|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
Campaign finance is at the very heart of complaints about elections. Let’s look at some of the claims about money’s role, and proposals to change it.
Money and its potentially corrupting influence is at the very heart of complaints about politics in the United States, and every two years, many candidates promise voters that they’ll try to reform a system that they say has been broken by congressional inaction and the Supreme Court.
Over the last year, Bernie Sanders has built his presidential campaign around the charge that the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in elections has led to the passage of laws that have widened the chasm between the rich and the poor. Hillary Clinton has also called for significant campaign-finance reform, and even Donald Trump has joined in, calling out his Republican rivals for being beholden to their major donors. Most other Republicans have rejected calls for reform on the principle that political speech should not be restricted.
Here we take a look at the claims about the influence of money on politics and the various proposals to reduce it.
The problem of money in politics is so universally recognized that even Donald Trump, the ultimate capitalist, and Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, agree on it. Sanders has spent his career railing against the corrupting influence of wealthy and corporate donors, while Trump has unmasked the game by admitting that he gave money to politicians to curry favor with them. The success of both of these politicians suggests the degree to which Americans are fed up with the influence of money on politics. If we don't reduce that influence, our system risks losing its legitimacy.
Trump’s truth-telling aside (if that’s what it is), this premise is much shakier and polarizing than political rhetoric often makes it seem. Can money be separated from politics?
The answer to that is almost certainly no. At their core, democratic elections are a battle of personalities and ideas, and the only way to inform voters about their choices in an election is make sure that the messages of candidates reach them. And just about any way you cut it, that’s going to cost money—whether it’s to pay for advertising, to set up and run a website, to hire people as staffers, or to hold rallies or events that the media will cover. Campaigns for local office can often be run on the cheap. Candidates rely on volunteers to run their campaigns and on social media, rather than paid advertising, to spread their message. But they're never totally free.
The Holy Grail for many campaign-finance reformers is publicly-funded elections, but even in cities and states that have them currently, most are based on matching funds, which requires candidates to raise a minimum amount of money to demonstrate viability. And proposals for public funding of elections in Congress don’t totally eliminate private donations, either.
So that leads us to a second question: If we could separate money from politics, should we? This is really the fundamental divide over campaign financing in the United States. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was based on the principle—long shared by conservatives—that campaign contributions are a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. And to the dismay of most Democrats, the Citizens United ruling extended those protections not just to individuals but to corporations (and labor unions), leading critics to charge that the Supreme Court had decreed that corporations were effectively the same as people.
Whatever the interpretation, the ruling inarguably allowed wealthy individuals, businesses, and other groups to use money to influence elections with more freedom than they had before.
If Citizens United was so pivotal in aggravating the problem, the Supreme Court should overturn it. The ruling misinterpreted the First Amendment as a protection of money in politics, and it conflated corporations with individuals in a way that opened the floodgates for companies to spend millions—or even billions—to influence elections.
What precedent is there for the Court to reverse itself so quickly and dramatically?
Right now there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and whoever replaces the late Justice Antonin Scalia could determine the fate of Citizens United. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have pledged to appoint someone who would overturn the 2010 ruling, and while that’s a litmus test that President Obama hasn’t explicitly endorsed, it’s unlikely that anyone he nominates will win confirmation by the Republican-led Senate. The GOP presidential candidates, by contrast, are pledging to appoint a justice in the mold of Scalia, who voted in support of Citizens United. Still, even if a Democratic president decides Scalia’s replacement, the decision is now a precedent of the high court, and there’s no guarantee the justices will revisit the case—or a similar challenge—in the immediate future.
Even if the Supreme Court did reverse itself, would that have the effect of significantly reducing money in politics? Overturning Citizens United could lead to restrictions on or the elimination of super PACs that have sprung up as a result of the ruling and subsequent decisions by lower courts. Super PACs cannot contribute to or coordinate directly with candidates, but they can raise and spending unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose them.
And the Supreme Court has loosened campaign-finance regulations in other ways, such as a 5-4 ruling in 2014 that scrapped the limits on the total amount of money that wealthy donors could contribute to candidates and committees. “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision. “We have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.”
It’s also important to remember that prior to the ruling, wealthy corporate interests had plenty of latitude use their money to influence elections. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which tore into John Kerry's Vietnam record with the help of millions of dollars from conservative donors in 2004? Money played a big part in elections before the Citizens United decision, and it will play a big part even if it is overturned by the Supreme Court.
If overturning Citizens United won’t fix things, we should toughen up disclosure requirements so that at least people will know what individuals and organizations are paying for the ads they see on TV.
How would you get Congress to act on this, given their inability to muster the votes to boost disclosure in the past? Even in Citizens United, the Supreme Court made clear that it was not restricting Congress’s ability to require organizations to disclose their donors. But Congress isn't likely to budge anytime soon.
The Republicans in charge of the House and Senate—and in particular Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—oppose campaign-finance restrictions on principle. Even when Democrats had the majority, they fell a single vote short in the Senate of passing the Disclose Act, which would have toughened transparency requirements in response to Citizens United.
One of the big fears among good-government groups after Citizens United was that wealthy donors, corporations, and unions would not only be able to spend unlimited sums of money, but that they would try to do so secretly because of the loose disclosure requirements that allow donors to funnel money to super PACs through committees that don’t have to disclose the source of their contributions.
On the presidential level, that hasn’t played out quite so dramatically—if only because so many of the wealthiest donors in both parties have made donations directly to super PACs supporting candidates, allowing their names to be attached to them. But according to one analysis cited by Bloomberg News, secret money accounted for two-thirds of the political-ad spending in the 2016 campaign through the end of January.
Forget the wealthy and corporations. They’re always going to have influence in elections, one way or another. We need to focus on empowering average people by reinvigorating and expanding the public-financing system for campaigns, both on the federal and local levels.
How could the government get enough money to finance elections at a level that would be an effective counterweight to the oodles of private money out there? Ironically, it may have been Barack Obama who killed the federal public-financing system for presidential elections when he opted not to participate in 2008, despite his support for public financing in principle.
Since then, neither Obama nor any of the Republican nominees has accepted federal matching funds in exchange for strict limits on campaign spending, and neither of the nominees this year is expected to, either. The presidential race has simply become too expensive for Democrats to “unilaterally disarm” and agree to restrict their spending, the argument goes, and Congress has not updated the program in more than 40 years.
The odds may be long, but Democrats and advocates for campaign-finance reform have been pushing to modernize and expand the system. One proposal, known as the Government by the People Act, would have the government match small-dollar donations at a 6-to-1 rate (or higher under certain conditions) while also giving people a $25 refundable tax credit to encourage political donations.
The Fair Elections Now Act has similar provisions but would also allow candidates to raise unlimited donations so long as they did not individually exceed $150. The idea is to level the playing field for candidates who can demonstrate a minimum level of support while also helping to free up incumbent members of Congress from the burden of spending hours each day dialing for dollars rather than working on legislation or helping their constituents. Neither of these bills have any chance of passing, however, under a Republican-controlled Congress.
As with many election reforms, the action is now mostly at the local level. Last November, Seattle voters approved a system whereby citizens could contribute to candidates in local races without spending a dime of their own money. The city government will instead send registered voters four $25 vouchers that they can give to the candidate of their choice. “The promise of vouchers is turning every single voter in the city into a donor,” Alan Durning, the executive director of the Seattle-based Sightline Institute,
Yet even if public financing empowers ordinary citizens, it is not a panacea for political corruption. Just look at New York City, which has had both a popular public-financing system for decades and no shortage of crooked local legislators in recent years.
To play devil’s advocate for a second, maybe money really isn’t as big of an influence in politics as it’s cracked up to be. After all, Jeb Bush and the super PAC supporting him spent $130 million and won nothing in 2016. Michael Bloomberg is one of the richest men in the country and although that bought him three elections as mayor of New York, he determined that not even $1 billion could buy him the presidency. And Donald Trump is winning without spending a ton of money, in relative terms.
You’re right—Jeb Bush didn’t do well even with all the money spent on his behalf, but you could also argue that if he didn’t have the cash he did, he would have dropped out long before Republicans even started voting.
The same is true of Ben Carson, who stuck around long after his poll numbers cratered. And, yes, it’s true that Trump has succeeded not because of how much money he’s spent but how successful he has been at getting the media to cover him—allowing him to get his message out nearly for free. There are so many factors that figure into a presidential race that money is not always paramount.
But what about congressional, state, and local elections that don’t get as much media attention? In those contests, money can play a much bigger role. It can be the difference in whether a candidate gets noticed or an issue gets raised, and which side spends the most is more often a determining factor in the outcome of an election.
***
These are some of the intriguing questions left to consider:
What is the role of the Federal Election Commission, and how can it better enforce the campaign-finance laws that are already on the books?
How much would it cost to implement a public financing system that candidates would actually participate in?
After Citizens United, what is the remaining legacy of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act of 2002?
Besides various forms of public financing, what other proposals could reduce the influence of money in politics?
Russell Berman is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers politics.|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
Apr 12, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com
I have just finished reading a couple of weighty tomes with similar themes: Dark Money by Jane Mayer is about how some nominally right-wing libertarian sociopaths, (i.e. the Kochs and their coterie) seek to control American politics through various 'charitable' think tanks and stealth infiltration of top ranked universities; and The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff, which is about how some nominally left-wing(ish) libertarian whiz kid sociopaths seek to control the whole world through social media.
My main take away is that libertarian ideology is just shorthand for narcissistic entitlement and psychopathic greed.
|
|
|
Apr 02, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org
Canadian Cents , Apr 1 2021 21:18 utc | 42
Paul Damascene @22, thanks, I looked up the LBJ/Pearson anectdote and came across this:
https://www.cbc.ca/canadaus/pms_presidents1.html
Apparently it was "You pissed on my rug!". I guess if they update that book and article, they'll include Trump characterizing Justin as "weak and dishonest" - which I would say, based on his 7 years as PM, is blunt but accurate.
I think you're right that any US concessions are just a reprieve. That non-agreement-capable thing. Freeland and Justin don't care, they're looking forward to getting rich after leaving office, like the Clintons, Obama, etc. as a reward for their service to plutocracy.
William Gruff @19, Hoarsewhisperer @16, agreed. That, it seems to me is the root of the problem. Our politicians are for sale to the highest bidders. It's no longer democracy, but full-fledged plutocracy with a veneer of "democracy" that's visibly cracked and flaking off to anyone but the willfully blind.
solo @38, good point. Saudi Arabia also sided with China on Xinjiang:
Importantly, the Crown Prince said Saudi Arabia 'firmly supports China's legitimate position on the issues related to Xinjiang and Hong Kong, opposes interfering in China's internal affairs under any pretext, and rejects the attempt by certain parties to sow dissension between China and the Islamic world.'
Plainly put, Saudi Arabia has undercut the current US campaign against China regarding Xinjiang. It is a snub to the Biden administration.
https://www.indianpunchline.com/the-china-iran-pact-is-a-game-changer-part-i/
|
|
|
Feb 05, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Angelo Codevilla via AMGreatness.com,
The United States of America is now a classic oligarchy. The clarity that it has brought to our situation by recognizing this fact is its only virtue...
"Either the Constitution matters and must be followed . . . or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives."
- Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.
T exas v. Pennsylvania et al. did not deny setting rules for the 2020 election contrary to the Constitution. On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court discounted that . By refusing to interfere as America's ruling oligarchy serves itself, the court archived what remained of the American republic's system of equal justice. That much is clear.
In 2021, the laws, customs, and habits of the heart that had defined the American republic since the 18th century are things of the past. Americans' movements and interactions are under strictures for which no one ever voted. Government disarticulated society by penalizing ordinary social intercourse and precluding the rise of spontaneous opinion therefrom. Together with corporate America, it smothers minds through the mass and social media with relentless, pervasive, identical, and ever-evolving directives. In that way, these oligarchs have proclaimed themselves the arbiters of truth, entitled and obliged to censor whoever disagrees with them as systemically racist, adepts of conspiracy theories.
Corporations, and the government itself, require employees to attend meetings personally to acknowledge their guilt. They solicit mutual accusations. While violent felons are released from prison, anyone may be fired or otherwise have his life wrecked for questioning government/corporate sentiment. Today's rulers don't try to convince. They demand obedience, and they punish.
Russians and East Germans under Communists Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker in the 1970s lived under less ruling class pressure than do today's Americans. And their rulers were smart enough not to insult them, their country, or their race.
In 2015, Americans could still believe they lived in a republic, in which life's rules flow from the people through their representatives.
In 2021, a class of rulers draws their right to rule from self-declared experts' claims of infallibility that dwarf baroque kings' pretensions. In that self-referential sense, the United States of America is now a classic oligarchy.
The following explains how this change happened. The clarity that it has brought to our predicament is its only virtue.
Oligarchy had long been growing within America's republican forms. The 2016 election posed the choice of whether its rise should consolidate, or not. Consolidation was very much "in the cards." But how that election and its aftermath led to the fast, thorough, revolution of American life depended on how Donald Trump acted as the catalyst who clarified, energized, and empowered our burgeoning oligarchy's peculiarities. These, along with the manner in which the oligarchy seized power between November 2016 and November 2020, ensure that its reign will be ruinous and likely short. The prospect that the republic's way of life may thrive among those who wish it to depends on the manner in which they manage the civil conflict that is now inevitable.
From Ruling Class to OligarchyBy the 21st century's first decade, little but formality was left of the American republic. In 1942, Joseph Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy described the logic by which government and big business tend to coalesce into socialism in theory, oligarchy in practice. But by then, that logic had already imposed itself on the Western world. Italy's 1926 Law of Corporations -- fascism's charter -- inaugurated not so much the regulation of business by government as the coalescence of the twain. Over the ensuing decade, it was more or less copied throughout the West.
In America, the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act's authors had erected barriers against private oligopolies and monopolies. By maintaining competition between big business, they hoped to preserve private freedoms and limit government's role. But the Great Depression's pressures and temptations led to the New Deal's rules that differed little from Italy's. No matter that, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Schechter Poultry v. U.S . , public-private amalgamation does not fit in the Constitution. It grew nevertheless alongside the notion that good government proceeds from the experts' judgment rather than from the voters' choices. The miracles of production that America brought forth in World War II seemed to validate the point.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had come to understand large organizations that feed on government power and dispense vast private benefits, was not shy in warning about the danger they pose to the republic. His warning about the " military-industrial complex " that he knew so well is often misunderstood as a mere caution against militarism. But Ike was making a broader point: Amalgams of public and private power tend to prioritize their corporate interests over the country's.
That is why Eisenhower cautioned against the power of government-funded expertise. "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded," he said, because "public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." Government money can accredit a self-regarding elite. Because "a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity," government experts can end up substituting their power for truth.
The expansion of government power throughout the 1960s and '70s in pursuit of improving education, eradicating poverty, and uplifting blacks created complexes of public-private power throughout America that surpassed the military-industrial complex in size, and above all in influence.
Consider education. Post-secondary education increased fourfold, from 9 percent of Americans holding four-year degrees in 1965 to 36 percent in 2015. College towns became islands of wealth and political power. From them came endless "studies" that purported to be arbiters of truth and wisdom, as well as a growing class of graduates increasingly less educated but ever so much more socio-politically uniform.
In the lower grades, per-pupil expenditure (in constant dollars) went from $3,200 in 1960 to $13,400 in 2015. That money fueled an even more vast and powerful complex -- one that includes book publishers, administrators, and labor unions and that has monopolized the minds of at least two generations. As it grew, the education establishment also detached itself from the voters' control: In the 1950s, there were some 83,000 public school districts in America. By 2015, only around 13,000 remained for a population twice as large. Today's parents have many times less influence over their children's education than did their grandparents.
Analogous things happened in every field of life. Medicine came to be dominated by the government's relationship with drug companies and hospital associations. When Americans went to buy cars, or even light bulbs and shower nozzles, they found their choices limited by deals between government, industry, and insurance companies. These entities regarded each other as "stakeholders" in an oligarchic system. But they had ever less need to take account of mere citizens in what was becoming a republic in name only. As the 20eth century was drawing to a close, wherever citizens looked, they saw a government and government-empowered entities over which they had ever less say, which ruled ever more unaccountably, and whose attitude toward them was ever less friendly.
The formalities were the last to go. Ever since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D., the rulers' dependence on popular assent to expenditures has been the essence of limited government. Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution enshrines that principle. Congressional practice embodied it. Details of bills and expenditures were subject to public hearings and votes in subcommittees, committees, and the floors of both Houses. But beginning in the early 1980s and culminating in 2007, the U.S government abandoned the appropriations process.
Until 1981, Congress had used "continuing resolutions" to continue funding government operations unchanged until regular appropriations could be made. Thereafter, as congressional leaders learned how easy it is to use this vehicle to avoid exposing what they are doing to public scrutiny, they legislated and appropriated ever less in public, and increasingly put Congress' output into continuing resolutions or omnibus bills, amounting to trillions of dollars and thousands of pages, impossible for representatives and senators to read, and presented to them as the only alternative to "shutting down the government." This -- now the U.S government standard operating procedure -- enables the oligarchy's "stakeholders" to negotiate their internal arrangements free from responsibility to citizens. It is the practical abolition of Article I section 9 -- and of the Magna Carta itself.
In the 21st century, the American people's trust in government plummeted as they -- on the political Left as well as on the Right -- realized that those in power care little for them. As they watched corporate and non-profit officials trade places with public officials and politicians while getting much richer, they felt impoverished and disempowered. Since the ruling class embraced Republicans and Democrats, elections seemed irrelevant. The presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 underlined that whoever won, the same people would be in charge and that the parceling out of wealth and power among stakeholders would continue.
Americans on the Right were especially aggrieved because the oligarchy had become culturally united in disdain for Western civilization in general and for themselves in particular. The cultural warfare it waged on the rest of America inflamed opposition. But it also diluted its own focus on solidifying profitable arrangements.
By 2016, America was already well into the classic cycles of revolution. The atrophy of institutions, the waning of republican habits, and the increasing, reciprocal disrespect between classes that have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another, than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners precluded returning to traditional republican life. The election would determine whether the oligarchy could consolidate itself. More important, it would affect the speed by which the revolutionary vortex would carry the country, and the amount of violence this would involve.
The Trump CatalystBy 2015, the right side of America's challenge to the budding oligarchy was inevitable. Trump was not inevitable. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had begun posing a thorough challenge to the "stakeholders" most Americans disrespected. Candidate Trump was the more gripping showman. His popularity came from his willingness to disrespect them, loudly. Because the other 16 Republican candidates ran on different bases, none ever had a chance. Inevitably, victory in a field so crowded depended on when which minor candidate did or did not withdraw. There never was a head-to-head choice between Trump and Cruz.
Trump's candidacy drew the ferocious opposition it did primarily because the entire ruling class recognized that, unlike McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, he really was mobilizing millions of Americans against the arrangements by which the ruling class live, move, and have their being. Since Cruz's candidacy represented the same threat, it almost certainly would have drawn no less intense self-righteous anger. Nasty narratives could have been made up about him out of whole cloth as easily as about Trump.
But Trump's actual peculiarities made it possible for the oligarchy to give the impression that its campaign was about his person, his public flouting of conventional norms, rather than about the preservation of their own power and wealth. The principal consequence of the ruling class' opposition to candidate Trump was to convince itself, and then its followers, that defeating him was so important that it legitimized, indeed dictated, setting aside all laws, and truth itself.
Particular individuals had never been the oligarchy's worry. In 2008, as Barack Obama was running against Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- far cries from Trump -- he pointed to those Americans who "cling to God and guns" as the problem's root. Clinton's 2016 remark that Trump's supporters were "a basket of deplorables," -- racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. -- merely voiced what had long been the oligarchy's consensus judgment of most Americans. For them, pushing these Americans as far away as possible from the levers of power, treating them as less than citizens, had already come to define justice and right.
Donald Trump -- his bombastic, hyperbolic style, his tendency to play fast and loose with truth, even to lie as he insulted his targets -- fit perfectly the oligarchy's image of his supporters, and lent a color of legitimacy to the utterly illegitimate collusion between the oligarchy's members in government and those in the Democratic Party running against Trump.
Thus did the FBI and CIA, in league with the major media and the Democratic Party, spy on candidate Trump, concocting and spreading all manner of synthetic dirt about him. Nevertheless, to universal surprise, he won, or rather the oligarchy lost, the 2016 election.
The oligarchy's disparate members had already set aside laws, truth, etc. in opposition to Trump. The realization that the presidency's awesome powers now rested in his hands fostered a full-court-press #Resistance. Trump's peculiarities helped make it far more successful than anyone could have imagined.
"Dogs That Bark Do Not Bite"Applying this observation to candidate Trump's hyperbole suggested that President Trump might suffer from what Theodore Roosevelt called the most self-destructive of habits, combining "the unbridled tongue with the unready hand." And, in fact, President Trump neither fired and referred for prosecution James Comey or the other intelligence officials who had run the surveillance of his campaign. He praised them, and let himself be persuaded to fire General Michael Flynn, his national security advisor, who stood in the way of the intelligence agencies' plans against him. Nor did he declassify and make public all the documents associated with their illegalities.
Four years later, he left office with those documents still under seal. He criticized officials over whom he had absolute power, notably CIA's Gina Haspel who likely committed a crime spying on his candidacy, but left them in office. Days after his own inauguration, he suffered the CIA's removal of clearances from one of his appointees because he was a critic of the Agency. Any president worthy of his office would have fired the entire chain of officials who had made that decision. Instead, he appointed to these agencies people loyal to them and hostile to himself.
He acted similarly with other agencies. His first secretary of state, secretary of defense, and national security advisor mocked him publicly. At their behest, in August 2017, he gave a nationally televised speech in which he effectively thanked them for showing him that he had been wrong in opposing ongoing war in the Middle East. He railed against Wall Street but left untouched the tax code's "carried interest" provision that is the source of much unearned wealth. He railed against the legal loophole that lets Google, Facebook, and Twitter censor content without retribution, but did nothing to close it. Already by the end of January 2017, it was clear that no one in Washington needed to fear Trump. By the time he left office, Washington was laughing at him.
Nor did Trump protect his supporters. For example, he shared their resentment of being ordered to attend workplace sessions about their "racism." But not until his last months in office did he ban the practice within the federal government. Never did he ban contracts with companies that require such sessions.
