Brainstorming the Future

[Rumpl4skn]

Okay, I had too much coffee today, and I need everyone and anyone to weigh in on something.

My take the past year or so has been that the globalists or the G8 or the Bilderbergers or whomever the fuck is running this show have been preparing for a predetermined swing back to the Left in the U.S., in terms of Congressional power in '06 and Hillary in '08. The theory being, of course, that neither party (of the 2 'allowable' parties in this sham, under the current political 'system') is allowed to flounder outside of power for too long, or there would be real 3rd party grumblings or a movement. And a 3 dimensional paradigm is much more difficult to manipulate and control.

But lately, I've had an awful feeling. What if the gameplan in November is not to allow this shift back towards the Left, but instead to allow the Democrats to assume they are going to come back to power, when in reality some new "War on Terror" trump cards will be played to rescue the Republicans. I.e., the al-Qaeda scam is played to the max, elections are stolen again, and the result is blamed on Democrats not taking the threats seriously?

This flies in the face of everything I believe about the manipulation of our political system, but then... maybe we're in a new age now, and all bets are off. Check the appropriate box below:

Yes, the GOP may again triumph in November
No, the basic pendulum shift plan has not changed
Get back on your meds

I'm just watching this "new terror leader in Iraq" being shoved down everyone's collective throat, and cries of a "possible turning point" in the war. I realize, of course, that some of this is to shore up sagging opinions amongst the far right, so as not to have the party disintegrate from political depression in November.

If you don't agree with my original hypothesis about control of the 2-party system, then... thanks anyway. That's the base from which I'm working. Right or wrong.

[Toto]

There is no 2-party system that this the show. I am sure you know this. Dont worry these guys will never win they have already lost.

[hawkwind]

You have officially dragged yourself (kicking and screaming ) to the next level! The big question now is ... how many more "terrorists" are on "ice", waiting to be paraded before the sheep? Are they finished with the freshly thawed bogey men for 2006 and the big reveal will be in 2008 ... any bets?

- Hawk

[Rumpl4skn]

[Ormond]

[Damian Flynn]

I'm guessing that if they want Hillary Clinton as next president, they'll want to drive the U.S. economy into the ground before the elections.

[Jerry Fletcher]

[Ozregeneration]

[Rumpl4skn]

Some of what I threw out was 'worst case scenario' conjecture to get opinions.

In all honesty, I don't see how the power elite can manage this theater if they rip the hearts out of the Democrats this November. I spend a lot of time on Liberal message boards and blogs, and there are already a ton of 'former' Democrats who have lost faith in the party, and are thinking Independant. They know Kerry laid down for Bush, they know Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had, they suspect the war on terror is mostly hype, and some of them even know Paul Wellstone was taken out by the CIA.

I think a last-minute GOP trick would convince too many on the Left that they've reached the political apocalypse, and all hell would break loose. In my world, the manipulation of politics in the U.S. (or anywhere) is not allowing one side to drown for too long. I think the rope is going to be tossed.

Note: just because the Left will slide back into power, the "War on Terra" will continue, unabated. There's too much geo-political and financial windfall to let that go away, possibly ever.

[Ormond]

I do the rounds between an ecclectic range of friends, always listening to what self-identifed 'lefty' or 'righty' opinion is from week to week.

Older Dems I know are a bit right of center, and not enthusiastic on having to support the whole liberal 'package'. They all seem to be mum on Kerry and the 2004 election, and last year's Cindy Sheehan, and Downing Street Minutes, "impending indictements" rumors around the Plame dog and pony show have left them jaded this year.

But the real breakthrough is this from an email from my old Republican buddy, who's active in the party and reflects a common sentiment in grass roots right:

[Fintan]

Misleading headline --as it's a straw poll of progressive
democrats at the "Take Back America Conference".

It's not a poll of democratic voters. But.....

[Rumpl4skn]

When I think of politically-unbiased polling of the general electorate, I always think of the Daily Kos first.

Correct. This "polling" was done amongst their readership (of which I admit I at times a member), and they're asking the ideologically-hip internet Democrats for their view of the new Global Warming hero and movie star, Al Gore. Of course he'd be a landslide winner.

The globalists preferred choice, Ms. Hillary, will never be fully rehabbed successfully in the eyes of the true Leftist Dems, but she can be made to look very good to the center.... and that's where elections are won and lost.

Gore's getting a ton of positive face time lately. His role in all of this? Backup Pres. candidate in the event of any problems with Hill (people do get hit by busses, you know) or Primo Veep material? I don't know - I can rarely outthink them. I'm usually ecstatic when I see the scam as it's unfolding.

[Ormond]

This isn't a a fully researched reply from me today. I thought to demonstrate that both Gore and Hillary are Globalist schills, but I'm too busy with work today to look up substantial sources as the scope of charting Gore and Hillary connections back to the same master is research intensive.
If anyone has already done this research in detail, please post it.

Hurridly, I'll mention that Gore is a member in good standing with the Council on Foreign Relations, as Bush and the male Clinton are. Hillary doesn't appear to be a CFR member, though she might as well be.

Also, Gore's environmental line is issue for issue copacetic with the infamous Maurice Strong's agenda, who has deep pockets backing relationship with Gore going back at least to the 2000 campaign.

Maurice Strong is a Canadian David Rockefeller protege,founder of the U.N. Environmental Program, author of the Kyoto Protocols, with ties to presidential hopeful Al Gore (FORBES, Jan. 22, 1996 and Apr. 21, 1997). He was big contributor to Gore's 2000 campaigns, thorugh donation vis controlling interest in may corporations, such as Molten Metals.

Strong has a very long dossier, so anyone who hasn't heard of should read up. This is one quick reference.
Maurice Storng: Background

Strong also had himself appointed Secretary General of the U.N., replacing Kofi Annan around 2000.

Interestingly, Hillary's name was mentioned as a possible successor to Annan back in 1999, as she was active in the UN's Commission on the Status of Women, making international headlines as a featured speaker before that body in 1998. Hillary's endorsements of US government use of UN and NATO "peace keepers" on US soil in a national emergency, is well known and documented, though I don't have time today to look all that up.

Hillary is currently promoting the disinfo notion that the Bush Administration is 'playing down' the threat of a nuclear Iran, and calling for the same sort of UN sanctions against Iran that reduced the Iraqi population to inadequate nourishment and medical care during the 1990's (in prepartion for US invasion).

Sen. Clinton Urges U.N. Sanctions Against Iran

Gore seems to be staying clear of making statements regarding Iraq, Iran, or anything to do with the full spectrum of his Presidential platform, beyond environmentalism.

I check on Daily KOS occasionally, but I'd say that a poll exclusively of KOS readers would be skewed in terms of what's actually going to happen.
It is true, though, that Hillary really isn't popular yet.
My take on KOS is that it's a satrap for smarter than anverage people who've become suspicious of either US political party.
I wasn't surprised to see Hillary wash out on the poll, but I'm surprised Gore did so well.
But it's true that if US elections relied upon broad popularity and public trust, Hillary wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president. But as Rumple deduced, the problem of installing a Democrat in the White House may be less of voter popularity, and more about how to get the public to buy it when they pull the fraud while the Republican machine 'blows it'. With a subtle wink to their co-spirator 'Democrats', of course.

[Damian Flynn]

I know it's a bit off topic, but if anyone would like to have a laugh at Al Gore, try watching the second last South Park episode,

episode 1006 Manbearpig

http://www.southparkx.net/episodes/1006-manbearpig

[dilbert_g]