NewsFocus In-Depth

A Look at the 2016 Election Fiasco in Hindsight

None of This Political Nightmare Has Been a Coincidence, Op-Ed by Tim Watts - 111116

As some people in this country vent their anger over the election of Donald J. Trump, there are at least two camps of people who are having an entirely opposite reaction... 1) those reveling in the win and basking in the glow of victory, and 2) those hiding in fear for their lives as the chaos and calamity threaten to descend upon their once peaceful neighborhoods.

As all of this is happening and being hyped up by the corporate news media, I am quite saddened by the discourse that is taking place across the US, but I am also not surprised, having already published an article the day before the election entitled Prepare for a Post-Election US Shift. It was inevitable that this would happen because it was programmed to happen.

The fact of the matter is... when it comes to the circus and the mayhem of the 2016 presidential election, this was no accident. Please know and understand this absolute fact... that this election was quite carefully and strategically put together and rigged, right from the get-go.

Creating Another US Divide

The 2016 US presidential election was an orchestrated fabrication by big $$$ power, carefully engineered to do exactly as it has done, to further divide this nation. I have some glaring facts to substantiate this point, which I will share in just a moment, so please hear me out.

It cannot be emphasized enough that all of this was preordained to happen right from the very start, by those who have all the money and power to own and control both political parties in this carefully crafted bi-partisan union known as the United States of America.

FYI... our forefathers never intended for it to be this way... having just two major political parties, because they knew that would only divide and fracture their beloved nation in half. They were absolutely right.

When you think about it long enough, it's extremely embarrassing to refer to a two-party political system as any form of real democracy. In reality, one can only be an adversary for the other, as opposed to three, four or even five major political parties, all jockeying for public support by offering a more enticing political ideology than the others, with positive solutions to the everyday problems of "we the people."

Instead, we are stuck within an archaic two-party political system that runs akin to the major sports leagues of this country, focusing instead on an "Us vs Them" mentality. We have the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and then there's US politics. The Republicans and Democrats are as much about "team" and "loyalty" as the Cowboys or the Red Sox... and that's a major problem with the US two-party system, because people are loyal to a fault, when it comes to their candidate, even if their candidate is "less than perfect" as a human being.

When the election is over, it's much like the day after the Super Bowl. You're either excited because your team won, or you're depressed because your team lost. That is the game known as American politics.

This has undeniably been the major downfall of the US political system, a system that is supposed to be sacrosanct in maintaining democracy in support of the republic.

Two-Party Pitfall

The one thing that can be said of a two-party system is that it is much easier to keep under control than a multiple party system, and... it can clearly be quite divisive to the union.

This is something you'd think we would have an intimate education of in this country, perhaps having learned just a wee bit between the years of 1861 and 1865, during the American civil war. Now, because of just two political parties, this nation is torn once again.

I almost wrote "torn in half" to finish that last sentence, sort of as a preconditioned rhetorical response, but stopped short of doing so because I realize and know that MANY people were also extremely disenchanted with both candidates. Many people across this country shared the exact same sentiment - that this presidential field sucked when it came to a really great candidate. (Even an average candidate.)

As a result, (and as designed) people were left to openly quibble over "the lesser of two evils."

So after the stolen elections in 2000 and 2004, and broken campaign promises of 2008 and 2012, here we are one more time, once again screaming that the incoming president is the worst ever, as if to suggest that there were subtle differences between Hitler, Hess, and Himmler.

The fact is, they've all been bad.

Manufactured Mayhem

Once again, the fact of the matter is, this chaos has been methodically prepared and arranged for us.

Here is why this is so glaringly apparent.

According to the folks at, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the least popular candidates in the modern era to ever run for president.

That is quite a phenomenal political stat to digest and also one that is most telling.

As a researcher, I found this statistic to not only be outrageously fascinating, but also curiously disturbing at the same time.

Seriously. It's a very, very revealing statistic, especially if you've been following the degeneration of the US since 9/11.

As you can see from the graph below, Hillary has a 56% disapproval rate while the Donald has a 58% disapproval rate.

Perhaps even more striking is the fact that there is also dissatisfaction with each candidate from within their own party.

As many have asked before... this was the best presidential field that the two political parties could come up with?


When have we ever seen one of the two political parties pick their least favorable candidate, let alone both of them at the same time?

Okay, to be truthful, it actually happened in 2008 when both political parties ran from their most popular candidates. The Democrats refused to nominate Dennis Kucinich, while the Republicans balked at running Ron Paul, both of whom had much larger grassroots support among the people than either Obama or McCain.

This happened again in 2012 when the RNC once again ran from Ron Paul, choosing a tractionless, doomed Mitt Romney instead.

So, it has happened in the recent past, post-9/11. 

Fast-forward now to election 2016, and here we go again. For many in the RNC the mantra this election cycle became "Dump Trump," yet somehow, he prevailed.

In the end we had the high-baggage Hillary vs. the sexist Trump.

How Did It Happen?

The big $$$ question we're left to answer afterwards is... why on earth would any political party run its least favorable candidate?

It's extremely out of character, because these political machines do perceptive research on the general populace far beyond the norm. They know absolutely everything about the likes and dislikes of a candidate, as each pertains to the voting populace. Because of this research, each party has a very intimate knowledge of their candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and they know full well how those will play to the voter.