Thus, as the oligarchy set about negating the 2016 electorate's attempt to stop its consolidation of power, Trump had assured them that they would neither be impeded as they did so nor pay a price. Donald Trump is not responsible for the oligarchy's power. But he was indispensable to it.
#TheResistance rallied every part of the ruling class to mutually supporting efforts. Nothing encourages, amplifies, or seemingly justifies extreme sentiments as does being part of a unanimous chorus, a crowd, a mob -- especially when all can be sure they are acting safely, gratuitously. Success supercharges them. #TheResistance fostered the sense in the ruling class' members that they are more right, more superior, and more entitled than they had ever imagined. It made millions of people feel bigger and better about themselves than they ever had.
Logic and DysfunctionDisdain for the "deplorables" united and energized parts of American society that, apart from their profitable material connections to government, have nothing in common and often have diverging interests. That hate, that determination to feel superior to the "deplorables" by treading upon them, is the "intersectionality," the glue that binds, say, Wall Street coupon-clippers, folks in the media, officials of public service unions, gender studies professors, all manner of administrators, radical feminists, race and ethnic activists, and so on. #TheResistance grew by awakening these groups to the powers and privileges to which they imagine their superior worth entitles them, to their hate for anyone who does not submit preemptively.
Ruling-class judges sustained every bureaucratic act of opposition to the Trump Administration. Thousands of identical voices in major media echoed every charge, every insinuation, non-stop and unquestioned. #TheResistance made it ruling-class policy that Trump's and his voters' racism and a host of other wrongdoing made them, personally, illegitimate. In any confrontation, the ruling class deemed these presumed white supremacists in the wrong, systemically. By 2018, the ruling class had effectively placed the "deplorables" outside the protection of the laws. By 2020, they could be fired for a trifle, set upon in the streets, prosecuted on suspicion of bad attitudes, and even for defending themselves.
Because each and every part of the ruling coalition's sense of what may assuage its grievances evolves without natural limit, this logic is as insatiable as it is powerful. It is also inherently destructive of oligarchy.
Enjoyment of power's material perquisites is classic oligarchy's defining purpose. Having conquered power over the people, successful oligarchies foster environments in which they can live in peace, productively. Oligarchy, like all regimes, cannot survive if it works at cross-purposes. But the oligarchy that seized power in America between 2016 and 2020 is engaged in a never-ending seizure of ever more power and the infliction of ever more punishment -- in a war against the people without imaginable end. Clearly, that is contrary to what the Wall Street magnates or the corps of bureaucrats or the university administrators or senior professors want. But that is what the people want who wield the "intersectional" passions that put the oligarchy in power.
As the oligarchy's every part, every organ, raged against everything Trump, it made itself less attractive to the public even as Trump's various encouragements of economic activity were contributing to palpable increases in prosperity.
Hence, by 2019's end, Trump was likely to win reelection. Then came COVID-19.
The COVID FortunaThe COVID-19 virus is no plague. Though quite contagious, its infection/fatality rate (IFR), about 0.01 percent, is that of the average flu, and its effects are generally so mild that most whom it infects never know it.
Like all infections, it is deadly to those weakened severely by other causes. It did not transform American life by killing people, but by the fears about it that our oligarchy packaged and purveyed. Fortuna , as Machiavelli reminds us, is inherently submissive to whoever bends her to his wishes. The fears and the strictures they enabled were not about health -- if only because those who purveyed and imposed them did not apply them to themselves. They were about power over others.
COVID's politicization began in February 2020 with the adoption by the World Health Organization -- which is headed by an Ethiopian bureaucrat beholden to China -- and upon recommendation of non-scientist Bill Gates, of a non-peer-reviewed test for the infection. The test's chief characteristic is that its rate of positives to negatives depends on the number of cycles through which the sample is run. More cycles, more positives. Hence, every test result is a "soft" number. Second, the WHO and associated national organizations like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported COVID's spread by another "soft" number: "confirmed cases." That is, sick persons who tested positive for the virus.
When this number is related to that of such persons who then die, the ratio -- somewhat north of 5 percent -- suggests that COVID kills one out of 20 people it touches. But that is an even softer number since these deaths include those who die with COVID rather than of it, as well as those who may have had COVID. Pyramiding such soft numbers, mathematical modelers projected millions of deaths. Scary for the unwary, but pure fantasy.
For example, the U.S. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which modeled the authoritative predictions on which the U.S. lockdowns were based, also predicted COVID-19 deaths for Sweden, which did not lock down. On May 3, the IHME predicted that Sweden would suffer 2,800 COVID deaths a day within the next two weeks. The actual number was 38. Reporting on COVID has never ceased to consist of numbers as scary as they are soft.
Literate persons know that, once an infectious disease enters a population, nothing can prevent it from infecting all of it, until a majority has developed antibodies after contracting it -- so-called community immunity or herd immunity. But fear leads people to empower those who promise safety, regardless of how empty the promises. The media pressed governments to do something . The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan screamed: "don't panic is terrible advice." The pharmaceutical industry and its Wall Street backers salivated at the prospect of billions of government money for new drugs and vaccines. Never mind the little sense it makes for millions of people to accept a vaccine's non-trivial risk to protect against a virus with trivial consequences for themselves. All manner of officials yearned to wield unaccountable power.
Because the power to crush the general population's resistance to itself is the oligarchy's single-minded focus, it was able to bend fears of COVID to that purpose. Thus, it gathered more power with more consequences than the oligarchs could have imagined.
But only President Trump's complaisance made this possible. His message to the American people had been not to panic, be mindful of the scientific facts -- you can't stop it, and it's not that bad -- while mitigating its effects on vulnerable populations. But on March 15, Trump bent, and agreed to counsel people to suspend normal life for two weeks to "slow the spread," so that hospitals would not be overwhelmed. Two weeks later, the New York Times crowed that Trump, having been told "hundreds of thousands of Americans could face death if the country reopened too soon," had been stampeded into "abandoning his goal of reopening the country by Easter." He agreed to support the "experts'" definition of what "soon" might mean. By accrediting the complex of government, industry, and media's good faith and expertise, Trump validated their plans to use COVID as a vehicle for enhancing their power.
Having seized powers, the oligarchs used them as weapons to disrupt and disaggregate the parts of American society they could not control.
The economic effects of lockdowns and social distancing caused obvious pain. Tens of millions of small businesses were forced to close or radically to reduce activity. More than 40 million Americans filed claims for unemployment assistance. Uncountable millions of farmers and professionals had their products and activities devalued. Millions of careers, dreams that had been realized by lifetimes of work, were wrecked. Big business and government took over their functions. Within nine months, COVID-19 had produced 28 new billionaires .
Surplus and scarcity of food resulted simultaneously because the lockdowns closed most restaurants and hotels. As demand shifted in ways that made it impossible for distribution networks and processing plants to adjust seamlessly, millions of gallons of milk were poured down drains, millions of chickens, billions of eggs, and tens of thousands of hogs and cattle were destroyed, acres of vegetables and tons of fruit were plowed under. Prices in the markets rose. Persons deprived of work with less money with which to pay higher prices struggled to feed their families. This reduced countless self-supporting citizens to supplicants. By intentionally reducing the supply of food available to the population, the U.S. government joined the rare ranks of such as Stalin's Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba.
But none of these had ever shut down a whole nation's entire medical care except for one disease. Hospitals stood nearly empty, having cleared the decks for the (ignorantly) expected COVID flood. Emergency rooms were closed to the poor people who get routine care there. Forget about dentistry. Most Americans were left essentially without medical care for most of a year. Human bodies' troubles not having taken a corresponding holiday, it is impossible to estimate how much suffering and death this lack of medical care has caused and will cause yet.
The oligarchy's division of all activity into "essential" -- meaning permitted -- and "nonessential" -- to be throttled at will -- had less obvious but more destructive effects. Private clubs, as well as any and all gatherings of more than five or 10 people, were banned. Churches were forbidden to have worship services or to continue social activities. The "social distancing" and mask mandates enforced in public buildings and stores, and often on the streets, made it well-nigh impossible for people to communicate casually. Thus, was that part of American society that the oligarchy did not control directly disarticulated, and its members left alone to face unaccountable powers on which they had to depend.
Meanwhile, the media became the oligarchy's public relations department. Very much including ordinary commercial advertising, it hammered home the oligarchy's line that COVID restrictions are good, even cool. These restrictions reduced the ideas available to the American people to what the mass media purveyed and the social media allowed. Already by April 2020, these used what had become near-monopoly power over interpersonal communications to censor such communications as they disapproved. Political enforcers took it upon themselves even to cancel statements by eminent physicians about COVID that they judged to be "misleading." Of course, this betrayed the tech giants' initial promise of universal access. It is also unconstitutional. (In Marsh v. Alabama , decided in 1946, the Supreme Court barred private parties from acting as de facto governments). Since these companies did it in unison, they also violated the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. But the ruling class that had become an oligarchy applauded their disabling whatever might be conducive to conservatives' interests and inconvenient to their own candidates.
Private entities wielding public powers in coordination with each other without having to observe any of government's constitutional constraints is as good a definition of oligarchy as there is. Oligarchy had increasingly taken power in the buildup to the 2020 election. In its aftermath, it would try to suffocate America.
Sovereignty of the Vote CountersThe oligarchy's proximate objective, preventing the 2020 presidential election from validating the previous one's results, overrode all others. The powers it had seized under COVID's cover, added to the plethora that it had exercised since the 2016 campaign's beginning, had surely cowered some opposition. But as November 2020 loomed, no one could be sure how much it also had energized.
Few people were happy to be locked down. It was a safe bet that not a few were unhappy at being called systemically racist. The oligarchy, its powers notwithstanding, could not be sure how people would vote. That is why it acted to take the presidential election's outcome out of the hands of those who would cast the votes and to place it as much as possible in the hands of its members who would count the votes.
Intentionally, traditional procedures for voting leave no discretion to those who count the votes. Individuals obtain and cast ballots into a physical or electronic box only after showing identification that matches their registration. Ballot boxes are opened and their contents counted by persons representing the election's opposing parties. Persons registered to vote might qualify to vote-by-mail by requesting a ballot, the issuance and receipt of which is checked against their registration. Their ballots are counted in the same bipartisan manner.
The Democratic Party had long pressed to substitute universal voting by mail -- meaning that ballots would be sent to all registered voters, in some states to anyone with a driver's license whether they asked for them or not and regardless of whether these persons still lived at the address on the rolls or were even alive. The ballots eventually would arrive at the counting centers, either through the mail, from drop boxes, or through "harvesters" who would pick them up from the voters who fill them out, and who may even help them to fill them out. Security, if any, would consist of machine-matching signatures on the ballot and on the envelope in which it had come. The machine's software can be dialed to greater or lesser sensitivity.
But doing away with scrutiny of ballots counted by representatives of the election's contenders removes the last possibility of ensuring the ballot had come from a real person whose will it is supposed to represent. Once the link between the ballot and the qualified person is broken, nothing prevents those in charge of the electoral process from excluding and including masses of ballots as they choose. The counters become the arbiters.
Attorney General William Barr pointed out the obvious: Anyone, in America or abroad, can print up any number of ballots, mark them, and deliver them for counting to whoever is willing to accept them and run them through their machines. Since the counters usually dispose of the envelopes in which ballots arrive -- thus obviating any possibility of tracing the ballot's connection to a voter -- they may even dispense of the fiction that there had ever been any signed envelopes. That is especially true of late-found ballots. Who knows where they came from? Who cares to find out?
Only in a few one-party Democratic states was universal vote-by-mail established by law. Elsewhere, especially in the states sure to be battlegrounds in the presidential election, mail-in voting was introduced by various kinds of executive or judicial actions. Questions of right and wrong aside, the Constitution's Article II section 1's words -- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct " -- makes such actions unconstitutional on their face. Moreover, in these states -- Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin -- the counting of votes in the most populous counties is firmly in the hands of Democratic Party bosses with a well-documented history of fraud.
To no one's surprise, the 2020 presidential election was decided by super-majorities for the Democratic candidate precisely from these counties in these states. Yes, Trump's percentage of the vote fell in certain suburbs. But Trump received some 11 million more votes in 2020 than four years earlier, and nearly doubled the share of votes he received from blacks. The Democrats' gain of some 15 million votes came exclusively from mail-in ballots, and their victory in the Electoral College came exclusively from the supermajorities piled up in these corrupt counties -- the only places where Trump's share of the black vote was cut by three-quarters. Did people there really think so differently?
This is not the place to recount the list of affidavits sworn under penalty of perjury by persons who observed ballot stuffing, nor the statistical anomaly of successive batches of votes that favored Biden over Trump by precisely the same amounts, of un-creased (i.e., never mailed) ballots fed into counting machines, nor the Georgia video of suitcases of ballots being taken from under tables and inserted into counting machines after Republican observers had been ousted. Suffice it to note that references to these events have been scrubbed from the Internet. It is more important to keep in mind that, in America prior to 2020, sworn affidavits that crimes have been committed had invariably been probable cause for judicial, prosecutorial, or legislative investigations. But for the first time in America, the ruling class dismissed them with: "You have no proof!" A judge (the sister of Georgia's Stacey Abrams) ruled that even when someone tells the U.S. Postal Service they have moved, their old address is still a lawful basis for them to cast a ballot. Certainly, proof of crime is impossible with such judges and without testimony under oath, or powers of subpoena.
Just as important, Republicans in general and the Trump White House in particular bear heavy responsibility for failing to challenge the patent illegality of the executive actions and consent decrees that enabled inherently insecure mail-in procedures in real-time, as they were being perpetrated in key states. No facts were at issue. Only law. The constitutional violations were undeniable.
Pennsylvania et. al. answered Texas's late lawsuit by arguing it demanded the invalidation of votes that had been cast in good faith. True. But Texas argued that letting stand the results of an election carried out contrary to the Constitution devalued the votes cast in states such as Texas that had held the election in a constitutional manner. Also true. Without comment, the Supreme Court chose to privilege the set of voters on the oligarchy's side over those of their opponents. Had the lawsuit come well before the election, no such choice would have existed. Typically, the Trump Administration substituted bluster for action.
The Oligarchy Rides its TigersWinning the 2020 election had been the objective behind which the oligarchy had coalesced during the previous five years. In 2021, waging socio-political war on the rest of America is what the oligarchy is all about.
The logic of hate and disdain of ordinary Americans is not only what binds the oligarchy together. It is the only substitute it has for any moral-ethical-intellectual point of reference. Donald Trump's impotent, inglorious reaction to his defeat offered irresistible temptations to the oligarchy's several sectors to celebrate victory by vying to hurt whoever had supported the president. But permanent war against some 74 million fellow citizens is a foredoomed approach to governing.
The Democratic Party had promised a return to some kind of "normalcy." Instead, its victory enabled the oligarchy's several parts to redefine the people who do not show them due deference as "white supremacists," "insurrectionists," and Nazis -- in short, as some kind of criminals -- to exclude them from common platforms of communication, from the banking system, and perhaps even from air travel; and to set law enforcement to surveil them in order to find bases for prosecuting them. Neither Congress nor any state's legislature legislated any of this. Rather, the several parts of America's economic, cultural, and political establishment are waging this war, uncoordinated but well-nigh unanimously.
Perhaps most important, they do so without thought of how a war against at least some 74 million fellow citizens might end. The people in the oligarchy's corporate components seem to want only to adorn unchallenged power with a reputation for "wokeness." For them, causing pain to their opponents is a pleasure incidental to enjoying power's perquisites. The Biden family's self-enrichment by renting access to influence is this oligarchy's standard.
But the people who dispense that reputation -- not just the professional revolutionaries of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, but "mainstream" racial and gender activists and self-appointed virtue-crats, have appetites as variable as they are insatiable. For them, rubbing conservative America's faces in excrement is what it's all about. A Twitter video viewed by 2.6 million people urges them to form "an army of citizen detectives" to ferret out conservatives from among teachers, doctors, police officers, and "report them to the authorities." No doubt, encouraged by President Biden's characterization of opponents as "domestic terrorists," any number of "authorities" as well as private persons will find opportunities to lord it over persons not to their taste. This guarantees endless clashes, and spiraling violence.
Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, and the people they appoint to positions of official responsibility are apparatchiks, habituated to currying favor and pulling rank. They have neither the inclination nor the capacity to persuade the oligarchy's several parts to agree to a common good or at least to a modus vivendi among themselves, never mind with conservative America. This guarantees that they will ride tigers that they won't even try to dismount.
At this moment, the oligarchy wields an awesome complex of official and unofficial powers to exclude whomever it chooses from society's mainstream. Necessarily, however, exclusions cut both ways. Invariably, to banish another is to banish one's self as well. Google, Facebook, and Twitter let it be known that they would exclude anything with which they disagree from what had become the near-universal means of communication. They bolstered that by colluding to destroy their competitor, Parler. Did they imagine that 74 million Americans could find no means of communicating otherwise? Simon and Schuster canceled a book by Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) critical of communications monopolies. Did its officials imagine that they would thereby do other than increase the book's eventual sales, and transfer some of their customers to Hawley's new publisher ? The media effectively suppressed inconvenient news. Did they imagine that this would prevent photos of Black Lives Matter professionals in the forefront of the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol from reaching the public?
In sum, intending to relegate conservative America to society's servile sidelines, the oligarchy's members drew a clear, sharp line between themselves and that America. By telling conservative Americans "these institutions and corporations, are ours, not yours," they freed conservative America of moral obligations toward them and themselves. By abandoning conservative America, they oblige conservative America to abandon them and seek its own way.
Clarity, Leadership, and SeparationTo think of conservative America's predicament as an opportunity is as hyperbolic as it was for Machiavelli to begin the conclusion of The Prince by observing that "in order to know Moses' virtue it was necessary that the people of Israel be slaves in Egypt, and to know the greatness of Cyrus's spirit that the Persians be oppressed by the Medes, and to know the excellence of Theseus, that the Athenian people be dispersed, so at the present, in order to know the virtue of an Italian spirit it was necessary that Italy reduce herself to the conditions in which she is at present . . ."
Machiavelli's lesson is that the clarity of situations such as he mentions, and such as is conservative America's following the 2020 election, is itself valuable. Clarity makes illusions of compromise untenable and points to self-reliant action as the only reasonable path. The people might or might not be, as he wrote, "all ready and disposed to follow the flag if only someone were to pick it up." But surely, someone picking up the flag is the only alternative to servitude.
What, in conservative America's current predicament, might it mean to "pick up the flag?" Electoral politics remains open to talented, courageous, ambitious leadership. In Florida and South Dakota, Governors Ron DeSantis and Kristi Noem have used their powers to make room for ways of life different from and more attractive than that in places wholly dominated by the oligarchy. Texas and Idaho as well attract refugees from such as California and New York by virtue of such differences with life there as their elected officials have been able to maintain. Governmental and corporate pressures on such states to conform to the oligarchy's standards, sure to increase, are opportunities for their officials to lead their people's refusal to conform by explaining why doing this is good, and by personally standing in the way. They may be sure that President Kamala Harris would not order federal troops to shoot at state officials for closing abortion clinics or for excluding men from women's bathrooms.
For more than a generation, a majority of Americans have expressed growing distrust of, and alienation from, the establishment. The establishment, not Donald Trump, made this happen. That disparate majority, in many ways at cross purposes with itself, demands leadership. Pollster Patrick Caddell's in-depth study of the American electorate, which he titled "We Need Smith," showed how the themes that made it possible for the hero of the 1939 movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to prevail against the establishment then are even more gripping now and appeal to a bigger majority. Trump was a bad copy of Mr. Smith.
More than ever, an audience beyond the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump hungers for leadership. The oligarchy came together by ever more vigorously denigrating and suppressing these deplorables. Already before the 20th century's turn, the FBI and some elements in the Army and the Justice Department had concluded that they are somehow criminal, and that preparations should be made to treat them as such. The official position of the administration taking power after the 2020 election is that domestic terrorism from legions of "white supremacists" is the primary threat facing America. No wonder those so designated for outlawry demand protection.
The path to electoral leadership is straightforward. Whoever would lead the deplorables-plus must explain their cause to friend and foe, make it his own, and grow it by leading successful acts of resistance.
Increasingly, conservative Americans live as if under occupation by a hostile power. Whoever would lead them should emulate Charles de Gaulle's 1941 basic rule for la résistance : refrain from individual or spontaneous acts or expressions that produce only martyrs. But join with thousands in what amount to battles to defeat the enemy's initiatives, weaken his grip on power, and prepare his defeat. Thus, an aspirant to the presidency in 2024, in the course of debunking the narrative by which the oligarchy seized so much power over America, might lead millions to violate restrictions placed on those who refuse to wear masks. Or, as he pursues legislative and judicial measures to abolish the compulsory racial and gender sensitivity training sessions to which public and private employees are subjected, he might organize employees in a given sector unanimously to stay away from them in protest. They can't all be fired or held back.
Such a persuasive prospective president, or president, could finish the process that, beginning circa 2010, initiated the process of reshaping the Republican Party into something like Caddell's Mr. Smith would have personified.
Electoral politics, however, is the easy part. Major corporations, private and semi-private institutions such as schools, publishing houses, and media, are the oligarchy's deepest foundations. These having become hostile, conservative Americans have no choice but to populate their own. This is far from impossible.
Sorting ourselves out into congenial groups has been part of America's DNA since 1630, when Roger Williams led his followers out of Massachusetts to found Providence Plantations. In the 19th century, the Mormons left unfriendly environments to establish their own settlements. Since 1973, Americans who believe in unborn children's humanity have largely ceased to intermarry with those who do not. Nobody decided this should happen. It is in the logic of diverging cultures.
As American primary and secondary education's dysfunction became painfully apparent, parents of all races have fled the public schools as fast as they could. Businesses have been fleeing the Rust Belt for the Sun Belt for generations. When Democratic governors and mayors used COVID to make life difficult in their jurisdictions, people moved out of them. When Twitter's censorship of conservatives became undeniable, Parler added customers by the hundreds of thousands each day. Facebook and Twitter's stock lost $50 billion in a week. Much more separation follows from the American people's diverging cultures.
As conservative America sorts itself out from oligarchy's social bases, it may be able to restore something like what had existed under the republic. Effectively, two regimes would have to learn to coexist within our present boundaries. But that may be the best, freest, arrangement possible now for the United States.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2020 | www.rt.com
There was and is no great "American democracy" to be restored after Trump. As the mainstream political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) had shown six years into Barack Obama's presidency, the nation had for many decades become "an oligarchy" where wealthy "elites" and their corporations "rule" and "ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does."
