealings with Haliburton, Haliburton's role in Iraq, and come back here and tell me with a straight face "it wouldn't have made a difference" if Al Gore won. This argument has gone from absurd to willful ignorance.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"If you think Dick Cheney is a generic puppet, it's pretty clear you don't have an understanding of global politics."
what you just did is an attempt to manifest the illegitimacy of a statement without a valid reason why the statement actually is irrelevant. as the video discussed you are attempting to frame conversation, and establish borders on idea exchange, straight out of fox news talking point stratagem.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Your statement shows clear ignorance of the topic at hand. You seem like a smart guy, but you just said Dick Cheney is interchangeable with a 1999/2000 Democratic candidate ("it wouldn't have mattered who won"), which means unfortunately, you don't have a clear understanding of politics. I know you know your math and feminism, but that doesn't cross over to this subject. Again, Google Haliburton. This isn't about "winning an internet argument." You're just way off base.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
i agree it isnt about winnin an internet argument, but you are simply incorrect. what about hallibuton give some context, he's the former CEO and?. this further proves my point that he is a generic neocon, which falls under the purview of the GOP, one half of the political makeup, which is clearly pushing an individual agenda. the two party system is a circus show, and the fact that you cite cheney of all people, it only proves that you partake of the mainstream kool-aid heavily
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
i agree it isnt about winning an internet argument, but you are simply incorrect. what about hallibuton give some context, he's the former CEO and?. this further proves my point that he is a generic neocon, which falls under the purview of the GOP, one half of the political makeup, which is clearly pushing an individual agenda. the two party system is a circus show, and the fact that you cite cheney of all people, it only proves that you partake of the mainstream kool-aid heavily
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa How does Al Gore winning in 2000 help the neocon GOP global agenda? You just said it made no difference who won, now you're admitting it would have. Again, you really don't seem to understand politics very well.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"How does Al Gore winning in 2000 help the neocon GOP global agenda? You just said it made no difference who won, now you're admitting it would have. Again, you really don't seem to understand politics very well."
lol ok im going to just start demanding you cite what you claim i said. please cite when ive said or implied that al gore winning in 2000 would help the neocon agenda. neocon's and liberals are providig the illusion of choice, they are one in the same.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Again, the idea that 1999/2000 liberals and neoconservatives were the same is several steps beyond ridiculous. It's something people say who don't follow politics at all. "Obama's just like Bush! They're the same!" You sound like every college kid who doesn't really understand the world yet but has an opinion on the process.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"Again, the idea that 1999/2000 liberals and neoconservatives were the same is several steps beyond ridiculous"
again no reason given as to why this claim is ridiculous, i see you have a habit of countering arguments with "thats ridiculous foolish etc" yes yes these are quite the excellent rebuttals. you sound like every kool aid imbibing pundit that refuses to see the american political process for the defunct scam that it is. lol make sure to vote in 2012, it your right!
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Yes, because anyone with a basic understanding of politics knows that liberals and neocons were not interchangeable in 1999. Implying that Dick Cheney is interchangeable with Democratic candidates was an obviously ignorant statement and requires no further explanation. I'm sorry I'm not here to educate you, but we both know you have no interest in learning something outside of your current view regardless.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"and requires no further explanation"
of course, something that you have yet to clearly explain, needs no explanation. how convenient
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Like I said, I'm not here to educate you on basic politics. Your statements are similar to saying "there's no difference between rottweilers and pitbulls. They're both dogs!" To someone who doesn't know anything about dogs, that's true. To someone who knows dogs, you've exposed yourself as ignorant. You're in college, right? When you return, I want you to find a professor and ask him if there's no difference between a 1999 liberal and neo-conservative. Let me know what he says.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted your statements are so full of logical fallacies I don't know why barb is wasting his time.