So how is it then that we ended up with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

To top that question, here's an even bigger question... what are the odds that BOTH political parties would run their worst candidates ever in the modern era, in the same election?

Let me answer that by stating that there is no way that this is just a random "coincidence of fate."

As mentioned, both parties do extensive polling and research. They literally have the pulse of the nation at any given moment and know exactly what to address, when to do it, and how to do it.

To think that we were given the worst that either party has ever delivered for a US presidential election, at this point in our post-9/11 recovery, is unequivocally no coincidence.

Like it or not, that's exactly what we were given in 2016, the worst candidates ever. Judging from the tenor of the nation before and after the election, it would appear that most people very much concur with such an assessment.

Two elections in a row we saw parties run from their best candidate, but none perhaps more so than in 2016.

First off, Democrats far and away preferred Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton, but the DNC rigged it so that Clinton won the primary.

Hillary was the most unelectable person in DNC history, so much so that Michael Dukakis would have probably excited Democrats more.

On the RNC side, nearly every Republican was in the pool, each vying for the nomination, yet in the end it was the candidate least expected that stayed afloat, the one with the least amount of political and/or social correctness, and also the most political liability.

That (IMHO) was a political key for the Clinton campaign, because the only way for damaged-goods Hillary to stand any chance of getting elected was to get into a fight with a known womanizer - and someone who wasn't politically correct in his speech.

That is the election we got, but not the outcome we expected.

What are the odds that BOTH political parties would run their worst candidates ever in the modern era, in the same election?

Divide & Conquer

Those that divided this nation did so by taking over both parties long ago (1920's). Their goal was to make both parties dissimilar at the bottom, for the appearance of the general public, yet at the top they would be similar, for the powers that be (TPTB).

This has been glaringly transparent through the last four administrations as policy in this country has not wavered significantly from party-to-party when it comes to domestic prosperity and tranquility, versus a globalist agenda.

It is this author's contention, that's what 9/11 was all about, the big push for the uber-rich's wet dream of a new world order (NWO), run strictly by them of course.

Each US president since Reagan has brought new destruction to the sovereignty of the United States, as well as dramatic new threats to its constitution since 9/11.

Under George HW Bush it was phase I, with a cursory introduction to the NWO. Also... NAFTA was originally conceived by the George HW Bush administration.

Bill Clinton handled phase II, setting up the downfall of the US through a legislative overhaul on key government protections, such as Glass-Steagall and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, among others.

George W Bush and Dick Cheney oversaw phase III, the 9/11 attacks and an introduction to the bogus War on Terror, giving us the PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security and TSA, etc, etc, etc.

Barack Obama was the wolf in sheep's clothing, sent in to calm the flock for phase IV, while continuing the policies of his predecessor, and adding on to those with more of his own, such as the SIP and NDRP. He also oversaw US treaty involvement in TPP, TTIP, TSIA, and CETA, treaties that would further cement a globalist union run by the super-rich.

And now we are on to phase V in the continued takedown of the US.

The Promise of False Hope

The last two presidential elections we have had someone promise to clean up the sins of the past, yet afterwards they changed their tune.

In 2009, Obama reversed his earlier campaign promises to go after Bush & Cheney, instead saying that it was time for the nation to look forward, rather than looking backward at an ugly past.

This is the exact same thing that Bill Clinton said after Iran-Contra, but then how could he prosecute for it when he was deeply involved in it with George HW Bush in Mena, Arkansas?

Now, in 2016, we have Donald trump who says he is tired of the status quo and wants to end the crony politics in America. He even said he would go so far as to hire a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

Well, pardon me if I don't have a few reservations and just a tad bit of trepidation on Trump going after the head of the snake, since the worst snakes of all are in the billionaire's club.

Those particular people are good at creating divides amongst the populace. They are the devious masters of it.

They furthered a divide of black vs. white under the watch of the first black US president ever. That's quite a dubious achievement. Rather than bringing two races together, as his election should have, racial tension in this country became even greater after Obama's election than it was before. That is no coincidence.

Now they've exacerbated the political divide in this country by running the least liked candidates ever, thus fomenting anxiety and fear amongst the voting populace.

The only people who benefit from having a worse candidate in office are those who were in office previously. It's hard to look so bad when the successor that follows you is perceived as Genghis Khan.

Those that created this divide are the same people that created the new Muslim-Christian divide, increased the black-white divide, and exploded the left-right divide. Again, they are the masters of division.

Don't Give in to the Plan

So the next time you feel like tossing a brick through a storefront window, or overturning a car and setting it on fire (because nothing says Democracy quite like a flaming Volvo on its side) just remember that TPTB engineered and orchestrated this entire event. They want people to react violently, because it plays into their hands, for a further police state, or worse yet, martial law.

So, if you get angry over this election, you are just playing into their hands by doing exactly as they want.

Why not recognize the obvious and instead focus your anger and disgust on those who have the money and power to actually swing such a sordid election. (And if you're thinking Soros or the Koch brothers, you need to think bigger, because they're but only minions to the real power.)

It's time to go for the head of the snake, lest we get bit once again.

Read also:

Prepare for a Post-Election US Shift

The Fiasco Known as the 2016 US Presidential Election


Trump Now Says on :60-Minutes That Clintons Are Good People
Unsure Over a Special Prosecutor; Possibility of Unfulfilled Campaign Promise

Will Trump be like Clinton, Bush and Obama, and not prosecute past crimes?


Return to