That was clear during Obama's corporatist "Hope" and "Change" presidency, which gave Americans what commentator William Greider memorably called "a blunt lesson about power, who has it and who doesn't." Americans, Greider wrote , "watched Washington rush to rescue the very financial interests that caused the catastrophe. They learned that government has plenty of money to spend when the right people want it. 'Where's my bailout,' became the rueful punch line at lunch counters and construction sites nationwide." Then Americans beheld Obama embrace "entitlement reform" (nice-sounding cover for attacking Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits) and pass a health insurance reform (the so-called Affordable Care Act) that only the big insurance and drug companies could love.
READ MORERewriting history: Legacy media shriek Trump is 'bucking tradition'... for doing the same thing they praised Obama for
The Biden team has no more intention of acting sincerely on the Democratic Party's standard manipulative populist-sounding campaign rhetoric in the wake of the Trump nightmare and the 2020-21 Covid-19 Recession than did the Obama White House in the wake of the George W. Bush nightmare and the 2007-08 Great Recession.
Biden's cabinet picks are loaded with neoliberal center-right operatives inherited from the fake-progressive Obama administration. They hail from the same Wall Street backgrounds and corporate and imperial think tanks that staffed the George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama administrations.
The "diversity" that CNN and MSNBC applaud in Biden's cabinet and agency picks is all about the race, ethnicity, and gender of his elections. It does not extend to ideology to include genuinely progressive Democrats in the mold of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Under the faux-transformative cloak of identity, these are ruling-class personnel trained and doctrinally committed to oppose the decent, humane, progressive, social-democratic, and environmentally sane policies favored by the nation's silenced progressive majority -- Single Payer health insurance, seriously progressive taxation, the abolition of parasitic student debt, free public college, a doubling of the federal minimum wage, the re-legalization of union organizing, and a planet-saving Green New Deal. As liberals fawn over the many female, nonwhite, and gay people holding top positions, the Biden administration will be a monument to the persistent rule of the nation's un-elected and interrelated dictatorships of money and empire.
This follows in accord with the near-octogenarian Biden's promise to super-wealthy campaign donors at a posh Manhattan hotel last year. Pledging not to "demonize anybody who has made money," Biden told a gathering of tuxedo-wearing financial parasites that the rich were not to blame for the nation's savage inequalities (so extreme that the top tenth of the upper US One Percent had more wealth than the nation's bottom 90 percent by the end of the Obama years). "Nothing will fundamentally change" and nobody's wealth or income would have to be reduced if he became president, Biden said . "I need you badly," he added.
njab 18 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 08:58 AM
What exactly is "left"? The author doesn't talk about being "anti-war" for example. And frankly, some of the "left" policies, especially related to LGBQXYZ, I find abhorrent. What is needed is neither "left" nor "right" but something that benefits the MAJORITY of the population and not just a few fringe groups.Ohhho HypoxiaMasks 12 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 03:11 PMAmericans is the most confused nation on Earth! They confuse plutocracy with democracy, propaganda with news, debt with wealth, individualism with freedom, corruption with influencing, bullying with leading, war with peace and looting with help!ColdFacts 1justssayn 4 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 11:22 PMtrump is fake anti-establishment, he had 4 years and did not pardon Assange or Snowden, did not expose corrupt elites, he did not declassify anything "interesting", even now with exposed election fraud all he did was to file some pseudo lawsuits which were dismissed by corrupt establishment owned courts.rubyvolt 16 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 10:41 AM'MuriKKKa is run by those who OWN it. Their muscle is the US military. Its fodder, the citizens. The PEOPLE of this nation have no say and can't get into the streets as most of us have been so poisoned and brainwashed that independent thought is not possible.jjikss 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 02:03 PMThere is no such thing as "democratic empire". You either believe that majority decides or you believe that power decides. America is undoubtedly an empire ( over 600 offshore military bases), so the democracy part is just a form of " double think" that comes straight from George Orwell's vision.Vikiiing 19 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 08:08 AMThe election process could be fixed to be fair but neither party wants that. US elections could be modelled after any scandanavian system to get rid of corruption, but there's big money to be made keeping it corrupt.DeadRassputin 8 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 07:05 PMThe working class elected Trump as an outsider in the hope he could curb the corruption that was becoming apparent in the Federal Government. Second term they tried to elect him again, however the career politicians were having none of that. MSM propaganda blitz plus social media censorship added to unverifiable mail in ballots, and rigged counting machines sealed the deal.Khanlenin DeadRassputin 7 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 07:42 PMEven though he never stopped stuffing millions into the pockets of the super rich, he did offer some improvement to the economic conditions of the working classes which had been stagnating since the 1970's Obama and Clinton had made sure any improvements in productivity and technology were all going to benefit the top financial elites. Having an unstable ego, he kept throwing grenades at everything he didn't understand. In the case of Iranian government officials, the grenades were realKhanlenin DeadRassputin 7 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 07:42 PMEven though he never stopped stuffing millions into the pockets of the super rich, he did offer some improvement to the economic conditions of the working classes which had been stagnating since the 1970's Obama and Clinton had made sure any improvements in productivity and technology were all going to benefit the top financial elites. Having an unstable ego, he kept throwing grenades at everything he didn't understand. In the case of Iranian government officials, the grenades were realJoaquin Montano 12 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 02:54 PM"There's no great 'American democracy' to be restored after Trump, ..." We used to say "America is the best democracy money can buy". Not even that anymore. It is so disfunctional it isn't worth the money ...westernman 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 02:29 PMSome 40 trillion dollars that the rich are stashing away in offshore fictitious bank accounts if taxed even at 1% will more than pay for all social services like single payer health insurance, student loan forgiveness, free college education and much much more. Correct Obama was a faux progressive, he would take one step forward and two back. I agree that Biden seems to be painting a diverse race cabinet portfolio but skin color is no guarantee at all of pro working people ideologies.Hasse1 14 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 12:59 PMIn reality (with hard evidence) Trump is NO different from his predecessors. In fact, if you compared him with other U.S. presidents, Trump was less violent and caused the death of less people than Clinton, Bush, Obama or Biden. Just to mention the latest few.Khanlenin Bill Spence 6 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 08:57 PM"general welfare" or "the welfare of the generals" You're correct. When ordinary citizens opposed the invasion of Iraq, they showed that they did not have the expertise needed to make the decisions in the best interest of the welfare of the generals (or Standard Oil).czerenkob 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:40 PMIn the USA democracy is talked about, but not practiced.SheepNotHuman 9 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 06:14 PMDemocracy a dreamy concept for children only. There is no such thing as Democracy when money buys the elections and votes remain secretive. America was never a Democracy, from day one it's a fraud. The first president old George Washington was a blood relative of the UK Royals and his 50 secret society brothers set up America for 200 + years of fraud. Guess what, the royals still run things folks. We on the other hand will only be remembered as man or woman if we turn a blind eye to truth and care nothing for honesty. Some less than human! Now as people catch on to the facts that they have been played their whole life long while they pretend and live in the matrix the Deep State must act to clean us out. It's called Agenda 2030 schemed up by the evil WEF. Don't get tested and don't get vaccinated. Now my awakened ones it's your turn!shadow1369 15 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 11:48 AMThe US haas been mythologising its nature from day one, all is fraud and pretence there.Ohhho 14 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:15 PMAll of it is just a bunch of nonsense by a naive American. All that "great republic" and "democracy" garbage! Their dear POTUSes are just puppets to the Global financial oligarchy that "bought them all and in the darkness bound them"! So they underestimated Trump and let him slip by, big deal! Everything is back to normal baby, hallelujah!athineos Ohhho 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:50 PMCorrect! US has been an Oligarchy since it's Founding when the theft and rape of the land of the INDIGENOUS AMERICAN PEOPLE by the European Colonizers was being undertaken to benefit the few as always. Now it has moved into its advanced cancerous stage where the middle class will be completely assimilated into the poor class to bring about the New Feudal era of the NEW WORLD ORDER.Sovietski 10 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 05:18 PMBiden's sole election slogan/promise has been: "I'm not Trump" He's a millionaire and 4-decade career political dinosaur. Of course nothing will change!The_Chosenites 14 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:03 PMBiden will spend most of his time as the Donald did. It will be Biden the Blind lead around by his Israelis guide dog Bibi. Biden will be consumed with middle east policy and defeating the enemies of Israel, allowing Israels continued expansionist policies. The American people may have lost the election but there is always a clear winner!IslandT 3 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 11:45 PMTrump administration is a complete failure, when Trump comes to power he has basically started war on so many fronts and attacks so many swamp people which is the main reason why so many top level people hate him and causes him to lost the presidency! The swamp in US senate is simply too deep and there is nothing Trump can do about it, when he leaves the office, the swamp people will come back and continue their party, those generals or officials Trump puts on the important positions will be overthrew by Joe Biden, those rules that set by Trump will also get overwritten by Joe Biden, basically it is a complete waste of time for Trump to do all those unproductive works. Also the Mexican-US border wall will also be stopped under Biden as well. If both the democrat and republican not realize they need to change then there is nothing much a President can do to change the entire situation. US is in the ending stage of it's empire and we will see de dollarisation after Trump steps down, think about this, what will happen if other nations want US to buy their currency with the US gold reserves so the American can buy their raw material or finished product? How much gold reserves does the US actually has and how much money does the US owns the foreign countries and how much gold does the us has to pay to foreign nations if de dollarisation actually happen? Do you people realize that Mike Pompeo has just turned into Swamp people as well, there goes the last hope for the American!
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2021 | www.strategic-culture.org
In a two-Party dictatorship, the important truths are kept away from being publicized on either side, Eric Zuesse writes.
Throughout history, aristocrats, and their flaks such as their 'news'-media, cast blame downward, away from themselves who collectively control the government, and onto, instead, some minority or other mass group, who can't even plan or function together so as to be able to control the government.
The U.S. has a two-Party aristocracy, as is clear from the "Open Secrets" list of the 100 biggest political donors in the 2020 U.S. Presidential and congressional campaigns, the "2020 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups" . Those are only these individuals' publicly acknowledged expenditures, none of the dark political money, which, of course, is donated secretly. At the top there, of the donors' lists, is Sheldon Adelson (who just died, on January 11th in California, and was buried in Israel), who spent far more than anyone in all of U.S. history had ever spent in any campaign cycle, $215 million, which amount far exceeded even the $82 million that he had spent in 2016, which in 2016 was second only to Thomas Steyer's $92 million (the previous all-time highest amount donated in any campaign year). Adelson gave exclusively to Republicans, whereas Steyer gave exclusively to Democrats. Steyer in 2020 gave $67 million, which -- though he was running for President in 2020, and hadn't been running in 2016 -- was only 73% of his 2016 donations, in that year, when he had been the nation's top political donor. He was only the 5th-biggest donor in 2020, instead of #1.
The second-biggest donor in 2020 was the liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg, who ran in the Democratic Presidential primaries in order to defeat the only progressive in that contest, who was Bernie Sanders. Bloomberg spent $151 million of his own funds for that purpose. In 2016, he had spent $24 million in order to help Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, and then try to beat Donald Trump.
The third-biggest in 2020 was Timothy Mellon, the son of Paul Mellon and grandson of Andrew Mellon . Timothy Mellon gave $70 million, all to Republicans.
In 2020, the top ten donors, collectively, spent $776 million to own their chunk of the U.S. Government. The second group of ten (#s 11-20) donated only $187 million; and, so, the top twenty together donated $963 million, just shy of $1 trillion. All 80 of the other top-100 donors, together, gave around $370 million, so that the total from all 100 was around one-and-a-third trillion dollars. 47 gave to Republicans; 53 gave to Democrats.
The smallest publicly acknowledged donor among the top 100, Foster Friess , gave $2.4 million, all to Republicans.
Most of these 100 donors are among America's approximately 700 billionaires; and, even the ones who aren't are serving and doing business with the billionaires, and therefore are to some extent dependent upon having good relations with them, not being enemies of any billionaire. All of these 100 are, obviously, also dependent upon the governmental decisions that the public officials whom they have purchased will be making, not only regarding regulations and laws, but also regarding foreign policies. For example, Friess merged his company into Affiliated Management Group, which "is a global asset management firm" that "has grown to approximately $730 billion." Virtually all of the top 100 political donors are internationally invested, and their personal wealth is therefore affected by American foreign policies, in ways that the personal wealth of the rest of the population is not.
When the U.S. invades a foreign country, or issues sanctions against a foreign country, it benefits some American investors, not only in corporations such as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, but even in some foreign-headquartered corporations. America's spending around half of the entire world's military expenses gives an enormous competitive boost to America's billionaires, which is paid for by all U.S. taxpayers. It takes away money that would otherwise go toward the rest of the U.S. population -- people who might even become crippled or killed by their military service for the benefit of America's billionaires. Marketing this military service to thepublic, as "national defense" -- even at a time when no nation has invaded or even threatened to invade America after 1945 -- is good PR for America's wealthiest families, regardless of whether it's of any benefit whatsoever to other Americans. Because of the success of this PR for the military, Americans consider the U.S. military to be America's best institution -- far higher than any other part of the U.S. Government or any non-governmental institution, such as churches, the press, or the medical system. The U.S. Department of Defense is, also, by far, the most corrupt of all Departments of the U.S. federal Government . This fact is carefully hidden from the U.S. public, so as to keep the public admiring the military.
Billionaires use their media, and their scholars, to point the finger of blame, for the problems that the public does know about, anywhere else than against themselves; and, though the billionaires have political differences amongst themselves, they are unified against the public, so as to continue the gravy train that they all are on.
In order for the aristocracy not to be blamed for the many problems that they cause upon the public, their first trick is to blame some minority or some other vulnerable mass within the public. Or else to blame some 'enemy' country. But if and when such a strategy fails, then, they and their media blame the middle class or "bourgeoisie," in order to fool the leftists, and also they blame the "communists" and the poor, in order to fool the rightists. That's a two-pronged PR strategy -- one to the left, and the other to the right. Since the aristocracy is always, itself, fundamentally conservative, they would naturally rather blame the leftists as being "communists," than to blame the middle class and poor, because to do the latter would place the public's ideological focus on economic class, which then would threaten to expose the billionaires themselves as being the actual economic "elite" who are the public's real enemy (and as being the elite against which the propaganda should instead be focused). Blaming the middle class and poor might work amongst their fellow-aristocrats, but if tried amongst the public, it would present the danger of backfiring. Consequently, there is a return to the days of Joseph R. McCarthy, but this time without communism. Thus, here is how the White House correspondent for a Democratic Party 'news'-site, CNN, closed his 'news'-analysis, on January 14th, under the headline "Washington's agony is a win for autocrats and strongmen" :
Mission accomplished
Nice work, Mr. Putin.
According to a US intelligence community report, Russia's chief goal in interfering in the 2016 election in support of Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton was to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process." Four years on, there have been two impeachments and an insurrection against the US legislature. Millions believe Trump's lies that he was illegally ejected from power, and doubt Biden's legitimacy.
Conspiracy theorists have seats in Congress. There are serious questions about whether one of the country's great political parties is now anti-democratic. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses in a federal system that grants vast power to the states. And America's self-appointed role as an exceptional nation and beacon of democracy is in the gutter.
Most of the disorienting events of the last few years can be blamed directly on Trump and his particular skill at tearing at the social, racial and political divides that are just below the nation's surface. So the ex-KGB man in the Kremlin hardly deserves all the credit. But Russia, China and other autocratic nations are gaining much from Washington's agony. They're already using it to promote their own closed and totalitarian societies as models of comparative order and efficiency -- and to beat back brave local voices calling for democracy and human rights.
In an effective declaration of victory for Russia's espionage offensive against the US more than four years ago, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of the Russian Parliament, slid home the knife. "Following the events that unfolded after the presidential elections, it is meaningless to refer to America as the example of democracy," he said.
"We are on the verge of reevaluating the standards that are being promoted by the United States of America, that is exporting its vision of democracy and political systems around the world. Those in our country who love to cite their example as leading will also have to reconsider their views."
That's propaganda from "leftist" (i.e., Democratic Party) billionaires. A good example of an independent American journalist who has been fooled by Republican Party billionaires to blame some amorphous mass of "leftists" is Sara A. Carter's 12 January 2021 youtube "Rudy Giuliani talks big tech censorship" , blaming America's problems on "the government," or "the bureacracy," and, of course, especially on Democrats. At 10:15 there, she said "My mother fled from Cuba." Carter, as a conservative, is so obsessed with her visceral hatred of "communism," that she interpreted America's dictatorship as being communists, instead of as being billionaires -- of both Parties: actually, fascists. In a two-Party fascist dictatorship , she fears the leftists. This is typical of propagandists on the conservative side. But propagandists on the liberal side (such as the CNN correspondent exemplified) are no better, just different.
Both propaganda-operations cast blame away from the real culprits.
In a two-Party dictatorship, the important truths are kept away from being publicized on either side. What the public sees and hears, instead, is political theater, merely tailored to different audiences.
|
|
|
Jan 09, 2021 | www.unz.com
davidgmillsatty , says: January 8, 2021 at 9:12 pm GMT • 2.2 hours ago
@Rufus Clyde v>A Republic is, by definition, an oligarchy. We just refuse to acknowledge what it truly is. Put some lipstick on the pig.
But ours is not a pure Republic because we do have democratic referendums all of the time where the people get to make laws that a majority want. We need more of them.
We don't have any at the federal level but there is nothing that prohibits them. Under Amendment 10 all powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states and the people . The implication is that powers left to the people can be exercised by referendum. Referendums are really the only check on oligarchy.
|
|
|
Jan 06, 2021 | www.mintpressnews.com
In order to beat GOP incumbents David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in the Georgia Senate elections, Democrats had to spend big, raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.
The two Georgia Senate elections -- called today for the Democrats -- were easily the most costly in history, amounting to nearly $830 million in total ($468 million for the race between Democrat Joey Ossoff and Republican David Perdue and more than $361 million for the special election between Democrat Rev. Raphael Warnock and Republican Kelly Loeffler.
The Democrats' massive war chest came in no small part from hefty contributions from corporate America. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics , tech companies rallied around the Democratic challengers, plying the two campaigns with millions of dollars. Alphabet Inc., Google's parent organization, was the largest single source of funds, their PACs, shareholders, or employees donating almost $1 million to Ossoff's campaign alone with other big tech companies cracking his top ten, all with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations from the like of Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and AT&T. The rest of the top ten were made up by universities.
The Republican candidates also relied on large corporations for much of their funding. Perdue's biggest donors included Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America, while Loeffler was generously supported by oil and chemical giant Koch Industries as well as a number of financial institutions like Ryan LLC and Blackstone Group.
However, Democrats decisively outraised their opponents, giving them a critical edge. Ossoff outraised Perdue by $138 million to $89 million while Warnock received $124 million to Loeffler's $92 million. With over 98% of the votes counted, Warnock has been declared the winner, with 50.6% of the vote. Ossoff, meanwhile, is all but assured of winning as well, and has already declared victory.
Thus, both contests have conformed to political scientist Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule" of politics: that the party that spends the most almost always wins the election. Ferguson's 1995 thesis , "The Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems," argued that elections are essentially contests between rival big businesses and that the two political parties compete to serve those who pay them, not the public. Nearly 20 years later, a University of Princeton study of 1,779 policy issues found that,
Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
https://cdn.iframe.ly/oNuYTi0?v=1&app=1
Empirical evidence seems to support this notion. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that, since 2000, the candidate spending the most money has won between 70% and 98% of their races in the House or Senate
The 2020 election was already by far the most expensive in history, even before the Georgia numbers were added into the mix. The sums of $468 million and $361 million are comfortably higher than any of those from two months ago, the most expensive of which was the $299 million contest in North Carolina between Thom Tillis (Republican) and Cal Cunningham (Democrat).
Many were heralding the Democratic upset in Georgia as the start of a new era and a victory against racism and hate. "The votes of Black people have been suppressed in this nation for a very long time. This is the dawning of a new day," said Bernice King, daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock, who will become the state's first black senator, agreed. "Tonight we proved that with hope, hard work, and the people by our side, anything is possible All of us have a choice to make; will we continue to divide, distract and dishonor one another, or will we love our neighbors as we love ourselves?" he said in his victory speech.
Yet while corporations continue to have such an outsized role in funding both major political parties, it is unclear whether substantive change is even possible. The debate over whether this represents a victory for racial justice can be had, but what seems unmistakable is that the real winners in this election were corporate America, who could not lose, whoever won.
Feature photo | Senate candidate Jon Ossoff introduces President-elect Joe Biden in Atlanta, Jan. 4, 2021, as he campaigns for Raphael Warnock and Ossoff. Carolyn Kaster | AP
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent . He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
uncle tungsten , Dec 18 2020 22:03 utc | 114
India analysis and Modi's neo liberalism backgrounder. 25 minute Video from redfish.
Bemildred , Dec 18 2020 22:22 utc | 115
Framarz , Dec 19 2020 9:14 utc | 142William Gruff # 97
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 18 2020 21:36 utc | 113The 70s was when they started selling the good redwood saw logs to Japan instead of cutting them up here because they could get more profit that way. At the time I do not think it was considered that the Japanese would be able to compete with us as well as they did, and I think the same applies to the other sellouts of our working class to foreign cheap manufacturing centers. You have to remember these people really do think they are better. They do think in class terms even if they avoid that rhetoric in public. The problem is they thought they could control China like they did Japan. That was dumb then and it looks even dumber now. You can see similar dumbness in their lack of grip on any realisitic view of Russia. Provincials really. Rich peasants.
@114 uncle tungstenFramarz , Dec 19 2020 9:42 utc | 143Thanks for the redfish video suggestion. Worth watching not only to get insight about the current developments in India but also understanding the global Zeitgeist.
I couldn't avoid to identify the exact same type of developments and problems that working class and increasingly also middle class facing in other parts of the world.
The globalization of capitalism since the fall of USSR and Warsaw pact, has caused accelerated monopolization of political and economic power everywhere in the world, this was achieved by enforcing the same neoliberal agenda globally. No matter if you look at the USA, Germany, Iran or India, you discover the same type of "reforms". Reforms that result in increased poverty, more and more middle class families are losing their socioeconomic position and becoming part of working class.
One come to the understanding that the "Great Reset" we are talking about recently, is not something new in the beginning and making, it's only the continuation of an agenda which has been in implementation since 30 years ago.