MoneyIsSilver 2 months ago
@MoneyIsSilver
honestly im tiring of it, some people just need to drink the kool-aid i guess
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"When you return, I want you to find a professor and ask him if there's no difference between a 1999 liberal and neo-conservative. Let me know what he says."
you consider college political professors to be authority figures on politics? i see, that tells me a lot, it shows that you look to be informed of what the satus quo is when determining political reality. i would never ever ask a useless college professor for political insight. only a fool would to be honest
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted youve bought the red vs. blue political ism schism lie. you are acting as though there are separate agenda's for both political parties. i got news for ya, obama continued the wars just like bush. the fact that you believe this left vs right bullshit shows that i is indeed you, who has a glaring political illiteracy
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Each new comment is exposing you as someone who doesn't follow politics closely. Obama didn't "continue the wars just like Bush." Bush actually wrote the end of the Iraq war into law before he left, and we've been withdrawing since. Obama is focusing efforts in Afghanistan (not a good idea), which is a separate agenda from the one Bush started, and there's now the issue of Iran, who Bush empowered and Obama has to deal with. Again, you don't really understand what you're saying.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
" Bush actually wrote the end of the Iraq war into law before he left, and we've been withdrawing since. Obama is focusing efforts in Afghanistan (not a good idea)"
lol yes yes now i understand, why cant i see the difference between two tremendously costly unnecessary wars in the middle east, everything is clear now. you really believe that bait and switch talking point huh? your further gone than i thought
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago 2
@barbarossaaaa Like I said, you sound like every college kid who doesn't understand global politics at all. Lumping Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan together and subsequently Bush and Obama, is a clear lack of basic understanding. No wonder you don't think voting matters, you don't even have a full grasp on the issues that you're voting on.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"Lumping Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan"
there it is once again. until this point, pakistan has not appeared, even once anywhere in my commentary or on any, yet you make the claim that i have lumped them together. you are aware that inserting your generalities into my comments does not change what i have said?
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
The average American may have the ability to ELECT never to SELECT.
The puppets are put before you by the puppet master and the game called
"illusion of choices" begins.
TheEndOfYourWorld 2 months ago
Most of your videos are great, but this is nonsense. You start by demanding that we provide irrefutable proof that votes are counted, then you continue on a rant without a single shred of evidence that they aren't. You say you're not a conspiracy theorist, but it would take a massive conspiracy to discount millions of votes, in hundreds of districts across 50 states. In your opinion, what happens to all of these local ballots when they're all added up and verified by independent parties?
SoTilted 2 months ago 2
@STlt
the evidence is bountiful, both political parties have actively sought to exclude even major independent candidates.. (The Commission on Presidential Debates and what they did to perot) we have an electoral college in place that can overide the popular vote, we have the florida fiasco. as per the votes tallied, i never said i had proof that they arent counted however the onus is on you to prove that they are since the political system in place is one that is favorable to the assumption
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Both parties are corrupt, they do conspire to keep third parties out of debates and off the ballots. This is 100% true. You said in the video that votes aren't counted though. Not only is there no evidence this is true, but it would make absolutely no sense to prevent third parties from entering the race if the outcome was already predetermined without our votes. Everything you just typed nullifies the argument you presented in the video. Think about it.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"You said in the video that votes aren't counted though." i did not say this, i said that they dont matter, and there is a very real difference. the votes are counted by volunteers or electric scanning machines....so what, there obviously is an ultimate destination for the tally, one which the average american citizen is not privy to, we are then given the results through, for profit media outlets. verifiability is of the utmost importance given the stakes here.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa You're playing semantics. 20 seconds into the video, you said we have no way of knowing our vote's been counted (we do). A minute into the video, you say we have no real way of verifying results and go on to say it's inaccurate (with no evidence). Your conclusion is what you're saying now, that votes don't matter. All of that is false for a number of reasons, the most obvious being your last response to me.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"20 seconds into the video, you said we have no way of knowing our vote's been counted (we do)"
if we do then provide it. we arent talking about local elections here, once again on the federal level, there is of course a point in time where the votes are compiled from all 50 states, by a group that the average american citizen will simply never sit in on. can you even tell me where the final count is tallied? and if you can do you have any access? enlighten me please.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
we are talking about a tally conducted in 50 separate locations, which are then compiled and ultimately re-tallied in (im assuming you know where because i dont). and the average american citizen doesn't either, and logistically speaking you see no possibility of mass voter fraud in this scenario? not only does the possibility exist, but history has shown it to have happened already ie florida
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Notice how you're saying 2 different things in one breath. The 2000 election was tampered with on a LOCAL level, because of Bush's pull in the state of Florida. That goes against everything you said in this video, and proves voting was not rigged on a FEDERAL level at the last minute. Voting did in fact matter, votes WERE counted, and blatant state corruption is evidence that the national results are NOT fixed. How do you not understand that you're undermining your own argument?