@114 uncle tungstenuncle tungsten , Dec 19 2020 10:30 utc | 144have you noticed that terms like "Imperialism" and "Capitalist government" which were natural parts of the political discourse in 20th century have been increasingly replaced by "Nepotism" and "Oligarchy" in 21st century?
Framarz #142 and #143Thank you and I have noticed the shift in terminology. I try to avoid it as I believe in the need to be extremely clear about socialism and capitalism. I prefer to avid CCP and prefer Chinese Communist Party. I take care to compare western issues with how Cuba is actually doing. Keep making it clear there is a range of alternatives to private finance capitalism and IMF usury.
The weavers of deceit and theft that are private finance capitalists are indeed oligarchs and they attempt to crush any discussion of repossessing their wealth and redistributing it so that more people can do more work with it and generate stronger societies. The private finance vultures live in dread of a Tobin tax so I say bring it on. Wherever cash is locked away and idle - take it and give it to the people as it is they who know how to put it back to work and generate security and peace within communities.
Wherever power is monopolised in industry then force a devolution of shares to workers and unions and pay shares as taxes to the state so that dividends go to all including the state. As it is now in many countries mega corporations extort tax holidays to set up production units in the counties and dump the entire cost of infrastructure expansion onto those counties as part of their extortion. Information monopolies are the most critical to dismantle. Look at the west where critical journalism has been reduced to mediocre stenography and those with integrity are entirely reliant on other monopolies to squeeze their digital content between the pillars of censorious monopolies like twitter and facebook etc. These monopolies are managing public content and creativity and should be in public ownership - NOT just shareholder public but the entire public.
There is this ruse of oligarchs today just as in Venice in the 16th and 17th century where the Doges in their magnificence spy on the citizens and reward citizens for spying on each other, where social cohesion and solidarity is corroded and rots within. That is what the neo liberal and private finance agenda is - to monopolise $$$ and power and decision making within the hands of decrepit gerontocrats like Pelosi, Lord Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Queen Elisabeth etc, etc.
Enough of this rant... thank you Framarz. Long live those countries that have for decades repelled the evil that would crush their freedom and socialism. May Russia find its way to reintegrate socialism within its future.
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
snake , Dec 19 2020 11:29 utc | 36
by: steven t johnson @ 13 says "the Presidency is essentially unchecked: Article II and amendment 12 clearly state
that no one can challenge the president.." <= I add "unless congress can find something they themselves are all
guilty of, and are collectively willing to accept the risk that they themselves might be removed for the same crime
for which the Congress might impeach the President .. from elected Office impeachment is impossible.It is this improbability of removing the President from office that makes the control of the content allowed or
pushed on the public by the main stream media so important to the stability of the government and the ability of
the President to lead.The only way a President can be impeached is to do to the President what the Lenin and Tolstoy Bolshevik regime
change team accomplished to bring down the Czar of Russia. The media began its attacks on Christian Czar led
Russia in 1875 by 1919 if the Czar had said it was raining outside the entire nation of Russia wanting to know if
it were raining would go outside to see for themselves.Tolstoy, a public hero, blamed the Czar for the problems caused by a pandemic and a famine of 1891. The peasants
of Russia were trained by media content to distrust any and everything the Czar or any member of his staff said or
did. Propaganda said there was evil behind every act of the Czar. Tolstoy's famous propaganda undermined the
Christian faith held by millions of people."The Minister for the Interior told the Emperor Czar that Tolstoy's letter to the English press 'must be considered
tantamount to a most shocking revolutionary proclamation': not a judgement that can often have been made of a letter
to The Daily Telegraph. Czar Alexander III began to believe that it was all part of an English plot and the Moscow
Gazette, which was fed from the Government, denounced Tolstoy's letters as 'frank propaganda for the overthrow of
the whole social and economic structure of the world'." see destroys Christain Russian governmentNorecovery @ 22 says and I have added to what he said to make this list.
1. "The .. criminals have ..take[n] over foreign policy in the U.S.,
these criminals you are talking about are not part of the government, they are private persons and corporations.
Allow me to remind you that Article II of the Constitution of the USA only concerns two persons, The President
and the VP.. to them all power to act domestic and foreign is given, Congress has no power that it cannot get
into law, and no power to govern the office of the President and that has been true since the original constitution
was ratified in 1788. To conduct war around the world, it is necessary only to won the president.2. leveraging money power .. the oligarch network employees highly motivated highly-paid promoters to force President control onto the world.
3. The Oligarch and their corporations control Congress, Intelligence Agencies, and the content that MSM presents...
4. the MSM distributed content expresses total censorship as does Google, and social media
5. Corona virus is bio-warfare designed to undermine small-scale economies and to establish Oligarch autonomy
6. Using rule of law (generated by nation state power) oligarch owned corporations own all non taxable property (copyrights and patents) and the right to use all technology (copyright and patents).
7. Worldwide compliance is the goal of the oligarch. owning the nation state allows military, financial, and media to be used to crush dissent and to extract wealth.
8. The pharma-promoted questionable gene editing vaccinations are questionable at best.
9. Humanity is witnessing a worldwide COUPS, UBER-Fascism that exceeds all historical examples.
10. WWI was a war to take control of the Ottoman owned oil rich land and to tame German competitive strength.
11. Hilter return Germany to its former power, so WWII was to take German competition completely out of the equation.
12. The wars in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, are about pipeline and control of oil production, transport and profit
13. the wars in Belarus, Ukraine, Modldova, Bulgaria Romania, Hunary, Slovakia Cezech Republic Poland are about getting Western Europe access into Russia.
14. Last week the House passed a bill designed to deny the president any authority to reduce the US troops in Foreign land.
so your question at norecovery @ 22 will it succeed is relevant. I don't think it will, I was told the Governor of Florida
has refused to take the vaccine, word is getting around; people everywhere in USA governed America, in UK governed
Britain, in Republic of France governed France ( riots every weekend for over two years) , and Zionist governed
Israel (riots all over the place all of the time).. everyone is skeptical of the nation state system.I think the take over would have succeeded if the Oligarchs had not tried to force a vaccination on people that
genetic engineers (changes the way their body works) the bodies those vaccinated were born with.Mark2 , Dec 19 2020 12:28 utc | 37
Snake @ 36
You must have spent a lot of time and consideration on that far reaching summary !
That's MOA at its very best !!
I could only add -- - the disfunctional mindset that blights America right now is having an immediate impact on all corners of the world.
I see it even in my tiny peaceful backwater.
If they create a fascist monster unleash it on the world -- it will consume everything and everyone in its path.
Whithin a decade.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
In 2008, Barack Obama received the names of his entire future cabinet already one month prior to his election by CFR Senior Fellow (and Citigroup banker) Michael Froman, as a Wikileaks email later revealed. Consequently, the key posts in Obama's cabinet were filled almost exclusively by CFR members, as was the case in most cabinets since World War II. To be sure, Obama's 2008 Republican opponent, the late John McCain, was a CFR member, too. Michael Froman later negotiated the TPP and TTIP international trade agreements, before returning to the CFR as a Distinguished Fellow.
In 2017, CFR nightmare President Donald Trump immediately canceled these trade agreements -- because he viewed them as detrimental to US domestic industry -- which allowed China to conclude its own, recently announced RCEP free-trade area , encompassing 14 countries and a third of global trade. Trump also canceled other CFR achievements, like the multinational Iran nuclear deal and the UN climate and migration agreements, and he tried, but largely failed, to withdraw US troops from East Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa, thus seriously endangering the global US empire built over decades by the CFR and its 5000 elite members .
Unsurprisingly, most of the US media , whose owners and editors are themselves members of the CFR , didn't like President Trump. This was also true for most of the European media, whose owners and editors are members of international CFR affiliates like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, founded by CFR directors after the conquest of Europe during World War II. Moreover, it was none other than the CFR which in 1996 advocated a closer cooperation between the CIA and the media, i.e. a restart of the famous CIA Operation Mockingbird . Historically, OSS and CIA directors since William Donovan and Allen Dulles have always been CFR members.
Joe Biden promised that he would form "the most diverse cabinet" in US history. This may be true in terms of skin color and gender, but almost all of his key future cabinet members have one thing in common: they are, indeed, members of the US Council on Foreign Relations .
This is the case for Anthony Blinken (State), Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security), Janet Yellen (Treasury), Michele Flournoy and Jeh Johnson (candidates for Defense), Linda Thomas-Greenfield (Ambassador to the UN), Richard Stengel (US Agency for Global Media; Stengel famously called propaganda "a good thing" at a 2018 CFR session), John Kerry (Special Envoy for Climate), Nelson Cunningham (candidate for Trade), and Thomas Donilon (candidate for CIA Director).
Jake Sullivan, Biden's National Security Advisor, is not (yet) a CFR member, but Sullivan has been a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (a think tank "promoting active international engagement by the United States") and a member of the US German Marshall Fund's "Alliance For Securing Democracy" (a major promoter of the "Russiagate" disinformation campaign to restrain the Trump presidency), both of which are run by senior CFR members.
Most of Biden's CFR-vetted nominees supported recent US wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen as well as the 2014 regime change in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, neoconservative Max Boot, the CFR Senior Fellow in National Security Studies and one of the most vocal opponents of the Trump administration, has called Biden's future cabinet "America's A-Team" .
Thus, after four years of "populism" and "isolationism", a Biden presidency will mean the return of the Council on Foreign Relations and the continuation of a tradition of more than 70 years . Indeed, the CFR was founded in 1921 in response to the "trauma of 1920" , when US President Warren Harding and the US Senate turned isolationist and renounced US global leadership after World War I. In 2016, Donald Trump's "America First" campaign reactivated this 100 year old foreign policy trauma.
Was the 2020 presidential election "stolen", as some allege? There are certainly indications of significant statistical anomalies in key Democrat-run swing states. Whether these were decisive for the election outcome may be up to courts to decide. At any rate, Joe Biden may well be the first US President known to be involved in international corruption before even entering office.
Why are most US and international media hardly interested in this? Well, why should they?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOSTZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2020 | off-guardian.org
Victor , Nov 16, 2020 7:04 AM
This is not just America. It is global. the decades old drive to convert the world's governments to "democracy" is in fact a drive to place the elite in total control of the populations. "Democracy" is little more than another word for "rule by money" – it can be nothing else. The entire world is falling under the delusion that "each vote counts".
The world is utterly corrupt, ruled almost exclusively by monied interests. Jesus said: "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."
Which is your choice?
I_left_the_left , Nov 16, 2020 10:29 AM Reply to Victor
Are voters really as corrupt as those they vote for?
Laurence Howell , Nov 16, 2020 12:44 PM Reply to I_left_the_left
No, just mis-informed
I_left_the_left , Nov 16, 2020 1:11 PM Reply to Laurence Howell
Misinformed by the politicians and the MSM, presumably. So if establishment and career politicians are the enemies of the people, then anti-politicians and populist outsiders who want to drain the swamp deserve our fullest support.
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2020 | off-guardian.org
They are programmed and propagandized, embracing the illusion that the electoral system is not structured and controlled to make sure no significant change can occur, no matter who is president. It is a sad reality promoted as democracy.
They will prattle on and give all sorts of reasons why they voted, and for whom, and how if you don't vote you have no right to bitch, and how it's this sacred right to vote that makes democracy great, blah blah blah. It's all sheer nonsense. For the U.S.A. is not a democracy; it is an oligarchy run by the wealthy for the wealthy.
This is not a big secret. Everybody knows this is true; knows the electoral system is sheer show business with the presidential extravaganza drawing the big money from corporate lobbyists, investment bankers, credit card companies, lawyers, business and hedge fund executives, Silicon Valley honchos, think tanks, Wall Street gamblers, millionaires, billionaires, et. al. Biden and Trump spent over 3 billion dollars on the election. They are owned by the money people.
Both are old men with long, shameful histories. A quick inquiry will show how the rich have profited immensely from their tenures in office. There is not one hint that they could change and have a miraculous conversion while in future office, like JFK. Neither has the guts or the intelligence. They are nowhere men who fear the fate that John Kennedy faced squarely when he turned against the CIA and the war machine. They join the craven company of Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. They all got the message that was sent from the streets of Dallas in 1963: You don't want to die, do you?
Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks, its vast intelligence apparatus, increased or decreased in the past half century? Who is winning the battle, the people or the ruling elites? The answer is obvious.
It matters not at all whether the president has been Trump or Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, Barack Obama or George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, or Jimmy Carter. The power of the national security state has grown under them all and everyone is left to moan and groan and wonder why.
All the while, the doll's house has become more and more sophisticated and powerful. It is now essentially an electronic prison that is being "Built Back Better." The new Cold War now being waged against Russia and China is a bi-partisan affair, as is the confidence game played by the secret government intended to create a fractured consciousness in the population through their corporate mass-media stenographers. Trump and his followers on one side of the coin; liberal Democrats on the other.
Only those backed by the wealthy power brokers get elected in the U.S.A. Then when elected, it's payback time. Palms are greased. Everybody knows this is true. It's called corruption. So why would anyone, who opposes a corrupt political oligarchy, vote, unless they were casting a vote of conscience for a doomed third-party candidate?
hether it's Tweedledee or Tweedledum – will result in the death and impoverishment of so many, that being the end result of oligarchic rule at home and imperialism abroad.
Orwell called this Doublethink:
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.
And while in Nineteen Eighty-Four Doublethink is learned by all the Party members "and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox," today in the USA, it has been mastered even by the so-called unintelligent.
To live in the USA is to live in the Church of the Good Hustler.
People often ask: What can we do to make the country better? What is your alternative?
A child could answer that one: Don't vote if you know that both contenders are backed by the super-rich elites, what some call the Deep State. Which of course they are. Everybody knows.
Reply
I_left_the_left , Nov 18, 2020 9:50 AM
"the U.S.A. is not a democracy; it is an oligarchy run by the wealthy for the wealthy." Sorry, no. The whole point about Trump is that he is the great anti-politician, the outsider, the patriot enemy of the corrupt ruling elites who only care about status, power and control, not the interests of the American people or any other. By contrast, Biden is clearly the perfect puppet of the oligarchy and political establishment. The ruling class expected their ally Clinton to win in 2016, never Trump. The great election steal of 2020 is all about reversing this little surprise, and to make sure that the irksome people power of US democracy will finally be under full control. No more land of the free; the USA is now on the cusp of becoming a leftist fascist dictatorship, in which US patriots are the new German Jews, and in which future elections will be as meaningful as those of the Soviet Union.
A Texas Libertarian , Nov 18, 2020 6:05 AM
If you don't see that there is a big difference between Trump and Biden, then you are still in the dollhouse. Trump certainly ain't perfect, but at least he wants to keep the economy open. Biden is the lock down candidate. If that's all I knew about each of these candidates, it'd be enough to vote for Trump. But there is a lot more.
Also, 'democracy' is the virus, not the cure, and Orwell was a dumb ass socialist.
Curmudgeon , Nov 17, 2020 11:55 PM
With all of his warts, Nixon did end the Vietnam war. Reagan ended the Cold War and mutually assured destruction. Wilson got the US into WWI, FDR did WWII, Truman set up Korea and Clinton tried to heat up Yugoslavia.
George Wallace circa 1965 said there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They are different branches of the corporate party and globalists competing for the speed of takeover. Trump is a corporatist but for all of his faults has gone off script with his own corporatist agenda to cut in on the action, and the owners ain't havin' it, because the Trumpian party is ever-so mildly nationalistic. Nationalism cannot be allowed to rear its beautiful head, because people will love it. Trump is a turd, alright, but Biden is a pile of shit.I_left_the_left , Nov 18, 2020 9:53 AM Reply to Curmudgeon
Would Biden end endless wars of intervention against the wishes of the neo-cons and military-industrial complex, as Trump has been doing?
Curmudgeon , Nov 18, 2020 4:05 PM Reply to I_left_the_left
LOL. Biden IS the swamp. Even George Galloway is "defending" Trump.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/506618-henry-kissinger-joe-biden/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1357509/us-election-news-donald-trump-latest-Joe-Biden-wins-George-Galloway-manila-chanNobodys Fool , Nov 17, 2020 11:11 PM
Wow what a hopeless and dreary world you live in. I left the dollhouse in the weeks after 9-11 when I realized the official narrative was full of holes. But I don't find the world out here quite so dreary as you. Call me a dreamer, but I still believe that good always (eventually) wins over evil, and I believe the ideals of America – the very same ones that were probably sold to us as a fake bill of goods a long time ago – is REAL and not an illusion because so many people believe in it. Perception is reality. Donald Trump despite all his personal quirks and flaws I sincerely believe to be a deal maker who is interested in protecting and serving the American people. Even if it's out of his own narcissism that he wants to do so I'll take it. Regardless, one good thing that has come out of the last 4 years is that I think a LOT of people have gotten "woke" in their own ways. Not all have left the dollhouse yet but many have. Have faith in people.
Lysias , Nov 17, 2020 2:01 PM
If it made no difference who won, why were the elites so fanatically opposed to Trump?
George Mc , Nov 17, 2020 3:00 PM Reply to Lysias
It does make a difference cf. the mad scramble to get GWB elected in 2000. At that time the rulers had decided on years of aggressive foreign policy therefore they need the "war party" in. When Obama was pitted against the lame duck McCain it was time for some "smiley face" rule with a surge in the woke factor with the first (gasp!) African American president.
With Trump, I think it was a genuine shock when he was elected. Like Brexit in the UK, it just wasn't supposed to happen! Trump is too much of a wild card. Too revealing. Suggesting there's a deep state and actually taking conspiracies seriously? How dare he!. More to the point, he's not getting with the covid program.
I_left_the_left , Nov 18, 2020 10:01 AM Reply to wardropper
Trump had the perfect billionaire's lifestyle, but gave it all up to run for the presidency. He donated all presidential salary to good causes and says he has lost billions by becoming president, unlike any other political leader you care to mention. More seriously, he has put himself and family in grave danger by opposing the corrupt ruling classes of the USA, and by his insolent attempt to 'drain the swamp'. In the near future, the elites will persecute and try to imprison him and his family, to prevent any further rebellion against their control in the land of the unfree.
wardropper , Nov 17, 2020 4:25 PM Reply to Lysias
We don't really know how fanatically opposed to him they actually are.
What the media choose to show us always has several layers of superficial, misleading crap attached to it.
Appearing to be opposed to something is a pretty old trick, after all.
It covers your ass.Lysias , Nov 17, 2020 10:50 PM Reply to wardropper
Paying off the BLM rioters? That's not something you do just to create an appearance.
|
|
|
Nov 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
William Gruff , Nov 6 2020 13:19 utc | 16
The election is being stolen but once again the establishment dramatically misread the lay of the political landscape among the American population. The adjustments that were made ahead of time to the paperless electronic voting machines were not sufficient to overcome the votes for Trump and so the establishment has to fall back on much more difficult and risky approaches to cooking the count. To help cover this more challenging and time-consuming operation the "Mighty Wurlitzer" has the mass media chanting in chorus that the Trump Administration's charges of fraud are "baseless" before investigations can be done to determine if the charges have a basis.
There will be no "revenge" against the Democrats. If the American public accepts the results of the fraud then the establishment (Democrats and Republicans) will heave a "Huuuge" sigh of relief for dodging the bullet and things will return to "normal" as they were with previous presidents as figureheads for the State. There will be nothing remotely like the ludicrous "Russiagate" hysteria that the mass media indulged in against Trump. Something truly baseless will have to be found for the Republicans to rant at the Democrats about like Obama's birth certificate, but the real issues will be dropped like hot potatoes by both "teams" .
The establishment will then try to restart "Project for a New American Century" . This is bad news for Syria as the "Assad Curse" will start getting more exercise again. This is also bad news for Russia as the PNAC crowd are entirely certain that the Russians are bluffing about engaging the Empire kinetically. They are Russians, after all, right? You just have to push them hard enough like Reagan did and they will roll over.
At least that is what the PNAC crowd thinks. The PNACers rely for their brainpower on the PMC ( "Professional, Managerial class" ), who as c1ue pointed out are "... the middle managers, doctors, lawyers, MBAs, tenured professors, finance types and what not who are divorced from the actual hands-on labor." That part about being "divorced from the actual hands-on labor" is important because it means they have nothing mooring them to reality.
[Aside: I have often mentioned that economics is the keystone social science, and contemporary economics being based around vacuous capitalist apologetics renders the entire realm of the social sciences a limp and constantly shifting mass of liquid shite with no predictive power and only serving to sell pop culture self-help books. Psychology is where the social sciences bump up against the biological sciences. This is how economics plays such an important role in real (not pop) psychology. One's occupation; how one makes a living; how one puts food on the table, is the core of human identity (skin tone isn't anywhere close). The more that individuals fulfill employment roles that are entirely socially constructed and the further they are from direct involvement in the process of transforming natural resources into tangible items humans use for living, then the more tenuous and, to put it politely, more "abstract" and subject to reinterpretation their association with physical reality becomes. This is why c1ue 's PMCs, despite being very intelligent and highly educated, can make such profound mistakes that get hayseed farmers scratching their heads in amazement.]
The PNAC gang (Biden/Harris is their front) will now "shirtfront" Russia and "get in their face" . They will escalate until they succeed at their plans. Trump's escalations were almost entirely symbolic and meaningless, but the PNACer's escalations will be kinetic. When Iran is once again forced to retaliate against the empire and missile-strikes some US assets, the PNAC people will escalate and respond with ten times the violence where Trump had ordered the empire to stand down.
Unfortunately for the empire, America's economic decline is systemic; it is baked into capitalism. It cannot be reversed. While Trump hastened the empire's diplomatic decline and poisoned its "soft power" , Biden/Harris will hasten the empire's economic decline.
As for the Fort Detrick flu, the mass media will now try to downplay it in order to get workers back to making the elites some profits, but the cases and fatalities will continue to increase. There will be no more effective countering of the pandemic by Team Blue than Team Red because the US simply doesn't have the tools, either medically, culturally, or socially, to do anything about it.
Four years of the deep state/establishment exposing itself in panicked hysteria, only to now fade back into the background with nothing gained from those four years. I wonder how the posters here who think it was all part of an elaborate plan will spin their tales of the omnipotent empire now that it can no longer be said "Trump hasn't started a war YET but he will once he cements his image as 'Glorious Leader'!!"