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
your definition of locality is relative, as the votes of a state the size of florida would entail millions of votes, ive said that as one approaches the federal level, the possibility of voter fraud increases, or in other words as one gets further away from the smallest levels of local governance, the possibility of fraud increases.. did you not listen to the video correctly?
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Again, why would the 2 parties spend so much effort to keep specific candidates off the ballot if voting didn't matter in the first place? Your argument makes no sense, and that's before you add the amount of conspiracies required to make your conclusion plausible.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"Again, why would the 2 parties spend so much effort to keep specific candidates off the ballot if voting didn't matter in the first place?"
This question misses the point. Think about what you're asking... if you and I wanted to stage a fight and invite a bunch of fans in with the secret intent to kill them, and a person wanted to join in but had no intent of killing anyone, we'd of course work together to keep the third person out. It's not really hard to understand at all.
AllPro777 2 months ago
@SoTilted
The main point is, both main American political parties are not really different, they simply go about the same business under a different clothing so to speak. The perfect most recent example is how Obama is pretty much furthering a great deal of Bush's policies even though Bush's policies are what would be squarely called Republican. However, the main point can't be missed that Obama like all President's are simply puppets for the elite and the corporations.
AllPro777 2 months ago
@SoTilted
I'll say that I believe most local voting for local officials is carried out alright because local officials tend to have little or no significant impact on anything outside of of their city lines and the elites have no interest in it. But at the Whitehouse/Capitol Hill level, I firmly believe that by the time they parade the "candidates" out in front of us, the person(s) the banksters and others of the ruling elite class want in power have been selected before they're elected.
AllPro777 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"Both parties are corrupt, they do conspire to keep third parties out of debates and off the ballots. This is 100% true."
and yet your shocked at the accusation that they or, perhaps an entity controlling them, could conspire to override the american vote in the furtherance of their own interests? i see
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa I'm not shocked at all, I'm just letting you know that your argument is severely flawed. If voting doesn't matter, the political parties would not spend millions of dollars a year to suppress voter turn out, and millions more to keep third parties off the ballot. All of that clearly implies that voting does indeed matter, votes are counted, and the results are not fixed. This is basic.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"If voting doesn't matter, the political parties would not spend millions of dollars a year to suppress voter turn out"
if in fact the success of a co-opted political system depended on the illusion of choice, then it would be of the utmost importance to maintain such an illusion... this is basic, understand the concept of subterfuge, as i said in the video true power is wielded invisibly hence my refusal to speculate on who's really running the show
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Again, this makes absolutely no sense. If votes don't matter and the results are fixed, it would make no difference if 2, 3, or 5 candidates run. It would make no difference whether there are 2 major parties, or 4 smaller ones. In fact, the more parties running, the bigger the distraction, more media subterfuge, the easier for the invisible hand to pick a winner with an even SMALLER majority vote. Everything you type goes against your own argument. Think about it for 5 minutes.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
once again you are incorrect, you can have two fixed parties and keep the variance in tact with a large number of candidates all expected to tow the party line but each with individual deviations, to create the illusion of choice, limiting the parties does not limit the ability to conduct subterfuge within them, you are wrong again.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa I'm not wrong at all. You're saying the 2 parties in power are going out of their way to keep extra parties from running, which means votes do in fact matter. Then you say they're spending those millions to keep third and forth parties out of the running to PRETEND to give the illusion that voting matters, even though the vote is fixed on a federal level. That makes no sense whatsoever and you know that. Where is your proof of any of this?
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
Don't you see the point that it's fixed to keep disrupters of the agenda out? It definitely matters how many are running when the system is setup to only be two-headed. All they're doing is using a Good Vs. Evil tactic. Good Cop Bad Cop. The concept is as old as time, man. A third party just isn't needed in their eyes, so they have no reason to entertain it with any strong attention, and they haven't.