Biden/Harris being installed in such an obvious manner is not a display of the establishment's power, but rather is proof of their weakness and incompetence.
|
|
|
Nov 07, 2020 | nymag.com
David Shor got famous by getting fired. In late May, amid widespread protests over George Floyd's murder, the 28-year-old data scientist tweeted out a study that found nonviolent demonstrations were more effective than "riots" at pushing public opinion and voter behavior leftward in 1968.
Many Twitter users -- and (reportedly) some of Shor's colleagues and clients at the data firm Civis Analytics -- found this post insensitive. A day later, Shor publicly apologized for his tweet. Two weeks after that, he'd lost his job as Civis's head of political data science -- and become a byword for the excesses of so-called cancel culture . (Shor has not discussed his firing publicly due to a nondisclosure agreement, and the details of his termination remain undisclosed).
... ... ...
So there's a big constellation of issues. The single biggest way that highly educated people who follow politics closely are different from everyone else is that we have much more ideological coherence in our views.
If you decided to create a survey scorecard, where on every single issue -- choice, guns, unions, health care, etc. -- you gave people one point for choosing the more liberal of two policy options, and then had 1,000 Americans fill it out, you would find that Democratic elected officials are to the left of 90 to 95 percent of people.
And the reason is that while voters may have more left-wing views than Joe Biden on a few issues, they don't have the same consistency across their views. There are like tons of pro-life people who want higher taxes, etc. There's a paper by the political scientist David Broockman that made this point really famous -- that "moderate" voters don't have moderate views, just ideologically inconsistent ones. Some people responded to media coverage of that paper by saying, "Oh, people are just answering these surveys randomly, issues don't matter." But that's not actually what the paper showed. In a separate section, they tested the relevance of issues by presenting voters with hypothetical candidate matchups -- here's a politician running on this position, and another politician running on the opposite -- and they found that issue congruence was actually very important for predicting who people voted for.
So this suggests there's a big mass of voters who agree with us on some issues, and disagree with us on others. And whenever we talk about a given issue, that increases the extent to which voters will cast their ballots on the basis of that issue.
Mitt Romney and Donald Trump agreed on basically every issue, as did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And yet, a bunch of people changed their votes. And the reason that happened was because the salience of various issues changed. Both sides talked a lot more about immigration, and because of that, correlation between preferences on immigration and which candidate people voted for went up. In 2012, both sides talked about health care. In 2016, they didn't. And so the correlation between views on health care and which candidate people voted for went down.
So this means that every time you open your mouth, you have this complex optimization problem where what you say gains you some voters and loses you other voters. But this is actually cool because campaigns have a lot of control over what issues they talk about.
Non-college-educated whites, on average, have very conservative views on immigration, and generally conservative racial attitudes. But they have center-left views on economics; they support universal health care and minimum-wage increases. So I think Democrats need to talk about the issues they are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in practice, means not talking about immigration.
... ... ...
The problem is that swing voters don't trust either party. So if you get Democrats to embrace Abolish ICE, that won't get moderate- ish , racist white people to support it; it will just turn them into Republicans. So that's the trade-off. When you embrace unpopular things, you become more unpopular with marginal voters, but also get a fairly large segment of the public to change its views. And the latter can sometimes produce long-term change.
But it's a hard trade-off. And I don't think anyone ever says something like, "I think it was a good trade for us to lose the presidency because we raised the salience of this issue." That's not generally what people want. They don't want to make an unpopular issue go from 7 percent to 30 percent support. They want something like what happened with gay marriage or marijuana legalization, where you take an issue that is 30 percent and then it goes to 70 percent. And if you look at the history of those things, it's kind of clear that campaigns didn't do that.
... ... ...
But ultimately, when people hear from both sides, they're gonna revert to some kind of partisan baseline. But there's not a nihilism there; it's not just that Democratic-leaning voters will adopt the Democratic position or Republican-leaning ones will automatically adopt the Republican one. Persuadable voters trust the parties on different issues.
And there's a pretty basic pattern -- both here and in other countries -- in which voters view center-left parties as empathetic. Center-left parties care about the environment, lowering poverty, improving race relations. And then, you know, center-right parties are seen as more "serious," or more like the stern dad figure or something. They do better on getting the economy going or lowering unemployment or taxes or crime or immigration.
... ... ..
What's powerful about nonviolent protest -- and particularly nonviolent protest that incurs a disproportionate response from the police -- is that it can shift the conversation, in a really visceral way, into the part of this issue space that benefits Democrats and the center left. Which is the pursuit of equality, social justice, fairness -- these Democratic-loaded concepts -- without the trade-off of crime or public safety. So I think it is really consistent with a pretty broad, cross-sectional body of evidence (a piece of which I obviously tweeted at some point ) that nonviolent protest is politically advantageous, both in terms of changing public opinion on discrete issues and electing parties sympathetic to the left's concerns.
As for "the abolish the police" stuff, I think the important thing there is that basically no mainstream elected officials embraced it.
... ... ...
But there's always a mix of violent and nonviolent protest; or, there's always some violence that occurs at nonviolent protests. And it's not a situation where a drop of violence spoils everything and turns everybody into fascists. The research isn't consistent with that. It's more about the proportions. Because the mechanism here is that when violence is happening, people become afraid. They fear for their safety, and then they crave order. And order is a winning issue for conservatives here and everywhere around the world. The basic political argument since the French Revolution has been the left saying, "Let's make things more fair," and the right saying, "If we do that, it will lead to chaos and threaten your family."
But when you have nonviolent protests that goad security forces into using excessive force against unarmed people -- preferably while people are watching -- then order gets discredited, and people experience this visceral sense of unfairness. And you can change public opinion.
... ... ..
So, as a result, campaigns centered around this cosmopolitan elite's internal disagreements over economic issues. But over the past 60 years, college graduates have gone from being 4 percent of the electorate to being more like 35. Now, it's actually possible -- for the first time ever in human history -- for political parties to openly embrace cosmopolitan values and win elections; certainly primary and municipal elections, maybe even national elections if you don't push things too far or if you have a recession at your back. And so Democratic elites started campaigning on the things they'd always wanted to, but which had previously been too toxic. And so did center-left parties internationally
... .....
Many on the left are wary of the Democratic Party's growing dependence on wealthy voters and donors. But you've argued that the party's donor class actually pulls it to the left, as big-dollar Democratic donors are more progressive -- even on economic issues -- than the median Democratic voter. I'm skeptical of that claim. After all, so much regulation and legislation never crosses ordinary Americans' radar. It seems implausible to me that, during negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration fought to export America's generous patent protections on pharmaceuticals to the developing world, or to expand the reach of the Investor State Dispute Settlement process, because they felt compelled to placate swing voters. Similarly, it's hard for me to believe that the primary reason why Democrats did not significantly expand collective-bargaining rights under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama was voter hostility to labor-law reform rather than the unified opposition of business interests to such a policy. So why couldn't it be the case that, when it comes to policy, a minority of big-dollar donors who are highly motivated -- and reactionary -- on discrete issues pull the party to the right, even as wealthier Democrats give more ideologically consistent responses to survey questions?
... ... ...
David Broockman showed in a recent paper -- and I've seen this in internal data -- that people who give money to Democrats are more economically left wing than Democrats overall. And the more money people give, the more economically left wing they are. These are obviously the non-transactional donors. But people underestimate the extent to which the non-transactional money is now all of the money. This wasn't true ten years ago.
So then you get to the question: Why do so many moderate Democrats vote for center-right policies that don't even poll well? Why did Heidi Heitkamp vote to deregulate banks in 2018 , when the median voter in North Dakota doesn't want looser regulations on banks? But the thing is, while that median voter doesn't want to deregulate banks, that voter doesn't want a senator who is bad for business in North Dakota. And so if the North Dakota business community signals that it doesn't like Heidi Heitkamp, that's really bad for Heidi Heitkamp, because business has a lot of cultural power.
I think that's a very straightforward, almost Marxist view of power: Rich people have disproportionate cultural influence. So business does pull the party right. But it does so more through the mechanism of using its cultural power to influence public opinion, not through donations to campaigns.
So, in your view, the reason that Democrats aren't more left wing on economic issues isn't because they're bought off, but because the median voter is "bought off," in the sense of responding to cues from corporate interests?
... ... ...
So I think people underestimate Democrats' openness to left-wing policies that won't cost them elections. And there are a lot of radical, left-wing policies that are genuinely very popular. Codetermination is popular. A job guarantee is popular. Large minimum-wage increases are popular and could literally end market poverty.
All these things will engender opposition from capital. But if you focus on the popular things, and manage to build positive earned media around those things, then you can convince Democrats to do them. So we should be asking ourselves, "What is the maximally radical thing that can get past Joe Manchin." And that's like a really depressing optimization problem. And it's one that most leftists don't even want to approach, but they should. There's a wide spectrum of possibilities for what could happen the next time Democrats take power, and if we don't come in with clear thinking and realistic demands, we could end up getting rolled.
... ... ...
The Senate is even worse. And much worse than people realize. The Senate has always been, on paper, biased against Democrats. It overrepresents states that are rural and white, and mechanically, that gives a structural advantage to Republicans. For 50 years or so, the tipping-point state in the Senate has been about one percentage point more Republican than the country as a whole. And that advantage did go up in 2016, because white rural voters trended against us (it went up to 3 percent).
... ... ..
I think one big lesson of 2018 was that Trump's coalition held up. Obviously, we did better as the party out of power. But if you look at how we did in places like Maine or Wisconsin or Michigan, it looked more like 2016 than 2012. Donald Trump still has a giant structural advantage in the Electoral College.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
jinn , Nov 5 2020 13:48 utc | 27
The elites may control who gets nominated but no matter how flawed or repugnant their candidate is or how obvious that the candidate was chosen for them the flocks that follow the candidates act as if they did the choosing.
Trump was given 10 times the free advertising than all the other primary candidates combined and yet his followers think they picked him.
And Biden will go down in history as the candidate who got more popular votes than any other candidate ever has and yet he is about as popular as a hemorrhoid.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
blueseas , 40 minutes ago
Omega Point , 31 minutes agoStories began circulating last night about the official ballots being watermarked. This looks like it is true! The watermark is detectable under 640nm wavelength and also the individual printers of the ballots have the same micro dot signature so fraudulent ballots will be easy to detect and investigate. All printers have a micro dot signature that is like a fingerprint for that specific printer. Every ballot, real or fake, can be traced back to the source. This could get very interesting
Max21c , 45 minutes agoOne of the best articles on ZH in a while. The elites are so full of hubris, they behave as if the state of affairs since the post-WWII era has always been the state of affairs throughout history and are immutable. They believe that they are cause of America's dominance, not the individuals who built this country on whose goodwill they are now quickly draining.
I think we're like Rome. Currency debasement, no border security, massively corrupt politicians, most of population on welfare, and games and circuses to distract from the rot.
The elites will soon be surprised how quickly things will decline, just as shocked as the Romans when the Visigoths came through the city walls and looted the Imperial City in 410 AD.
ZeroTruth , 5 minutes agoIt's a mix between Nazi Germany and its criminality and thievery and persecution machinery, and Bolshevist Russia and its criminality and thievery and persecution machinery and many third world banana republics and their criminality and thievery and political persecution machinery.
Face it Washingtonians are evil.
sbin , 35 minutes agoI had a few drinks in Vegas years back with a guy that said he was some variety of congress critter. The two things I remember him saying was that his entire time in office was spent drumming up money for PACs and chasing personal wealth. He also told me DC was Hollywood for ugly people.
goatsman , 42 minutes agoCCCP is similar in decrepit old party hacks ruining everything.
Unfortunately American exceptional lunatics will try to destroy the world before excepting reality.
Never been a group so corrupt and delusional with so much destructive weaponry.
Dr Strangelove is more appropriate.
ZeroTruth , 23 minutes agoTsarist Russia, 1917?
Is-Be , 15 minutes agoOceania.
I'll tell you exactly how this all plays out:
The US petrofiat is backed solely on our reputation and a fleet of aging nukes that may or may not work. Americucks look like complete idiots abroad and have lost the respect of nearly every nation on Earth. The dumping of the US petrodollar is an imperative to China, Russia and damn near everyone else. A new currency will rise up to take its place soon and then its open season on Americuck, which will have already been destroyed internally by economic collapse, massive homelessness, poverty, starvation and crime. The true owners of the US will want their property and will come and claim it with little to no fight as the Americuck people will be so beat down and demoralized they will have lost the will to do anything, which has already happened as the Americuck people refuse to take up arms against the government that oppressed them and the domestic terrorists that now control major US cities. Americucks will be eliminated en masse and a new nation will be formed, probably a mix of south Americans and Chinese. Whites will be eradicated and remembered by history as trash that was removed by the new heroes of history. The entirety of the MIC will abandon the US, as it has already done...the invasion over our wide open southern border is ample evidence of the oath breakers intent. I suspect the MIC will form its own nation, in league with technocrats.
You will most likely see friends and loved ones perish before your very eyes, see our once great cities burn and foreign troops eliminate Americuck sheeple.
That's the future, all because the Americuck sheeple refuse to take up arms against their lords and masters: Goldman Sachs, JPM Chase and Morgan Stanley.
Americuck...land of the fee and home of the slave.
RKKA , 4 minutes agoImagine a world without Anglo-Saxons; It's easy if you try. Look at Zimbabwe.
DeeDeeTwo , 45 minutes agoIn the summer of 1941, the 4th Panzer Division of Heinz Guderian, one of the most talented German tank generals, broke through to the Belarusian town of Krichev. Parts of the 13th Soviet Army were retreating. Only one gunner, Nikolai Sirotinin, did not retreat - very young, short, thin.
On that day, it was necessary to cover the withdrawal of troops. "There will be two people with a cannon here," said the battery commander. Nikolai volunteered. The second was the commander himself.
On the morning of July 17, a column of German tanks appeared on the highway.
Nikolai took up a position on the hill right on the field. The cannon was sinking in the high rye, but he could clearly see the highway and the bridge over the river. When the lead tank reached the bridge, Nikolai knocked it out with the first shot. The second shell set fire to the armored personnel carrier that closed the column.
We must stop here. Because it is still not entirely clear why Nikolai was left alone at the cannon. But there are versions. He apparently had just the task - to create a "traffic jam" on the bridge, knocking out the head car of the Nazis. The lieutenant at the bridge and adjusted the fire, and then, disappeared. It is reliably known that the lieutenant was wounded and then he left towards the withdrawing positions. There is an assumption that Nikolai had to move away, having completed the task. But ... he had 60 rounds. And he stayed!
Two tanks tried to move the lead tank off the bridge, but they were also hit. The armored vehicle tried to cross the river not across the bridge. But she got stuck in a swampy shore, where another shell found her. Nikolai shot and shot, knocking out tank after tank ...
Guderian's tanks rested on Nikolai Sirotinin, like the Chinese wall, like the Brest fortress. Already 11 tanks and 6 armored personnel carriers were on fire! For almost two hours of this strange battle, the Germans could not understand where the gun was firing from. And when we reached the position of Nikolai, he had only three shells left. The Germans offered him to surrender. Nikolai responded by firing at them with a carbine.
This last battle was short-lived ...
11 tanks and 7 armored vehicles, 57 soldiers and officers were lost by the Nazis after the battle, where they were blocked by the Russian soldier Nikolai Sirotinin.
The inscription on the monument: "Here at dawn on July 17, 1941 entered into combat with a column of fascist tanks and in a two-hour battle repulsed all enemy attacks, senior artillery sergeant Nikolai Vladimirovich Sirotinin, who gave his life for the freedom and independence of our Motherland."
"After all, he is a Russian soldier, is such admiration necessary?" These words were written down in his diary by Chief Lieutenant of the 4th Panzer Division Henfeld: "July 17, 1941. Sokolnichi, near Krichev. An unknown Russian soldier was buried in the evening. He alone stood at the cannon, shot a convoy of our tanks and infantry for a long time, and died. Everyone was amazed at his courage ... Oberst (Colonel) before the grave said that if all the soldiers of the Fuehrer fought like this Russian soldier, they would have conquered the whole world! Three times they fired volleys from rifles. After all, he is a Russian soldier, is such admiration necessary? "
Ordinary people were ready to defend and die for the USSR. And who is Gorbachev, who destroyed the USSR. A traitor who betrayed everything and everyone. A stupid dilettante who imagines himself a world-class politician. The main drawback of the USSR was that the power was too concentrated in the hands of one person, who was trusted without question. But when people realized where he was leading the country, it was too late.
TBT or not TBT , 46 minutes agoThe elites, Big Tech, Media and Deep State threw the kitchen sink at this election and did not move the needle. Regardless of who is next President, nothing changes. This is a tribute to the stability of the American system. In fact, the pendulum is swinging against the subversives who are becoming increasingly reckless and discredited.
What did Huxley call the future country depicted in Brave New World?
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2020 | youtu.be
takeaction 1 hour ago (Edited)
WHY ARE ELECTION WORKERS FILLING OUT BALLOTS??? CAUGHT!!
blueseas 1 hour ago
Stories began circulating last night about the official ballots being watermarked. This looks like it is true! The watermark is detectable under 640nm wavelength and also the individual printers of the ballots have the same micro dot signature so fraudulent ballots will be easy to detect and investigate.
All printers have a micro dot signature that is like a fingerprint for that specific printer. Every ballot, real or fake, can be traced back to the source. This could get very interesting
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
William Gruff , Nov 5 2020 14:39 utc | 43
The "peaceful but fiery protests" in Portland are just a small taste of the delightful entertainment that we will get to enjoy if somehow Trump's election fraud prevails over the establishment election fraud. Who is so dull that they don't want more of that?Riots are good for Americans. Gets them off their couches for a few hours.
augusto , Nov 5 2020 14:48 utc | 44
Jinn, ''the most valuable to TPDB, will still win, who can handle the herd''...William Gruff , Nov 5 2020 14:49 utc | 45i would just take this pen and flatly say that everything you say is pure immaculate BS but then I realized I actually didn't catch what you mean.
Please what you mean?JaimeInTexas @42: "The Antrim County Clerk's Office has been working around the clock to identify what caused the inaccuracies."Circe: "It was the Russians!"
Just so everyone knows, large numbers of electronic voting machines in the US can only be audited and verified electronically, which is to say they cannot be audited or verified at all.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
In most elections, the majority of votes are cast "down the ticket" - meaning, a voter supports both party's presidential nominee and state Congressional candidates. In fact, according to Pew Research , "overwhelming shares of voters who are supporting Trump and Biden say they are also supporting the same-party candidate for Senate."
Typically, this means that that the number of votes for a presidential candidate and that party's Senate candidates are relatively close.
Twitter user "US Rebel" (@USRebellion1776), however, found that the number of votes cast for Joe Biden far exceeds those cast for that state's Senate candidates in swing states , while those cast for Trump and GOP Senators remains far closer.
In Michigan , for example, there was a difference of just 7,131 votes between Trump and GOP candidate John James , yet the difference between Joe Biden and Democratic candidate Gary Peters was a staggering 69,093 .
In Georgia , there was an 818 vote difference between Trump and the GOP Senator, vs. a 95,000 difference between Biden and the Democratic candidate for Senator.
Yet, in two non-swing states , there was "no massive flood of mysterious empty Biden votes," leading US Rebel to suggest "It's fraud."
In Wyoming, the difference on the Democratic side is is just 725 votes, while in Montana the difference is 27,457.
What's going on here? If it were "never-Trumpers" pairing Biden with their GOP Congressional picks? If so, we would expect fewer votes for Trump than GOP Senators. We're open to suggestions. Biff says: November 5, 2020 at 1:01 am GMT • 1.1 days ago • 100 Words ↑
and it's suspicious that the president was leading in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states when the authorities decided they couldn't finish counting votes until tomorrow.
Well, they needed time to put the fix in. This is exactly as expected – Trump rolling to a clear victory, and then an abrupt stop of the counting process.
As I predicted many months ago – the tamper happy voting machines will selecting a President Biden. SurfingUSA says: November 5, 2020 at 1:42 am GMT • 1.1 days ago ↑
If by "good" election you mean a colossal nightmare that revealed the fatal fractures between the vote-rigging by the left and the honest and sincere support for our Constitutional Republic by traditionalists, why yes. anon [773] • Disclaimer says: November 5, 2020 at 5:23 am GMT • 22.0 hours ago ↑
I'm not sure how anyone can call a massive fraud a "Good Election". A Biden win will be the shame of America, it'll mean we are now officially a massively corrupt third world country that can't even run a legitimate election.
A TrumpTV cable channel would be great, but he might have a hard time attracting advertisers. Which means he'd probably have to launch a YouTube channel, or just hosts it on his own website, which would make it hard for him to attract broadcasting talent.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Down South , Nov 5 2020 13:55 utc | 28
Interesting case study on vote fraud occurs at the local level. I posted it on an earlier thread. What is staggering is how many people were involved.
Chicago, however, is known for its fires, and there was a roaring one there in 1982 that resulted in one of the largest voter fraud prosecutions ever conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. The telltale smoke arose out of one of the closest governor's races in Illinois history; and as for the fire, the U.S.https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-chicagoAttorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had been cast.[2] Sixty-five individuals were indicted for federal election crimes, and all but two (one found incompetent to stand trial and another who died) were convicted. [3]
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2020 | www.foxnews.com
The president has every right to ensure electoral laws are enforced to prevent fraud. In fact, he owes it to the 68 million deplorables who voted for him. Let's be real. Goliath was never going to let David breeze through the rematch .
The provinces, for whom President Trump is an instrument, not an end in himself, were never going to have an easy time winning the 2020 election against the amassed might of the Democratic Party, the "Fake News" media and allied pollsters, Big Tech, woke billionaires and the celebrity class, who united to stamp out the barbarian orange emperor.
The "chumps" and "ugly folk," as Joe Biden calls them, came out in their glorious millions from the American heartland on Election Day and now we will see if people power prevails, if the nationalist populist movement enabled by Donald Trump, but not defined by him, lives to fight another day against the corrupt globalists represented by the sad husk of Biden.
It boils down to Trump's belief that the Democrats perpetrated widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and elsewhere to steal the election.
TUCKER CARLSON: THE ELECTION THAT NARROWLY SAVED AMERICA
While even those in his own party are urging him to lose gracefully, the president has every right to ensure electoral laws are enforced to prevent fraud. In fact, he owes it to the 68 million deplorables who voted for him. To that end, Trump has turned to an old ally, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to lead a heroic legal challenge .
In Wisconsin, 300 ballots went missing when the Willow Township municipal clerk went home sick and no one could find her, the Washington Post reported. The ballots eventually turned up yesterday, with 157 votes for Trump and 114 for Biden.