AllPro777 2 months ago
@SoTilted
In 1992, Reform Party candidate Ross Perot had a seven percent rating in the polls before the presidential debates. On election day, Perot had 19 percent of the vote, the largest-ever jump for a presidential candidate [source: PBS]. Proving himself a risk to the other candidates, the Dole and Clinton campaigns excluded him from the presidential debates through the CPD when he ran again in 1996.- ive provided a documented instance of govt limiting the candidacy to 2 preferential groups
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa
of course since the system in place, is one in which the efficacy of the vote is an assumed reality, it is once again your responsibility, to prove that it is an accurate representation of the popular vote.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Again, where is YOUR evidence that your conclusion is plausible, let alone true? You've made a lot of demands but offered nothing but conjecture. You're making outrageous claims that would require a massive conspiracy, and saying it's MY responsibility to prove it doesn't. That's absolutely absurd.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted So there's zero evidence that that votes are counted on a federal level and there is no evidence that the votes are just dismissed or ignored. Verdict: Average Americans can't/don't know. So why would anyone place legitimacy on something that is unverified?
nonconservative 2 months ago
@SoTilted
" Again, where is YOUR evidence"
again the onus is on you to provide the evidence that a political system which endows so much power onto its elected officials is in fact legitimate, i said clearly in my video that if in fact what im saying is true, that any epi-politic power structure would be invisible. yet you are making the claim that the system we see has fidelity... ok then prove it.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa No. You're making a claim that votes don't matter because election results are fixed on a federal level, which goes against your other claims that votes are tampered with on a local level, which also contradicts the concept of 2 parties working to keep candidates off the ballot (for which a vote doesn't mater). You haven't presented a case for conspiracy, only voiced gripes about the political system. Where is your evidence of anything?
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"which goes against your other claims that votes are tampered with on a local level"
again not what i said, please try to keep what ive said accurate, i said as you approach the federal level the possibility of voter fraud drastically increases, this does not discount the possibility of it on the local level,
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa You brought up the 2000 election, which was possibly rigged on a local level. If Florida was rigged, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that votes are counted, and DO matter on a federal level. If the results of a Presidential election are predetermined and/or tampered with on a federal level, why would they have to rig it by going to a few counties in Florida? Your argument keeps falling apart here. Either votes in local districts matter or they don't, it can't be both.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"If Florida was rigged, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that votes are counted"
lol wow your dense once again ive not said... not even once that the votes arent counted, ive said that there are multiple counts, one of which is final and at the federal level, of which we.. the general public have no oversight... are you not listening correctly?
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Were you watching the news during the 2000 election Florida count? Have you ever seen live reporting by county, where they stay up all night counting votes by hand? I'm not trying to be condescending, but you seem to be making things up as you go along now. At what point do you think Bush stole the election? When did the vote change from live broadcasting on a local level to a federal recount? How bizarre of a theory are you willing to make up?
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
I'm not trying to be condescending, but you are in effect telling me that the t.v. is your accurate representation of reality, ive said, (i think this is the fifth time now) that an ultimate tally, not the state determines the vote. you are basing floridas ultimate role in deciding the election on the unconfirmed legitimacy of the other 49. i dont know if your not comprehending this im trying to explain it as simply as possible
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa So you're now back to claiming Bush rigged Florida, to win an election that was already predetermined. Again, what sense does it make to rig votes in a few counties in one state if the entire thing is rigged federally? How is that not a wildly absurd conspiracy theory? You're presenting something completely far fetched and asking the burden of proof to be on Occam's razor. You're better than this.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
no your back to assuming conflating the assumption of the possibility of voter fraud on the county level with it being a fact. ive stayed consisten in saying that ultimately a tally on the federal level will be conducted in a way that the average american citizen has no access to. you can continue to add to that and pretend that ive said your doctore version of my statement as counter argument if you wish
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa I don't have to doctor your statement, because you're not actually making statements. You're asking questions, trying to shift burden of proof on the side of Occam's razor. You haven't actually made one claim, because that would require you to actually back it up. Like I said, all you've offered is conjecture. You can't explain why Bush would have to rig a few counties in one state for an election that's rigged federally, so your argument fails.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"You can't explain why Bush would have to rig a few counties in one state for an election that's rigged federally,"
yes i cant explain it... the main reason being that ive never said it to be the case. you some to believe genuinely that if you pretend someone said something hard enough that they actually said it. again i posited the possibility of voter fraud on every level, with the likelihood increasing as one approaches the federal level, read clearly please
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa You're a bright guy, this isn't difficult. Follow your argument. You said in the video (and in several comments) that voting does not matter because the results are fixed on a federal level. You agree Florida was rigged in 2000, which proves local country votes DO matter. Both cannot be true. Local district votes can't both count and NOT count. Your argument is a failure in logic, so you went on to say the other 49 states may have been rigged too, which doesn't change my argument.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"You said in the video (and in several comments) that voting does not matter because the results are fixed on a federal level."
wow just wow, your porpensity for twisting what was actually said is getting worse with eac comment. what was said AGAIN is that we cannot disprove that the results arent fixed on the federal level, and then i made claims to support why this is probably the case.. at no point did i say this was absolute. do you want me to quote the video?
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Of course you didn't say it was absolute, because you don't want the burden of proof for your conspiracy theory. You have no evidence for anything you presented in this video, and have no explanation for why someone would rig local county votes for a federally rigged election. Logic fail.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted Are you trying to say that voting isn't rigged?
MoneyIsSilver 2 months ago
@MoneyIsSilver
lol
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"Of course you didn't say it was absolute, because you don't want the burden of proof for your conspiracy theory."
i see just like you dont want the burden of having to prove the difference between neo cons and liberals? like that?
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa
wikipedia /wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
wikipedia /wiki/Neoconservatism
Again, the differences are self-evident to anyone with a basic grasp in politics. What's self-evident about your federal->local->federal rigged vote conspiracy?
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
the differences are self evident if you havent devoted a scrap of critical thought to these "differences", ive provided many instances in my videos of how both sides of the political spectrum contribute to the same things in slightly different ways. things such as misandry in its left wing (feminism) and right wing(chivalry) forms. they are the same political cocktail with slight variances in flavor nothing more
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa You're 100% right, they both contribute to misandry. They also both answer to corporate lobbyists, they both bend over to banks, they both promote lies about our health care system, they both fuck over our veterans. They're similar in HUNDREDS of ways. They're also different in several ways also. Like I said, saying "liberals and neocons are the same" is like saying "rottweilers and pitbulls are the same." It's a 100% true statement, if you have very little knowledge of dogs.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
they are the same in enough ways that it renders their differences insignificant, its more like comparing white pitbulls and brown pitbulls. they both do the same thing in the long run. extraneous differences are irrelevant
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Again, that's simply not true. They aren't different enough in ways that you and I would like, but they are different. Obama has been significantly better than Bush on Stem cell research, interest rate disclosure, private sector job increases, etc. The idea that he's "the same" as another candidate because he's not different enough is a view that most kids your age hold. I thought the same thing until I started following politics closely. I'm very glad McCain isn't President.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"Obama has been significantly better than Bush on Stem cell research, interest rate disclosure, private sector job increases, etc"
Are you sure you want to use THOSE as a basis? Considering the fact that we're on the brink of an economic collapse--which at this point is imminent--Quite frankly, none of those mean a damn in the face of what's on the horizon. But the argument is futile, because the Presidential role is really just a figurehead now and has been for a very long time.
AllPro777 2 months ago 2
@AllPro777 I'm not saying Obama's an ideal candidate. I just made the case that it does matter who you vote for. If Al Gore and Bush would have had similar economic policies in 2001, that doesn't mean they would have handled 911 in the exactly the same fashion. If Obama and McCain would have both bailed out the banks, that doesn't mean they would have both continued to withdraw from Iraq. Democracy doesn't mean choosing from 2 polar opposites and never has meant that. Also see Clinton/Dole.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
But that's just it, the way the system is set up, combined with the way media portrays the process--which is where Americans have their ideals of the process shaped--we're led to believe that the candidates really are polar opposites. It's their schtick. You mentioned two critical points of subject, bailout and war withdrawal, but I see those as moot because there is simply no way a public leader in a Corporatocracy can have any real power over decisions that critical to the elite.