In Arizona -- which was called early for Biden on election night, but the Trump campaign still says they can win -- a "data error" claimed that 95 percent of votes had been counted yesterday when only 86 percent had been, and the remainder reportedly were from Trump-heavy counties.
VideoSo you can see that, in such a close election, Trump's concerns are not frivolous. Fraud is corrosive, but so is claiming fraud where there is none. We will see where the lawsuits land. In any case, Biden as much as declared victory yesterday, saying that by the time the count is finished, "I believe I will be the winner . . . we are winning in enough states to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency."
Trump's campaign claimed Wednesday he still had a path to victory if he keeps Pennsylvania and somehow Arizona comes back to him. But even if Trump does lose, it may be a blessing in disguise for Republicans.
VideoThe result has crushed Democratic expectations of a clean sweep. It wasn't a landslide win against an unpopular president, as we had been told so confidently for months.
If Biden wins, it will be by the narrowest margin. And all the hundreds of millions spent on retaking the Senate came to nothing, with the Republicans looking to hold onto their lead. The top targets, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, survived easily.
More from Opinion Ben Shapiro: 2020 election's one big message -- voters refuse to accept woke media's narrative on race Dan Gainor: NY Times columnist tells truth -- says paper 'not good at capturing rightward half of the country'The fatal miscalculations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in cynically refusing to negotiate on the latest stimulus bill have cost the Democrats dearly in the House, where they have gone backward by at least six seats. They did not manage to get rid of a single Republican. So much for the blue wave.
The failure means that in 2022, the House is more likely to revert to Republican control, setting up a lame-duck presidency.
The Democrats won't be able to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College or make DC and Puerto Rico states. They will struggle to impose the Green New Deal.
Unfortunately, nothing can be done to stop a President Biden-Harris repeat of the geopolitical errors of the Obama presidency, such as appeasing China and Iran's mullahs and signing onto the Paris climate accord. But a President Biden in cognitive decline will sooner or later be replaced by his unpopular, untested vice president, Kamala Harris. Saddled with a recession and policies that will only exacerbate economic decline, the next four years will hobble Democrats.
Their flaws and hypocrisy will be on full display, with a good chance of the 2024 presidential race being won by one of the new generation of Republican heirs to Trumpism.
Whoever wins this election, the result is a humiliation for the Trump-deranged media and the tame pollsters who provide them with the justification for their dishonest political narrative.
Let history record that on the Sunday before the election, the New York Times declared that "all 15" of their columnists suffer from mandatory Trump Derangement Syndrome.
"All 15 of our columnists explain what the past four years have cost America" was the introduction to a carnival of wokesplaining.
That's what you get when you fire opinion editors who publish conservatives. Whoever wins, this election has exposed the frauds and liars who pose as our elites, and half of America won't forget it.
In a press conference in Philadelphia Wednesday, Giuliani laid out one clear anomaly in which, contrary to Pennsylvania law, Republican election observers were denied the right to oversee the counting of 120,000 ballots by being forced to stand 20 to 30 feet away from where they were being counted.
"They were never able to see the ballot itself, never able to see if it was properly postmarked, properly addressed, properly signed on the outside . . . this went on for 20 hours. While all of you thought there was some kind of legitimate count going on here in Philadelphia, it was totally illegitimate."
Giuliani's team has also launched a lawsuit in Wisconsin , where he says that, after election observers had gone home, "at 3 or 4 in the morning about 120,000 ballots appeared . . . and they all got counted."
The Trump campaign also filed a lawsuit in Michigan Wednesday, with campaign manager Bill Stepien claiming Republican observers were denied "meaningful access to numerous counting locations to observe the opening of ballots and the counting process, as guaranteed by Michigan law."
There are other allegations of fraud or irregularities, late-counted votes and suspected vote harvesting being reported around the country.
In one case, a woman claiming to be an election volunteer in Michigan's Clark County claimed on video she had discovered a box of 500 ballots outside the counting facility from people who were not on the voter rolls.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MIRANDA DEVINE
Miranda Devine is a columnist and writer.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
It seems that we all will have to fill up our popcorn supplies as the rather comical and disgraceful process of U.S. vote counting is likely to continue until maybe December 8, the safe harbor date on which the states will have to certify their electors.
The race is nowhere near where the Democrats and their supporting media had expected it to go. Just last week polls claimed that Biden would lead in Wisconsin by 17 percent . The current margin is a rather dubious 0.6 percent which upcoming recounts may well eliminate.
That the Democrats lose House seats, do not win the Senate and barely manage to drag their demented presidential candidate towards a stalemate tells a lot about their lack of sane policies. A donor party completely disinterested in what the people really want - medicare for all, no fracking etc. - will have little chance to survive a future onslaught of conservatives with a more competent figure head than Donald Trump.
There will be protests, probably violent ones, and more legal action from either side. I see no comprise possible that would satisfy both parties. I fear that, should Trump lose this election. Trumpism will only grow and make the U.S. ungovernable.
Maybe Trump and Biden could publicly draw straws to get over with it.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2020 | caucus99percent.com
Steven D on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 9:48pm
I did not support #DemExit before tonight. But I just got off the phone with my 24 year old daughter. She's depressed as hell by what we all see, because they are not bothering to hide it anymore. I could not promise her things will get better, because they won't.
We do not have a democracy, we have an #oligarchy and when shit hits the fan (as it will sooner than later), our nation will become another dictatorship or military junta.
So, I'm done with the party system, because we only have one party - the party for and by the rich. I'm abandoning the Democratic party because it abandoned us for corporate cash decades ago. That's all I have to say. End of story.
snoopydawg on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 9:52pm
I hope people do itboriscleto on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 9:55pmDemocrats just told us to bend over and hold the Vaseline. But if these polls are true then my sigline is true more than ever.
So, with lines of Voters still in Michigan, the stupid fvcking media calls it for Biden.
Don't leave. They are still recounting parts of Texas and California.
YOUR VOTE COUNTS. #PrimaryElection #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/oi9rwiKEUr
-- Biden's (@BernieWon2016) March 11, 2020
Hey people your candidate dropped out over a week ago.
The Michigan SoSShahryar on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 10:54pm@snoopydawg Said results won't be available until tomorrow. We still don't have full results from California...
Democrats just told us to bend over and hold the Vaseline. But if these polls are true then my sigline is true more than ever.
So, with lines of Voters still in Michigan, the stupid fvcking media calls it for Biden.
Don't leave. They are still recounting parts of Texas and California.
YOUR VOTE COUNTS. #PrimaryElection #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/oi9rwiKEUr
-- Biden's (@BernieWon2016) March 11, 2020
Hey people your candidate dropped out over a week ago.
I've looked at the California numberstle on Wed, 03/11/2020 - 8:16amreporting that 82% is in. If so then Biden would need to get 67% of the remaining votes. He's currently at 27%. What are the odds that such a huge number of Biden votes would now come in? Zero, of course. There's no chance of it and Bernie has won California. But CNN, for one, is still refusing to call it for him. They had no problem calling Michigan, though, with something like 18% in.
Perhaps Bernie will hold on and win Washington. We'll see. Tulsi has over 8,500 votes so far. If we were to emulate the Hillbots we'd be screaming at her, saying she hurt Bernie!!! ! But we don't do that because we're more aware.
#2 Said results won't be available until tomorrow. We still don't have full results from California...
I was surprised to see Tulsi get .4% in Mississippi.@Shahryar @Shahryar Meanwhile, Bernie shows at 14.8%, below the 15% threshold.
I did not have an instant of anger at Tulsi, only sadness.
Sadness that the mockery of democracy that holds sway in this country would repeatedly set us up for those ridiculous attacks that someone has been a "spoiler".
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Ilya G Poimandres , Nov 4 2020 9:26 utc | 16
WaPo :
With millions of votes yet to be counted, President Trump falsely asserted election fraud, pledged to mount a legal challenge to official state results and made a premature claim of victory.Weird to have popcorn for breakfast ...
Thing is they just stopped counting. As soon as it looked like Trump was going down the path Trafalgar Group predicted, and then some, boom, nothing. 100 votes added every 5 minutes on the New York Times map of the country. What's the excuse - sleep? When has that ever been an issue? The votes were paused so that Trump didn't get his 270 on the day, before the mail in votes were counted. Then Trump would Supreme Court and the battle would be fought there. Now it's gonna be a lot messier. The pause looks like a trick to stuff ballot boxes, from afar at least.
Matthias , Nov 4 2020 10:44 utc | 25
Bemildred , Nov 4 2020 10:49 utc | 26It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
We do not have a decision. Right now it looks as if Biden may win by a slim margin. However, when you look at what happened, the states that would tip the scale in Trump's favour just stopped counting and handing in their results. This reeks of fraud. We may see that election night allowed the FBI to gather sufficient concrete evidence of voter fraud by the Dems in order to provide Trump with the ammo to totally tank them in court. If the fraud can be proven - and I believe it can - then all Dem operatives will go to jail and the election gets decided without competition.oldhippie , Nov 4 2020 11:06 utc | 30Posted by: Ilya G Poimandres | Nov 4 2020 10:37 utc | 24
Any system in which employees have to vote on a working day is bad, disadvantages employees vs employers. Employers have power over workers, they are not "equals" at work, and they use it.
Any system in which everybody has to assemble to vote is bad, unless you are going to pay to get them all there.
You are quite right about the problem of literacy, but nobody is saying you cannot vote in person if you need to or choose to.
Internet voting can also be made at least as secure as your bank account, eh?
The crooks are going to cheat regardless, that's who they are. The question is do the non-crooks have a fast, secure way to get their views counted or not? Right now we have "deliberately not" as the answer here.
Steve , Nov 4 2020 11:19 utc | 32Trump is not serving himself well. No surprise there. Any American election has ambiguities built in and infinite openings for lawyers. Right now Trump's attorneys are asking themselves if the fix is in and if they want this guy for a client.
If Biden can get as far as repeating the words of the oath of office he faces 46 or 48% of the electorate just not believing it. Some of those would, in better times, relax about it after a while. They would entertain doubts and get on with life. With the Democrats thinking of them all as Demons from Hell and Mark2 demanding death for the infidels the wound remains open. Biden couldn't even lead the Senate Judiciary Committee. He will not reduce the national rancor. Kamala can only do worse.
Whoever is rigging this election is wondering what they got into. Nobody wins. Everybody loses
EoinW , Nov 4 2020 11:45 utc | 36I'm starting to believe that karma is real. The way the USA often disrupt democracy abroad is now happening on its soil. I hope it gets dirtier. Hopefully some moderate rebels among them would now declare war on the state.
Zanon , Nov 4 2020 11:46 utc | 37Uncle Tungsten @ 18
The problem with mail in voting is that it increases the opportunity for fraud. Are these democracies with mail in voting really functioning democracies or does mail in voting allow them to fix elections and maintain the status quo? Nothing ever changes in Canada, even on the rare occasions Conservatives(CINO) win. The status quo is a wonderful thing for the ruling elite. You better believe they love mail in voting too. No surprise that Trump - not a career politician - is against mail in votes.
Norwegian , Nov 4 2020 11:49 utc | 39Result past elections in the states that are now focused upon:
Georgia
2004 Republican
2008 Republican
2012 Republican
2016 RepublicanMichigan
2004 Democrat
2008 Democrat
2012 Democrat
2016 Republican BUT close callWisconin
2004 Democrat BUT close call
2008 Democrat
2012 Democrat
2016 RepublicanPennsylvania
2004 Democrat
2008 Democrat
2012 Democrat
2016 RepublicanNorth Carolina
2004 Republican
2008 Democrat BUT close call
2012 Republican
2016 RepublicanNevada
2004 Republican
2008 Democrat
2012 Democrat
2016 Democrat@Matthias | Nov 4 2020 11:07 utc | 31blues , Nov 4 2020 11:56 utc | 40
Watching current electoral college:
Biden 238 with potential for 16 more if the current lead remains => 254 and Biden's lead is < 1% in NV and WI
Trump 213 with potential for 70 more if the current lead remains => 283 and Trump's lead is clear in MI and PA, > 2% in GA and NC
I really don't understand why most of you act as if Trump lost.
Haven't you noticed that truth and reality does not matter anymore? We live in a post truth world, where ideology trumps everything. Other than that, you are 100% correct.Elections are nothing more than convenient launch pads for a color revolutions these days.
Political power is the most addictive drug that was ever created. Many millions of addicts will do anything to obtain their fix. This is why political voting ballots must be paper and publicly and openly hand counted at an extremely local level. Single points of failure will wreck democracy.Tobin Paz , Nov 4 2020 12:48 utc | 42I do not trust my computer with my money! I have a whole 'separate' bank that I use only for necessary computer transactions. I do not have Microsoft Windows! You can probably install PCLOS Linux yourself, or have a geek kid install Salix Linux. These are mostly free of something insecure known as systemd infestation, which all the rest have, making them almost as bad as Windows. The Internet has baked-in insecurity simply because the people who invented it were oblivious to the possibility that some bad actors would use it to cheat innocent users.
Ranked choice (RCV/IRV) voting was also invented by people who didn't consider tampering by bad actors. That's why the simple score (aka 'range') voting is needed. Americans are oblivious to the fact that there do exist people who will gladly cheat them (especially political party operatives).
Zanon , Nov 4 2020 13:09 utc | 46A few things people seem to forget:
The United States is an oligarchy
The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.People will not get access to healthcare, Wall Street will continue to be bailed out at the expense of Main Street, and the war machine will march on.
The Unites States ranks last in fair elections in the West
According to the EIP, U.S. elections scored lower than Argentina, South Africa, Tunisia, and Rwanda -- and strikingly lower than even Brazil. Specifically compared to Western democracies, U.S. elections scored the lowest, slightly worse than the U.K., while Denmark and Finland topped the list.The electronic voting system of the United States is is corrupt as f@#ck
ES&S, which by itself accounts for 44 percent of US election equipment, received its initial financing from the families of Nelson Bunker Hunt and Howard Ahmanson, Jr., right-wing billionaires who also contributed substantially to the Chalcedon Foundation, Christian Reconstruction's main think tank.Hunt and Ahmanson were also prominent early members of the Council for National Policy, a networking group for the Religious Right and billionaires whose recent members have included Kelly Anne Conway, Steve Bannon, Mike Pence, Richard DeVos, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, Robert and Rebekka Mercer, and Bob Dallas, a convicted embezzler whose nonprofits have been closely linked to massive voter data leaks.
22% of mail-in ballots don't get counted
It begins with a stone-cold fact: Mail-in ballots are lost by the millions -- especially the ballots of low-income young and minority voters, those folks often called, "Democrats."The seminal MIT study, Losing Votes by Mail, warns that 22% – more than one in five ballots – never get counted.
This is a bit shady, Pennsylvania:
In addition to whatever ballots have come in on Election Day, Pennsylvania poll workers will be able to count mail-in ballots that arrive in the next three days -- even if there is not a clear postmark and even if the signature on the ballot does not match voter rolls.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/04/pa-governor-pledges-to-count-one-million-outstanding-ballots/
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2020 | www.rt.com
04:43 GMT
A self-professed whistleblower who claims to work for the US Postal Service told Project Veritas mail carriers in Michigan have been instructed to retrieve absentee ballots from general mail circulation so they can be stamped with Tuesday's date and counted as legitimate votes. Project Veritas founder James O'Keeffe said the Postal Service's internal investigation body contacted him and is considering looking into the matter. Michigan was sued by the Trump campaign after an unusual last-minute spike in Biden votes.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org
The mainstream pro-Biden media is poking fun at Donald Trump's suggestion that there could be fraud involved in the post-election receipt of mail-in ballots. Apparently they're not familiar with the election-theft case of Lyndon Johnson, who would go on to become president of the United States.
The entire matter is detailed in Robert Caro's second book in his biographical series on Johnson. The book is entitled Means of Ascent .
Johnson election theft took place in 1948, when he was running for the Democratic nomination for US Senate against Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, one of the most admired and respected governors in the history of the state.
In the primary election, Stevenson led Johnson by 70,000 votes, but because he didn't have a majority of the votes, he was forced into a run-off. The run-off was held on a Saturday. On the Sunday morning after the run-off, Stevenson was leading by 854 votes.
As a New York Times review of Caro's account stated, the day after the run-off election it was "discovered" that the returns of a particular county had not yet been counted. The newly discovered votes were overwhelmingly in favor of Johnson. Then, on Monday more returns came in from the Rio Grande Valley.
Nonetheless, on Tuesday, the State Election Bureau announced that Stevenson had won by 349 votes. Nothing changed on Wednesday and Thursday after the election. On Friday, precincts in the Rio Grande Valley made "corrections" to their tallies, which narrowed Stevenson's lead to 157.
But also on Friday, Jim Wells County, which was governed as a personal fiefdom by a powerful South Texas rancher named George Parr, filed "amended" returns for what has become famous as "Box 13" that gave Johnson another 200 votes. When all was said and done, Johnson had "won" the election by 87 votes.
It was later discovered that one of Parr's men had changed the total tally for Johnson from 765 to 965 by simply curling the 7 into a 9.
Where did the extra 200 votes come from? The last 202 names on on the election roll in Box 13 were in a different color ink from the rest of the names, the names were in alphabetical order, and they were all in the same handwriting. When Caro was researching his book, he secured a statement from Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County, who acknowledged the fraud and confessing his role in it.
As the Washington Post reported , to investigate what obviously appeared quite suspicious Stevenson employed the assistance of Frank Hamer, the Texas Ranger who had trapped and killed Bonnie and Clyde. It was to no avail. Johnson got a friendly state judge to issue an injunction preserving the status quo, after which the Democratic executive committee, by one vote, declared Johnson to be the winner.
Stevenson took the matter to federal court but the Supreme Court punted, declaring that it had no right to interfere with a state election.
So, Lyndon Johnson stole the election and ended up going to Washington as Texas' US Senator. Ironically, if Stevenson had become the state's senator instead, Johnson would never have been selected to be John Kennedy's vice-presidential running mate and, consequently, would never have been president.
No wonder Donald Trump is worried about those Democrats! For that matter, those Democrats should be just as worried about those Republicans!
Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation .
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/november/03/don-t-forget-lbj-s-election-theft/#.X6OV2rSsAkA.twitter
https://web.facebook.com/v2.6/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=172525162793917&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df218bfd5c3fb188%26domain%3Dronpaulinstitute.org%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fronpaulinstitute.org%252Ffd3e3d1c441c4c%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=arial&height=25&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulinstitute.org%2Farchives%2Ffeatured-articles%2F2020%2Fnovember%2F03%2Fdon-t-forget-lbj-s-election-theft%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&share=false&show_faces=false&width=90 Related
- Soros Plays Both Ends in Syria Refugee Chaos - 31 December 2015
- About That ISIS Plan to Attack Munich - 4 January 2016
- Do We Need the Fed? - 21 December 2015
- Obama Administration Fights To Withhold Over 2,000 Photos Of Alleged US Torture and Abuse - 18 December 2015
- Enough Already! It's Time To Send The Despicable House Of Saud To The Dustbin Of History - 6 January 2016
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org
written by daniel mcadams wednesday november 4, 2020
The introduction and legalization of "ballot harvesting," where operatives can collect and submit boxes of ballots without proof of identity, has thrown a huge monkey wrench into last night's presidential vote tally.States are wavering wildly as hundreds of thousands of votes are suddenly "discovered."
Hillary Clinton's former lawyer is behind the mass legalization of this questionable process. Is this the worst run election in US history? Watch today's Liberty Report:
https://youtu.be/Lzum7yzjlbQ
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
snake , Nov 5 2020 3:32 utc | 299
300 election don't count comments not one comment about the future of America? All I see here is who shall be king of the mountain. What is it that our leader (whoever it is, should do)?
1. Reduce military spending by 50% per year for each of the next four years.
2. Close 50% of the military bases each year, over each of the next four years
3. Standardize national examinations for high school and undergraduate degrees pass the examination
receive the BS or BA.. degree.. eliminate any all accreditation requirements, people can study wherever
whenever and how ever they wish. Tutorials not bureaucratic institutions will prepare the students for
the examinations.
4. eliminate copyright and patent laws so as to reduce the wealth gap and so as to return America to
from monopolism to capitalism.
5. fix the constitution so the governed have a powerful, meaningful say in not just in how uses the
government to govern, but also so the governed have a powerful say in what it is those who are elected
to the government must accomplish why they are in the employee of our elected government.
6. Find a way to get the USA activities subject to human rights courts.
7. Paint all of the white people black in order to eliminate race as condition of life.A list of goals and objectives should be put forth on what the elected are supposed to accomplish in the next four years. In that way, it will not matter who is the President, what will matter is did he or she accomplish what it was they were elected to do?
uncle tungsten , Nov 5 2020 3:34 utc | 301
Nick , Nov 5 2020 3:38 utc | 303H.Schmatz #255
your quote from Rafael Poch, US´Qing Syndrome:-
There is nothing in China like the military-industrial complex of the United States that structurally fosters militarism and imperialism with its powerful "lobbies" and think tanks. The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly complicates their adaptation to the new world. Its powerful and efficient propaganda apparatus ("information & entertainment") presents the United States' two-headed, single-party political regime based on the money aristocracy as a democracy.That is really well put.
"The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly complicates their adaptation to the new world"
Exactly that!gm , Nov 5 2020 4:57 utc | 316Nevada will put Joe Biden over for the Presidential win..
Tonight.. Now the question is. How long will Biden last until Harris becomes the Queen of Spades of Pentagon?gm , Nov 5 2020 5:35 utc | 317RE: gm | Nov 5 2020 4:14 utc | 312
See? Twitter is cool with allowing this posting by David Litt, former Obama speechwriter, *today* 5:34 pm Nov 4 of a democrat ballot "curing" (post Nov 3 ballot harvesting) assistance operation in Georgia over the next three days (Wed, Thurs and Fri)https://twitter.com/davidlitt/status/1324117440297639940
"About this eventAttention everyone in or near Georgia: We need YOUR help today! This race is not over and we need every single vote to be counted.
It is all hands on deck and all eyes on Georgia!
Join us today for a virtual training to learn how to knock doors to help voters cure their ballots. We need you in this fight with us today and tomorrow and Friday. We've come so far, this is how we bring it home. See you in the virtual training room and out knocking doors soon!"
And this is legal??? Under Georgia law?