AllPro777 2 months ago
@AllPro777
I just wanted to add:
"there is simply no way a public leader in a Corporatocracy can have any real power over decisions that critical to the elite."
Unless he himself is part of the elite. I don't believe Obama is a high-ranking official of the elite class. But we know GW is since he's been a Carlyle Group exec (which profits from the sale of weapons and weapons grade materials), and we know Cheney is since he's been a Halliburton executive and a Carlyle Group exec.
AllPro777 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa And candidates who TRULY are different, on a fundamental level, are a threat, which is why the 2 parties go through such lengths to marginalize them. Which all points back to my original point, voting DOES matter. If the vote was fixed, they wouldn't care who was on the ballot. It would make no difference. This is common sense and Occam's razor.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
oh man this is just going around in circles now. tell ya what go vote, if you want to tell yourself its going to make a difference you can. the reality is that this is not the case, but by all means suit yourself
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
oh man this is just going around in circles now. tell ya what go vote, if you want to tell yourself its going to make a difference you can. the reality is that this is not the case, but by all means suit yourself
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
oh man this is just going around in circles now. tell ya what go vote, if you want to tell yourself its going to make a difference you can. the reality is that this is not the case, but by all means suit yourself
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
for you to make the claim that florida decided the election, you have to furnish proof that the other 49 where accurate on the federal level. the county by county readout is irrelevant, and not only that, but your premise would have to rely on the fidelity of the counties, it makes no sense
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa LOL So the Presidential election was already predetermined on a federal level, but they decided to rig a few counties in Florida just in case the federal rig conspiracy machine broke? They had a BACK UP conspiracy? Is that what you're saying?
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"LOL So the Presidential election was already predetermined on a federal level, but they decided to rig a few counties in Florida just in case the federal rig conspiracy machine broke?"
wow your powers of selectively manipulating what ive said are simply breathtaking. read it again.. slowly, ive posited the possibility of voter fraud on every level, and clearly said in the video that the likelihood of it increases as one approaches the federal level. conspiracy is your addendum
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@barbarossaaaa "ive posited the possibility" LOL Another way of saying "I have no proof for anything I'm saying, I'm just sayin..." I'm sorry the burden of proof is not on the world to convince you that every random conspiracy thought that enters your mind is not fact.
SoTilted 2 months ago
@SoTilted
we also have to ask ourselves if the votes have any efficacy in transmitting the will of the people, why do we see congress at a 12% approval rating, obviously this precious "vote", is not rendering the intended consequence. even if you can disprove me saying that we cannot prove if the final tally is legitimate(you cant), the intended result of the vote is not being delivered.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@SoTilted
"which also contradicts the concept of 2 parties working to keep candidates off the ballot (for which a vote doesn't mater)."
sigh... again...
if in fact the success of a co-opted political system depended on the illusion of choice, then it would be of the utmost importance to maintain such an illusion... this is basic, understand the concept of subterfuge, as i said in the video true power is wielded invisibly hence my refusal to speculate on who's really running the show...
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@S theres a movie about this very topic. and check out bradblog(dot)com. brad friedman has practically made it his life work bringing this issue to bay. i know that in the state of texas the republican party has bought the green party out. if you cast a straight green ticket ballot, the diebold machines have been known to mark the ballot as being a republican straight ticket. coincidence? i dont know but usually coincidences dont have such strong benefit for one side of an issue.
paragshah2112 2 months ago
I'd vote for you!
tatiebogle 2 months ago
From my grandfather to my father They've done some unbelieveable shit. At the cost of there sanity and ultimately there lives. It might sound misguided, but my right to vote deals little about the choices . It's more about the legacy.
gmann1695 2 months ago
One citizen's vote does not sway elections. But a thousand sure do. While I agree that our politics narrows down the choices to just a couple of options, it's also a reflection of the culture on the whole, in one sense. We are a nation of groups, each vying for as much of the swill from the trough as possible; which is why you might hear some people agree that some sort of reform needs to happen, but don't you dare touch their pet program (Social Security, Medicare, Farm Subsidies, etc.).
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Believe it or not, you have a lot more influence in things than you realize. What you do and say, and what you fail to do and say, have an influence. If our society has become this emasculated feminized state, who's fault is that? Well, it's ours. We let this happen.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
Did you edit in the long sigh at 3:05? lol
Clearly, the media plays a large part in steering the outcome of elections as well as influencing public support for or against certain policies. The internet is now countering their efforts somewhat. The thing is, POLICY is not changed all that much by elections, and policy is the part of government that matters most.
j1mmyZeta 2 months ago
@j1mmyZeta
nah i was too lazy to edit it out lol
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
If just to vote (none of the above). To many brothers and sisters suffered for me to have this right.
gmann1695 2 months ago
Encouraging people not to vote is the same as voting for the Republican candidate since they will do better in the case of low voter turn out. Arguing that your individual vote won't matter is straw man argument. Voting as a collective indisputably matters.
fistiza 2 months ago
@fistiza
does it? where is your proof that your vote swayed any political election youve voted in? or that your vote as well as the vote of the collective was ever even counted? unless you have definitive proof of this then you cannot prove the efficacy of a vote on an individual or collective basis
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa It it obvious that vote counting exist. When I vote a local volunteer is tasks with counting my and everyone in my district's votes. In almost every election the popular vote has chosen the President. It seems like the internet conspiracy theories are skewing your view of reality.
fistiza 2 months ago
@fistiza
i didnt ask if a local volunterr counts the vote, i asked you to provide proof that this tally is then applied decide elections. there is no conspiracy here, im asking you to furnish proof that votes are the irrefutable deciders of major american elections. its simple if you say an amount a causes a result b then you need to be able to prove the amount of a and whether or not there is any correlation between a and b.
barbarossaaaa 2 months ago
The owners of this nation know the media is there to shape opinions. From political shows, movies, talk shows, radio. Its all there to influence minds. "NO SOVEREIGN CONSCIOUSNESS" Well said my friend. Mind if I steal that phrase?
DiNatalli 2 months ago
Politics and media is a joke. Look what they are doing to Ron Paul now that he is #1 in Iowa. The government~media complex is real. NWO is real and its all bull shit.
DiNatalli 2 months ago
ROFL at the tittle
Spider58x 2 months ago
Do not believe a single word the Politicians say.
They lie as easily as they fart. The politicians only serve themselves and a great numbers of those feeble-minded, pathetic, sanctimonious do-gooders will always pander to whoever shouts loudest, in attempt to feel like a better person; and feminists are the shrieking gorgons who shout the loudest.
Zuberi4 2 months ago
From what I've been hearing/researching. You're not supposed to let anyone represent you unless you sign a specific contract with them. This is something like a two signer agreement. Where as voting is slave to master UNwritten agreement.
Now if this is true. Then ALL VOTING is pretty much null and void!!!
There's a video series on it from Veritas radio. If I find it I might send it to you.
Peace.
Urhoboman5 2 months ago
Voting is consent to slavery. It also allows the real powers to remain hidden which is exactly what they need to keep the fraud going.
BobbyL5757 2 months ago
If our votes really mattered, than why the fuck do we have the electoral college?
Zuberi4 2 months ago
"Titular Ron Paul supporter naively suggesting that the Candidate in question won't be sabotaged, defrauded, assassinated or all three".
Oh good time to watch Iowa! *popcorn*
cas343 2 months ago
barbarossaaaa, the only disappointing thing about your videos is that they are too short sometimes. Please make them longer if you have time! They are like a breath of fresh air.
Defender2516 2 months ago
@barbarossaaaa Democrats and Republicans are two opposite sides of the same coin. People do not have true choice and freedom in the USA. Soon we shall likely lose the last place of freedom which is the Internet. No matter what the people do SOPA or some laws shall get past to censor the web.
Shouxiao 2 months ago
Very insightful video! It's to bad politicians are all about putting themselves first, not to mention the majority of americans are just to blind and ignorant to exactly give a fuck. Just like at what they feed us on the news
XHeavensEclipse 2 months ago