"The guy at the source of the whole kerfluffle acknowledges that the 130,000 magical votes Tweet was based on incorrect data"
-Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 5 2020 3:50 utc | 306
I'm not so sure about this, _K_C. His explanation for the late night MI Biden vote bump "kerfluffle" still smells sketchy to me. Given the stakes, could someone have gotten that guy to "flip" his statement after the fact?
See this from tonight's Tucker Carlson show:
PS: you will note that all the Twitter post links to the data/details in the story were evaporated by Twitter.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Old and Grumpy , Nov 4 2020 20:44 utc | 210
I live in PA, Democrats cheat. Republicans let them. It is a very corrupt state. Having said all that, Trump didn't hold onto his 2016 white male base. Maybe it is just me, but I think that is huge. Had he kept them, he would have won despite Democrat (or is it intelligence agencies?) shenanigans. From what I read Jared told Ivanka's daddy they would vote for him. They had no other choice. I haven't stopped laughing all day over that Kushner fail.
v , Nov 4 2020 21:00 utc | 215
exiled off mainstree , Nov 4 2020 21:09 utc | 218Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 4 2020 20:36 utc | 206 with the Glenn Greenwald quote
No matter what the final result, there will be substantial doubts about its legitimacy by one side or the other, perhaps both. And no deranged conspiracy thinking is required for that. An electoral system suffused with this much chaos, error, protracted outcomes and seemingly inexplicable reversals will sow doubt and distrust even among the most rational citizens.
The next time Americans hear from their government that they need to impose democracy in other countries -- through wars, invasion, bombing campaigns or other forms of clandestine CIA "interference" -- they should insist that democracy first be imposed in the United States. An already frazzled, intensely polarized and increasingly hostile populace now has to confront yet another election in the richest and most technologically advanced country on earth where the votes cannot even be counted in a way that inspires even minimal degrees of confidence.My analysis of the election itself, and the ongoing, systemic failures of the Democratic Party no matter the outcome, will be posted later today.
The bold text is some odd framing. So according to Greenwald it's ok for the CIA to overthrow other governments as long as democracy is installed within the Empire?!Zanon , Nov 4 2020 21:39 utc | 226It all boils down to Joe Stalin's statement that it is more important who counts the votes than who casts them. The states with all of the doubtful postal votes created by methods such as forging the names of mental incompetents living in rest homes are controlled by democratic political machines.
Two of them, Minnesota and Wisconsin, apparently cast more votes than registered voters.
Even if they allow same day registration, 90% turnout appears fraudulent based on the history and the quality of the candidates running, a mental incompetent with a proven record of corruption covered up by the propaganda media, and a blustery self-promoter who, even if he may have meant well in some of his pronouncements, proved inadequate to liquidate the deep state as promised because he kept appointing denizens of this establishment to key positions. His biggest mistake was his failure to achieve control over the Justice apparatus of the yankee state.
james , Nov 4 2020 21:41 utc | 227More Ballots were found in Pennsylvania and every vote goes to...Biden
Two more batches of Pennsylvania vote were reported:
-23,277 votes in Philadelphia, all for Biden
-about 5,300 votes in Luzerne County, nearly 4,000 of which were for Biden
*With 83% of the expected vote in, Trump's lead in PA is now just below 6 points.
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1324093784452403202
Zanon , Nov 4 2020 22:00 utc | 233craig murrays view American Presidents
cal , Nov 4 2020 22:43 utc | 242Found this on Philadelphia, so fraud itself is not some made up conspiracy claim that never occur, thats for sure.
South Philly judge of elections admits he took bribes to stuff the ballot box for Democratic candidates
https://www.inquirer.com/news/voter-fraud-philadelphia-ward-leader-judge-of-elections-domenick-demuro-guilty-plea-20200521.htmlFormer congressman indicted on voter fraud, bribery charges
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/23/former-congressman-indicted-voter-fraud-bribery-charges-379935
Josh , Nov 4 2020 22:46 utc | 243What we're seeing happening in Michigan and Wisconsin is nothing short of election theft. That is unambiguous to anyone who is paying attention. But they're having trouble revealing it to other Americans because, on cue, it's being censored across the board. The President's Tweets are being hit. Prominent conservatives' Facebook and Twitter posts are being suppressed.
For those who are just coming in on the topic I'm conspicuously dancing around, it appears that the election really is being stolen right before our eyes. Michigan and Wisconsin are seeing voting totals materialize overnight that make it clear the fix is in. And they're not even trying to hide it. In Michigan, an overnight vote update added 138,339 votes to Vice President Joe Biden's totals. That same updated yield wait for it ZERO votes for President Trump.
H.Schmatz , Nov 4 2020 23:31 utc | 255If truth cannot be determined, or proven, in the election process, then the election process is null and void in reality.
Debsaredead , Nov 5 2020 0:36 utc | 266Anyway, the MIC wins...
From an article by Rafael Poch, US´Qing Syndrome , commenting on last book by political scientist Kishore Mahbubani Has China Won?
If the last electoral campaign in the United States has made something clear, it is to confirm that that country does not have a strategy for the new world of the 21st century. The only clear recipe to prevent decline is war, commercial and technological, and the military threat with an increasingly nuclear diplomacy . Trump has divided his country on almost everything except his trade and technology war against China. This belligerence is something that is taken for granted in the presidential candidates who compete with each other to show who pampers the military and the military-industrial complex the most and who is more anti-Chinese, fleeing like the plague from any fickleness of laziness before the adversary. It is not just an ideological "sacred cow" emerging from the inertia of a century of world domination, but a structural defect .Spending on weapons and wars is not something that in the United States is decided within the framework of a rational national strategy that assesses what weapons systems are needed for the current and specific geopolitical situation, says Mahbubani. "Guns are bought as a result of a complex system of lobbying by manufacturers who cleverly located their industries in every congressional constituency in America, thereby allowing politicians who want to keep jobs in their territories (and their own positions in Congress) are the ones who decide what weapons will be produced for the army" .
Advantages of the adversary
There is nothing in China like the military-industrial complex of the United States that structurally fosters militarism and imperialism with its powerful "lobbies" and think tanks. The mandarins of the United States are prisoners of a network that greatly complicates their adaptation to the new world. Its powerful and efficient propaganda apparatus ("information & entertainment") presents the United States' two-headed, single-party political regime based on the money aristocracy as a democracy
arby , Nov 5 2020 0:38 utc | 267Vote fraud happens at state level by state politicians purging voter lists (Ga) sending out incorrect ballots (Ca) or intimidating potential voters by sending out threatening or false information about voting procedures (Wi).
And of course that doesn't include the scam guaranteed by SCOTUS in Florida 2000 where the State secretary of state can just decide to order a halt to counting. Several million votes every prez beauty contest never get counted.
Plus the old trick of only have one election station in areas that contain hundreds of thousands sometimes millions of poor people.
Dems purge black voters too, apparently because they are concerned about the chance of a 'black party' being formed.uncle tungsten , Nov 5 2020 0:42 utc | 268James
That article by Murray was very good but I give an honourable mention to his paragraph on the Jihadis."I pause to note that the terrorist in Vienna had attempted to go as a jihadist to Syria and fight against Assad. If he had not been prevented from doing that, he would have been financed by the Saudis, fed and clothed by the Turks, armed by the CIA, trained by the SAS and given air support by the Israelis. He might even have got to be a TV star posing in a White Helmet, or employment artfully placing chlorine bottles on beds for pictures by Bellingcat. Unfortunately, having been prevented from joining the western sponsored insurgency, he ended up killing Austrians instead of Syrians and now is a "terrorist", whereas jihadist killers of Syrians are "heroes". A strange world. The Manchester Arena bomber was of course physically brought in to the UK by the British military after fighting for "our side" in Libya. You do indeed reap what you sow."
gm , Nov 5 2020 1:10 utc | 273vinnieoh #249
Thank you for your post. I am with you on the diabolical fraud that is the Diebold machines and have been aware of their disgraceful product for many years. There can be no integrity or trust in any process or machine that is audited behind closed doors. It is simply a fraud and the practice is nothing other than a slap in the face to any decent person.
Your experience and expression of despair is why I contend that the USAi is in a pre-revolutionary condition. Greg Palast confirms all that you say and more and thankfully has been doing so for many years.
If the Demonazis do anything about 'reforming' the electoral system that should immediately ring alarms.
Glad to hear you passed through the West Point system with integrity intact. I am sure many did or found their way back to integrity. I never cease to be amazed at the all enveloping embrace of the military in US affairs both political and civil. THAT has to be broken.
Peter AU1 , Nov 5 2020 2:01 utc | 280I guess people are referring to these two graphs. (Disclaimer: I have no idea where these graphs originate from, whether they have been tampered with, whether they show correct information, etc.)"
-Posted by: S | Nov 4 2020 23:17 utc | 251
The sources printed(faintly) on the bottom of that that second (Wisconsin) are "FiveThirtyEight" and "ABC News"
This story shows that same Wisconsin graph with the 4am 100K Biden bump:
The graph was sourced from a twitter post by a Derek Duck:
I mean LOOK at this graph for WisconsinI'll zoom in just so you can see the part where Biden votes came out of NOWHERE pic.twitter.com/MPVxTWxjcZ
-- Derek Duck (@duckdiver19) November 4, 2020
Interestingly Twitter has blocked Derek Duck's twitter post.
Twitter also blocked DC Corruption's post on same subject/same GP article:
DC Corruption
@CorruptionDC
This is literally 5+ standard deviations from the mean. That actually = statistically practically impossible https://twitter.com/nobbins2001/status/1324078983923658752
4:02 PM · Nov 4, 2020
4.5K
2K people are Tweeting about thisIf Twitter is blocking it, tells me it is probably true, and hurts Biden...
Richard Steven Hack , Nov 5 2020 2:07 utc | 281yankistan having a full on color revolution.
"(Reuters) - An Australian bookmaker said on Thursday it has paid out A$23 million ($16.5 million) to people that had bet on Joe Biden becoming the next U.S. president though the official result is still to be determined"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-australia/australian-bookmaker-pays-out-17-million-on-biden-victory-ahead-of-official-result-idUSKBN27L05L?il=0
Why would they be paying out before official results are in? Perception management? 17 million is chicken shit percentage of the billions yanks spend on crowning their new kings.
When Trump calls on the militias will be time for popcorn. Hopefully the yankistan arseholes will end up nuking themselves.Perimetr , Nov 5 2020 2:14 utc | 283Posted by: gm | Nov 5 2020 1:50 utc | 279 a Dem-leaning polling web site run by Nate Silver and owned by ABC (Disney) News?
So what? We're not talking about polls. We're talking about results - on a graph with no provided source data and even much of a legend. I mean, seriously? What exactly is the point that the graph *proves*? All it shows is someone's notion of the results at a given time - with *no* context as to which places have reported, which have not reported, what was the breakdown by county, etc., etc.
It's literally meaningless. Don't bother with the ad hominem, it's irrelevant to the point.
ALL: Just watched the Jimmy Dore interview with Greg Palast. Everyone needs to watch it. Seriously. It will blow your mind. Compared to these stupid graphs, it's like a nuclear bomb compared to a match.
Piero Colombo , Nov 5 2020 2:47 utc | 291I agree with PCR
_K_C_ , Nov 5 2020 3:26 utc | 297Can someone explain why all the excitement? Nothing is happening. Nothing.
Slightly more CIA and war-peddler support for the war party with the gangster boss clinically demented to the point of boasting on TV of successfully blackmailing his own puppet installed by a US-Zionist putsch. Slightly more bloodsucker support for the showman. It's a wash any way you slice it. Why isn't everybody in bed with a good book? I'm not only addressing the likes of Circe and Jimmy: where is the fun in watching this?Posted by: Perimetr | Nov 5 2020 2:14 utc | 283
I generally appreciate and agree with PCR on many issues, but the logic in that piece is pretty gnarly. This is where he lost me:
It really makes no sense for people in Michigan, who have severely suffered from the American Establishment's offshoring of their manufacturing jobs to Asia, thereby destroying the economic wellbeing of people in Michigan, to prefer Biden, the Establishment's candidate over Trump, their champion. I wondered if this was yet another example of dumbshit insouciant Americans being unable to act in their own interest. But I dismissed this thought and looked for other explanations.What I found was astonishing. During the early hours of November 4 in both Wisconsin and Michigan there was a sudden vertical upward adjustment to Democrat votes, and every one of the approximately 150,000 newly found votes was for Biden. This sudden ballot dump accounts for the lost of Trump's lead in Michigan and Wisconsin: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61890
It is possible that shifts of vote counters in the two states finished their shifts and went home, and that when the new shifts arrived they found that Biden had jumped even or ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin. This would be plausible except that all the vertical shift in votes were for Biden. Not a single vote in the suddenly changed situation was for Trump. How likely is this?
So he's basing the entire piece on a typo (and apparently I was not 100% correct and 538 DID generate a graphic that was created using DecisionDeskHQ mistaken numbers). For a discussion of that, see all the back and forth between RSH and gm as well as my posts about it in this thread. An election data aggregator that feeds the AP (and apparently 538 in some fashion) its numbers screwed up and the erroneous graphic was Tweeted out by a Republican in Texas who later deleted the Tweet. Guess 538 picked up the wrong version and created their own graphic.
Mackowiak acknowledged the posts were inaccurate. He has since deleted the tweet, explaining, "I have now learned the MI update referenced was a typo in one county."It was big nothing burger from the very beginning and PCR is starting from a completely incorrect premise. (and now I see that others also used the 538 version). Also, buried in PCR's source link is the exact same deleted Tweet that I've been talking about. Someone named Derek Duck started re-tweeting it (the 538 version) AFTER the first guy deleted his (which I think was based on the AP's version but not sure) and apparently insisted on doing so despite the fact that it had been debunked (his Twitter account is now suspended - big surprise). BUT the link to the article that PCR based his own on is still there, and it has been [UPDATED] to include the quoted text I just pasted. So I wonder why PCR hasn't [UPDATED] his own story yet.....
The other thing about that article is his seeming endorsement of Trump as someone who is actually going to bring manufacturing jobs back. He's no more likely to than Biden is.
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2020 | www.rt.com
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign is using a vast reserve of donations from the usual plutocratic suspects to pry even deep-red states away from an incumbent who's done little to help the working class.
The Biden campaign broke all-time records for TV ad spending over the weekend, leveraging Wall Street donors' unprecedented largesse in its effort to woo ordinary Americans back into the establishment fold.
Given how Trump's record bristles with policies so 'pro-business' they can be seen as anti-working-class, it's a strategy just crazy enough to work. Voters need only be reminded how the incumbent cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations while printing trillions of dollars to be diverted directly into the pockets of big banks and big companies during the pandemic. The media is encouraged to do its part by hyping up Trump's " divisiveness. "
ALSO ON RT.COM Woman says her DYING pro-Trump dad voted for Biden because 'it matters to his girls,' but not everybody feels the inspirationThe same corporate-friendly policies that alienated many in Trump's 2016 base have somehow failed to keep the .01 percent in the Republican camp, and Wall Street has poured $50 million into the Biden campaign, CNBC reported on Monday, holding up former Goldman Sachs president Harvey Schwartz as a typical contributor. Schwartz made his largest-ever political donation earlier this month to the Biden Action Fund, a $100,000 gift that was also one of the biggest donations the Fund received during that period.
And it's not just Wall Street - aside from hardcore Republican Zionists like casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and vulture capitalist Paul Singer, the US oligarchy is firmly and vocally in the Biden camp. Former New York City Republican-turned-Democrat mayor Mike Bloomberg announced a $15 million ad buy in Texas and Ohio on Monday, two states where Trump won by a healthy margin in 2016 but where the failed presidential candidate apparently smells weakness. That hefty sum is in addition to over $100 million Bloomberg spent in the critical swing state of Florida, where he also raised millions of dollars to pay off the court fees of black and Hispanic ex-cons - whose votes the businessman believes will reliably land in the Biden camp, never mind the candidate's history of supporting the kind of laws that probably landed them in prison in the first place.
READ MOREWhat if neither Democrats nor Republicans want to win in 2020? No one wants the task of changing the full diaper of US Empire
Overwhelming support for Biden among the ruling class is also amplified by wealthy celebrities. From Cher's cringe-inducing ditty " Happiness is just a thing called Joe ," recently performed at a Biden benefit concert, to Taylor Swift's insistence that 2020's election is " more important than I could even possibly say ," to questionable statements from one-time anti-establishment stalwarts like Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys, Americans are being cajoled, shamed, and pushed into the voting booth to deliver their support to candidates who have never cared less about average Americans.
Working class people whose lives have been torn asunder by the coronavirus shutdowns Biden has essentially pledged to expand aren't left with many options. While Trump resisted calls to lock down the nation, his self-presentation as an anti-establishment maverick contrasts with four years spent racking up debt and bombing Middle Eastern civilians. Recent polls suggest that even the " poor and uneducated " - groups whose support for Trump has long been the butt of liberal jokes - are defecting.
While a New York Times analysis on Sunday showed Trump continuing to outperform Biden in low-income areas and Biden's support remains concentrated in traditional liberal bastions on the East and West Coasts, it showed middle-class suburban voters bailing out of the " Trump train " in droves. Meanwhile, wealthy and college-educated voters have coalesced around Biden more firmly than in the past, with even big-money establishment Republican types drawn to Biden's promise of a return to the Obama-era status quo.
Where does that leave the poor, or those who lost their middle-class status in the last crash? Trump's detractors have pointed out the irony of the man surrounded by gold presenting himself as the people's champion, and the Biden campaign is spending relentlessly to poach wavering Trump supporters, with ads and opinion pieces featuring self- described " Christian Republicans " embracing the Democrat.
ALSO ON RT.COM Slavoj Zizek: Biden's just Trump with a human face, and the two of them share the same enemyShort of voting for a third party - described by the media establishment as something akin to a war crime, especially for swing state residents - the working class is caught in an unenviable bind. More than a few must be wondering if voting is merely a long con aimed at drafting Americans into participating in their own oppression. Driving through rural western Pennsylvania, a state polls insist Biden has bagged, a bumper crop of Trump signs - more than a few of them handmade - has blossomed, suggesting the small farmers of the Rust Belt really are expending their meager resources to re-elect the man with the gold-plated bathroom . But if this is, indeed, what democracy looks like, it's no wonder the system is losing support among the younger generation.
If you like this story, share it with a friend! Jojo jordan 1 day ago Sorry Helen but you lost me where you claimed Trump didn't help the working class. Also, the Big companies got rich during the pandemic due to Democrat Governors and Mayors shutdowns of small businesses. Biden is THE definition of swamp creature. Trump is for the people. He's a realist. Reply 10 2 Zogg Jojo jordan 1 day ago Nope, Trump heavily damaged the working class when signed the law having the corporate taxes halved and not halving the working class taxes. tracie72 1 day ago "It's one big party, we aren't invited." George Carlin J_P_Franklin 1 day ago "wondering if voting is merely a long con aimed at drafting Americans into participating in their own oppression" Democracy is the problem. "Voting only encourages them." - Gore Vidal Juan_More J_P_Franklin 1 day ago Actually it is the reverse. The more the people vote the more it scares the politicians. It is usually non-aligned voters that make up the vast majority of those who do not vote. That way the parties count on the party faithful to get out and vote. With all those independent voters voting it makes those sure thing seats a lot less sure. Why are you trying to discourage people from voting. From the number of comments like yours I've seen in social media there would appear to be move to suppress people from voting. Lastly everyone should keep in mind, there may not be anything worth voting for but there is always something to vote against.
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2020 | www.unz.com
animalogic , says: October 28, 2020 at 8:23 am GMT
@romanempire ionaires.Dumbo , says: October 28, 2020 at 11:20 am GMT
"How to consume the surplus capital? " I suspect you maybe confusing money/debt with capital ["-The latter [capital] is so cheap these days it costs nothing to a qualified borrower. "] which is the capacity to use labour productively, usually combination with technology.
"surplus" capital then is non/under utilised factories etc & labour.
As to the vast inflation of debt/money .as Dr Hudson says, debts that can't be paid, won't be paid. The easiest way to rid the world of the trillions that elites have, is to liquidate the elites themselves. Either that, or like Samson, pull the whole shithouse down around you .@romanempire e. the economy/dollar will collapse), or they realize that the global democratic neo-liberal order is on its last legs, and can't last, so they are anticipating things.Stick , says: October 28, 2020 at 2:36 pm GMTIt is indeed more likely that an authoritarian regime can last longer than the current one, and they can more easily push the things they want this way. "Democracy" and "free speech" served their purpose for a time, now it's time to try something else.
The final push will be when they make people complete slaves by embedding our bodies with technology (i.e. Musk's project for a microchip in the brain, among other things). The Unabomber wrote about that in his Manifesto.
@animalogicThey, like all aristocrats, want to be Too Big To Fail. This is what drives all the New World Order Wankers.
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
You'd think that voting Republican would be an easy decision if you work on Wall Street, especially given the lower taxes and the removal of burdensome regulations. But Democrats have entangled themselves so deeply in the web of Wall Street, that the industry is now leaning to the left, according to a new report from Reuters .
The Center for Responsive Politics took a look at how the industry, and its employees, break down for the 2020 election cycle.
It has been obvious that Democratic candidate Joe Biden has been outpacing President Trump when it comes to fundraising, and this is also true of "winning cash from the banking industry," Reuters notes.
Biden's campaign has been the beneficiary of $3 million from commercial banks, compared to the $1.4 million Trump has raised. This is a far skew from 2012, where Mitt Romney was able to raise $5.5 million from commercial banks, while Barack Obama only raised $2 million. In 2012, Wall Street banks were among the top five contributors to Romney' campaign.
In 2020, campaign contributions to congressional races from Wall Street banks are about even. Republicans have raised $14 million while Democrats have brought in $13.6 million. About four years ago, Republicans pulled in $18.9 million, which was about twice as much as the Democrats raised. In 2012, Republicans raised about 61% of total bank donations.
Interestingly enough, when Biden and Trump are removed from the equation, the highest recipient from Wall Street is none other than Bernie Sanders, who has raised $831,096. Sanders often tops contributions in many industries due to his grassroots following.
When you remove the employees from the equation and only look at how the bank's political arms donate, the picture turns more Republican-friendly.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOSTHouse of Representatives lawmaker Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, one of the senior Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, which is key for the banking industry, tops the list, hauling in $226,000. Next up is Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the top Republican on that panel, with $185,500 in cash from bank political committees.
The top 20 recipients of bank political funds comprise 14 Republicans and six Democrats. Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, a senior member of the House banking panel, received the most among Democrats, with $140,000.
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the value of Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor progressives.
ay_arrow
tonye , 3 hours ago
Le SoJ16 , 3 hours agoIt's obvious. Wall Street is part of the Deep State...
tonye , 3 hours agoHow can you hate capitalism and work for a Wall Street bank?
Macho Latte , 2 hours agoBecause Wall Street is no longer capitalist.
Main Street is capitalist, they create the GNP.
Wall Street is a casino owned by globalists and bankers. They don't create much anymore.
Lord Raglan , 2 hours agoIt has nothing to do with ideology. The Biden is FOR SALE!
Any questions?
KashNCarry , 2 hours agoIt is because the majority of Wall Street are Jewish and **** overwhelmingly support Democrats.
David Horowitz has said that 80% of the donations to the Democrat Party come from ****.
artvandalai , 3 hours agoWhat a bunch of ****. Wall St. elites are in it up to their necks casting their lot with the globalists who want total control NOW. Trump is the only thing in their way....
FauxReal , 3 hours agoWall street people don't know much about the real economy. They also know little, nor do they care about, the real problems faced by business people who have to work everyday to overcome the policies put in place by liberals.
They do understand finance however. But all that requires is the ability to push paper around all day.
But let them vote for the Libotards and have them watch Elizabeth Warren take charge of the US Senate Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Committee. They'll be jumping out of windows.
sun tzu , 1 hour agoWall Street favors free money?
American2 , 2 hours agoWall Street wants bailouts. 0bozo gave them a yuge bailout
CosmoJoe , 2 hours agoBased on the massively coordinated MSM suppression of the Biden corruption scandal, now I know why these folks back Biden.
bgundr , 2 hours agoDemocrats as the party of the big banks,
Homie , 2 hours agoOf course banksters favor policies that make the average person a slave with less agency
mtl4 , 2 hours agoEspecially if you like the endless bailouts, give-aways, and freedom from those pesky rules limiting the Squid's diet
You'd think that voting Republican would be an easy decision if you work on Wall Street, especially given the lower taxes and the removal of burdensome regulations.
tunetopper , 2 hours agoThe shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the value of Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor progressives.
The banks are big on corruption and that's one poll the Dems are definitely leading by a longshot.......thick as thieves.
radar99 , 36 minutes agoWall St youngsters dont realize their job is to whore themselves out as much as possible to the few remaining classes of folk they dont already have accounts with. The few Millennials and Gen Xers that have enough capital saved up are their target market. Ever since the take-down of Bear Stearns and Lehman, and the exit of many others from their Private Client Groups- the Whorewolves of Wall St are very busy pretending to be Progs and Libs.
And like this post says: " who really cares, they all live in NY, NJ and CT which are guaranteed Dem states anyway"
So in essence- they have nothing to lose while pretending to be a Prog/Lib. in order to ge the clients money.
moneybots , 59 minutes agoI arrived to wall st in 2010. My female boss at a large investment bank hated me from the moment I criticized Obama. I was and still am absolutely amazed you can work on wall st and be a democrat
Flynt2142ahh , 1 hour ago"The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the value of Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor progressives."
So 50 Cent alone went Trump after finding out NYC's top tax rate would be 62% under Biden?
invention13 , 1 hour agoalso known as MBNA Joe Biden friends, you mean the privatize profits but liberalize losses crowd that always looks for gubment money to bail out failures - Shocking !
Loser Face , 1 hour agoWall St. just knows Biden is someone you can do business with.
Obamaroid Ointment , 1 hour agoWall Street leans towards anyone who passes laws that benefit Wall Street.
Sound of the Suburbs , 2 hours agoThe Wally Street crowd has always been a bunch Globalist Mercedes Marxists and Limousine Liberals, this article is ancient history.
Caliphate Connie and the Headbangers , 2 hours agoUS politicians haven't got a clue what's really going on and got duped by the banker's shell game.
When you don't know what real wealth creation is, or how banks work, you fall for the banker's shell game.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy towards a financial crisis.
On a BBC documentary, comparing 1929 to 2008, it said the last time US bankers made as much money as they did before 2008 was in the 1920s.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy into a financial crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAStZJCKmbU&list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZQLxg24CAiFgZYldtoCR-R&index=6
At 18 mins.
The bankers loaded the US economy up with their debt products until they got financial crises in 1929 and 2008.
As you head towards the financial crisis, the economy booms due to the money creation of bank loans.
The financial crisis appears to come out of a clear blue sky when you use an economics that doesn't consider debt, like neoclassical economics.
That's what the banker's shell game does to your economy.
Bankers are playing a shell game, which you can't see if you don't know how banks actually work like today's policymakers.
The real estate shell game.
Watch this video of the S&L crisis to refresh your memory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwFXvc1rJDw
They were just cutting their teeth messing about transferring financial assets around in those days.
It's all pretty straight forward.
Bank loans create money out of nothing.
Money and debt come into existence together and disappear together like matter and anti-matter.
It's a shell game; you have to keep your eye on the money and the debt.
The speculators pocket the money, and the debt builds up in the S&Ls until the ponzi scheme collapses.
US taxpayers then bail out the bust S&Ls.
The shell game only works when no when is looking at the debt building up in the financial system like the UK from 1980 – 2008.
Money and debt come into existence together and disappear together like matter and anti-matter.
The money flows into the economy making it boom.
The debt builds up in the financial system leading to a financial crisis.
Banks – What is the idea?
The idea is that banks lend into business and industry to increase the productive capacity of the economy.
Business and industry don't have to wait until they have the money to expand. They can borrow the money and use it to expand today, and then pay that money back in the future.
The economy can then grow more rapidly than it would without banks.
Debt grows with GDP and there are no problems.
The banks create money and use it to create real wealth.
medium giraffe , 3 hours agohttps://youtu.be/U06jlgpMtQs Democrat President, Republican Senate, Democratic House equals Deflation
Victory_Rossi , 3 hours agoThe banks and corporations of America have been welfare queens since 2008. Regardless of who wins, they will be the beneficiaries of moar US-style corporate welfare socialism.
FreemonSandlewould , 3 hours agoWall Street loves globalism and hates the entire ethos of "America First". They're people with dodgy loyalties and grand self-interests.
What a surprise. The Banking Cartel faction of the Jish Control Grid sent Trotsky and company to Russia to implement the Bolshevik revolution. Should I be surprised they lean left?
Well I guess not. But they are at base amoral - that is to say with out moral philosophy. Their real motto is "Whatever gets the job done".
I know you human fungus in Wall St banks read Zh.
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2020 | www.unz.com
james charles , says: Next New Comment August 23, 2020 at 11:12 am GMT
Hands up those who think the election will only have a 'marginal' effect?
"Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics -- which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism -- offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. "
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2020 | www.theguardian.com
apacheman -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 23:32
Excuse me?Huge numbers of people who disagree with me and don't share my particular beliefs are not sociopaths, nothing would stop them from running or holding office, and I've no problem with that.
Are you arguing that sociopaths have an inalienable right to hold office, even though they will inevitably use that office to aggrandize themselves at the expense of everyone else, and could spark a general war just for their own enjoyment and to gather yet more power to themselves?
THAT I'm not ok with, are you?
DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> apacheman , 7 Jul 2018 21:12
How do people who don't share your beliefs get represented if you rig the system to exclude them? People unlike you are sociopaths? It isn't even tempting. Your cost benefit study benefits you. The world is destabilized if your guys don't get in? No surprise.HauptmannGurski -> Aseoria , 7 Jul 2018 20:26I know, and Bush I was head of the CIA. Strange that one matters and the other does not.Sisyphus2 -> Byron Delaney , 7 Jul 2018 20:05Love this line: "the gig economy combined with record debt and astronomically high rent prices cancel out any potential economic stability for millions of people."Aseoria -> ildfluer , 7 Jul 2018 19:52The under-employment rate is also very informative. People working less hours or in lower positions than their investment in education should have returned to them. They are working, but not enough to be able to independently sustain themselves, which makes them insecure in variety of ways.
Do you think the interpreters might turn out to be agents, or perhaps even assassins, from other governments? Or maybe everybody will be knocked out with fentanyl gas at dinner. In the dining room.Aseoria -> consumerx , 7 Jul 2018 19:47Typical Good-Cop Bad-Cop from here in the vaunted "Two-Party" system of the USA govJanaka77 -> petersview , 7 Jul 2018 19:05I like the way the Republic of Ireland puts strict restrictions on political spending for their elections - including their presidential elections.apacheman -> memo10 , 7 Jul 2018 19:021. It all depends on what the penalties are. Confiscation of hidden assets would chill that behavior, strike one. Loss of the privilege to conduct business with federal and state entities would also chill such behavior, strike two. Finally, for persistent violations of the cap, loss of citizenship and expulsion form the country, three strikes and you are literally out, would be the ultimate penalty.Janaka77 -> scotti dodson , 7 Jul 2018 18:55The alternative, continuing to allow unlimited wealth accumulation will ultimately destroy democracy and end in a dictatorship nearly impossible to remove without massive casualties. Is that preferable to trying to control the behavior of wealth addicts? Make no mistake: billionaires are addicts, their uncontrollable addiction to more is an extreme form of hoarding dysfunction, one that, like all uncontrolled addictions, has had disastrous consequences for everyone but them.
3. Fewer Representatives means you are concentrating power rather than dispersing it. More means smaller districts, which in turn means more accountability, not less. As it stands now, Congresscritters can safely ignore the wishes of the public, because when someone "represents" nearly a million citizens, it means they actually represent only themselves. If taken in conjunction with item #2, more citizens would be invested in the political process and far more likely to pay attention.
4. The Hare test is a standard written exam that is difficult to cheat. Getting caught at cheating or attempting to cheat would mark one automatically as a sociopath. The latest studies of brain structures show that sociopaths have physically different brains, and those physical differences are detectable. Brain activity as shown by fMRI also clearly marks a sociopath from a normal, since while they can fake emotional responses very well, their brain activity shows their true lack of response to emotionally charged images, words, etc. Using a three-layer test, written>fMRI>genetic should be robust enough to correctly identify most. The stakes are too huge to risk a set of sociopaths and their lackeys control of the machinery of government. The genetic test is the most likely to give problematic results, but if the written is failed, the fMRI would then be done to confirm or reject the written results, while the genetics would be a supplementary confirmation. Widespread genetic testing of politicians and would-bes would undoubtedly advance research and understanding dramatically.
When you do even a casual cost-benefit study, the answer is clear: test them. Ask yourself: is the thwarting of an individual's potential career in politics really that great a cost compared to preventing unknowingly electing a sociopath who could destabilize the entire world?
Janaka77 -> Ben Groetsch , 7 Jul 2018 18:15Another big difference of course is a little thing called the law.
Are you under the impression the British don't have rule of law? Their elected representatives make their laws, not their ceremonial royal family. Their royal family's job is to abide by the same laws as every other UK citizen, stay out of politics and promote British tourism and gossip magazines.
WillisFitnurbut -> Byron Delaney , 7 Jul 2018 17:57The United States is actually a federal republic, not a democracy.
The United States is actually both a federation (hardly unique by the way) and a representative democracy. Whether you call them members of Parliament or members of Congress, their representatives are elected by the people.
memo10 -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 17:48If we move the cheap manufacturing to the US, and wages are lower due to a depression, people will take the jobs, and the job numbers will improve. And China will be toast.
We will never beat China at manufacturing cheap and efficient products using human labor. Robotic labor maybe, but that might not happen for a decade or more at least--if they or another country doesn't beat us to retooling our factories.
Labor and manufacturing will never return in the US--unless we have another world war we win, in which all global production is again concentrated in the US because the rest of the worlds factories are bombed to rubble. Besides, they have the most central location for manufacturing in the world and a cheap source of endless labor.What they don't have is innovation, tech and freedom to try products out on a free market. We are squandering those advantages in the US when we cut education and limit college education to the masses.
WillisFitnurbut -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 17:42The system is not crooked,
Are Americans the most immoral people on earth? I don't think so. Do we have the strictest code of laws on earth? I don't think so either. Yet we have the highest incarceration rate on earth. Higher than authoritarian countries like China & Russia.
This alone should tell you something is wrong with our system. Never mind the stats about differing average sentences depending on race & wealth.
Doubt implies a reason behind the wrong, where uncertainty implies an unknowing trait--a mystery behind the wrong.Byron Delaney -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 17:00The right, what with all its fake news scams, deep state BS and witch hunt propaganda, is uncertainty at best, a mystery of sorts--it provides us with a conspiracy that can neither be proved or unproven--an enigma.
Doubt, about if Russia meddled in the US election in collusion with the president or at the least his advisors, surely implies something is wrong, especially in the face of criminal charges, doubt is inherent and well intentioned, but not always true and can be proven false in the face of doubt.
At one time the US was agrarian and one could subsist via bartering. Consider reliance on for-profit healthcare, transportation systems, debt, credit cards, landlords, grocery stores, and the lack of any ability to subsist without statewide and nationwide infrastructure. Right now, people in the US already die prematurely if they can't afford healthcare. Many are homeless. And this is when things are better than ever? What will happen here is what happened in Europe during WWII. People will suffer, and they will be forced to adopt socialist practices (like the EU does today). People in Europe really did starve to death, and people in India, Africa, and other countries are starving and dying today. China doles out food rations because they practice communism. That's why they have cheap, efficient labor that serves to manufacture products for US consumers. Communism and socialism help American corporations big time.DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> kmacafee , 7 Jul 2018 16:51Citizens United is a First Amendment decision. Which part of the First Amendment do you want moot? What gives any government the right to decide which assemblies of citizens have no free speech rights?DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> WillisFitnurbut , 7 Jul 2018 16:47Doubt is everybody's political currency.DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> Byron Delaney , 7 Jul 2018 16:46You are aware, I imagine, that the US can adjust its money supply to adapt to circumstances? We can feed ourselves. We have our own power sources. We can improvise, adapt, and overcome. Prices go up and down. No big deal. Scaring people for political gain doesn't have the clout it onvce did.DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> tjt77 , 7 Jul 2018 16:40Are you opposed to people deciding who moves across their nation's borders?DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> Elephantmoth , 7 Jul 2018 16:38Open Secrets Top Donors, Organizations.DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> memo10 , 7 Jul 2018 16:35Too many virtue signalers seem to think that only the innocent are ever convicted.DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> WillisFitnurbut , 7 Jul 2018 16:29
The system is not crooked, but if you can set up a better one that doesn't bankrupt every community, have at it.You really, really, really like screaming racist, don't you? And slide in a Godwin. Wow. The concept that black pastors would be negatively impacted by financial attacks on their churches never ever occurred to you, did it? You get off on pretending to care about people that you have no direct, routine connection to. How virtuous of you. Wouldn't deliberately harming black churches make you the racist storm trooper?Byron Delaney -> WillisFitnurbut , 7 Jul 2018 16:08Violence will break out when credit cards stop working. Can't even imagine what will happen if people are starving. No problem in a socialistic country like Finland, but a big problem here. My guess is that Trump knows the economy is hanging by a thread, so needs to create an alternate reason (trade wars). Or he figures he might as well have a trade war if it's all going to pieces anyway. Of course China manufactures just about everything for the US. If we move the cheap manufacturing to the US, and wages are lower due to a depression, people will take the jobs, and the job numbers will improve. And China will be toast.WillisFitnurbut -> Byron Delaney , 7 Jul 2018 15:49Don't forget as the Trump trade war heats up and China decides to sell off US bonds en-masse (they own 1.17 trillion in US debt). That's gonna put a hurt on the already low US dollar and could send inflation soaring. China could also devalue its currency and increase the trade deficit. Combine those with all the things you've pointed out and you've got financial troubles the likes of which no large government has ever dealt with in human history.Melty Clock -> happylittledebunkera , 7 Jul 2018 15:43
Starving people--China can handle in droves; not so much the US. We're talking nasty violence if that kinda stuff happens here.True, but the POTUS is a head of state and the PM is not, so there's a limit to how far we should take comparisons.WillisFitnurbut , 7 Jul 2018 15:05Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.Byron Delaney , 7 Jul 2018 15:02Occupy Wall Street began due to income inequality when the worst effects of the Great Recession were being felt by the population. Wealth inequality has only increased since then.kmacafee , 7 Jul 2018 14:11
Right now, the population is held at bay because the media and politicians claim that the economy is so incredibly hot it's overheating. But we know that's a lie. For one, the gig economy combined with record debt and astronomically high rent prices cancel out any potential economic stability for millions of people. This year, 401(k) plans have returned almost nothing (or are going negative). This was also the case in 2016. Savings accounts have returned almost nothing for the last decade (they should be providing approximately 5% interest).The worker participation rate today is 3.2% below what it was in 2008 (during the Great Recession). The US population, meanwhile, has increased by approximately 24,321,000. That's a 7.68% increase. The labor force has increased by 5% during this time (unemployment rate was relatively similar, 5.6% vs 4%). From June 2008 to June 2018, the labor force increased by approximately 8 million. However, if the worker participation rate was the same now as it was then, there would be approximately 8 million more people in the labor force. If you add 8 million people to the current number of people who are counted as unemployed by the BLS, the unemployment rate is approximately 9%. This is about as high as the unemployment rate got during the depths of the Great Recession, right when Occupy Wall Street was born.
Now, OK, sure, the economy has REPLACED lost jobs, but it has not ADDED jobs for the last decade. The unemployment rate is false. It should be at least 8%. There's many millions of Americans who do not have steady, gainful employment - or any employment - and they are not counted.
The billionaires and their bought politicians are responsible for fixing this. They can fix it and should fix it. Otherwise, the economy and their profits are going to fall off a giant cliff any day now. The next recession has basically already begun, but it can still be alleviated. If things continue as they are, unemployment could be 16% by 2020, with the U6 measure approaching or exceeding 25%. If stocks drop enough, people may starve to death.Who supported Citizen's United? All cons and republicansmemo10 -> apacheman , 7 Jul 2018 14:10Who supports campaign finance reform and legislation that would make Cititzen's United moot? Democrats and progressives
Really tired of the false equivalencies. Republicans are now the polar opposite of Democrats in policy and principles. Vote Blue this November and get rid of the republicans; every single one of them. It can be done if people get out and vote.
1. Anything is possible but I don't think this is practical. The rich can just cheat on the definition of ownership, pass it around between family members, offshore it, sink it into their businesses in token ways, etc. When you try to take wealth (power) away from the most powerful people in the country they will start devoting SERIOUS resources to getting around it.apacheman -> memo10 , 7 Jul 2018 13:343. I'm not saying we need fewer people doing congress's job in total. But we should be electing fewer of them, and letting those fewer people do more hiring/delegating. The way things are now, most of the public only knows much about the president. Everyone else is mostly just a vote for a party. But if the country only voted for 50 Congressmen in total - or even fewer - then we would all have a more careful eye on them. We would know them better and see them more individually. They would have less pressure to toe the party line all the time.
4. As long as there's a written test then it will get cheated. Right now the testing is rarely given and the specific consequences don't determine powerful people's careers. Make it a widespread & important thing and people will learn to cheat it.
The genetic + fMRI research is interesting but the whole thing opens up serious cans of worms. We're talking about DQ'ing somebody from an important career based partially on the results of a genetic screening for a character trait. That's a dangerous business for our whole society to get into. Although I do realize the payoff for this specific instance would be very big.1. Why do you think that? Using teams of forensic accountants and outlawing secret accounts would go a long way towards increasing enforceability. But you are viewing it as a legal problem rather than a cultural problem. If an effective propaganda campaign aimed on one level at the public and another level at the billionaires, it could work. Many billionaires are already committed to returning their fortunes to the economy (mostly after they are dead, true). Convince a few and the rest will follow. Give them the lure of claiming the title of the richest who ever were and some would be eager for that place in history.WillisFitnurbut -> ConBrio , 7 Jul 2018 13:25Anything can be done if the will is there.
2. Income taxes are just a portion of the federal revenues, ~47%. Corporate taxes, parkland fees, excise taxes, ~18% taken together and Social Security make up the rest. Revenues would increase as taxpayers topped off step amounts to keep control. The beauty of it is that Congress would see very clearly where the nation's priorities were. Any politician trying to raise fines so that they had more money under their control would soon find themselves out of office. Unpopular programs would have to be financed out of the 18%, and that would likely make them increase corporate taxes. But most importantly, it would cut the power of politicians and decrease the effectiveness of lobbyists.
3. Actually, we have too few, not too many. The work of governance suffers because there is too much to be done and too few to do it. Spreading the workload and assigning responsibility areas would increase efficiency. Most importantly though, it would break up the oligarchic duopoly that keeps a stranglehold on the nation's politics, and bring more third party candidates into office giving Congress a more diverse culture by adding viewpoints based on other things than business interests.
4. Actually, advances in fMRI equipment and procedures, along with genetics and written testing can prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not someone is a sociopath, do some research and you'l see it is true. False positives in any testing regime are always an issue, but tens of millions of workers submit to drug tests to qualify for their jobs, and their jobs don't usually run the risk of plunging the world into war, economic or environmental disasters. False positives are common in the workplace and cost many thousands their jobs.
And there's an easy way to prove you aren't really a sociopath: be honest, don't lie, and genuinely care about people...things sociopaths cannot do over time.
Seriously, it is a societal safety issue that demands to be done, protecting the few against false positives means opening the floodgates for the many sociopaths who seek power over others.
Not just eliminate--alter and add to it, but since it takes 2/3 majority of the house and senate to amend the constitution--it's not an easy feat--that's why there has only been 17 amendments altogether and two of them are there to cancel each other out!tjt77 -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 12:51
You see, the beauty behind the National Popular Vote Bill is that it's done on a state by state basis and will only work when the required 270 electoral votes are gained with the bill--this means all voters would have their votes tallied in a presidential election and it eliminates swing states with a winner takes all approach. The electoral college and state control of elections are preserved and every one is happy.
I feel like you've not read up on any of this even though I provide a link. 12 of these bills have been enacted into state law already, comprising of 172 electoral votes and 3,112 legislative sponsors. That's more than halfway there.
To continue to say that changing the way we vote by altering the EC is a fantasy is in itself a fantasy because obviously it is gaining traction across the country.Which 'side' do you imagine I'm on Mike ? FYI.. Im not a member of any tribe especially regarding the republican or democrat parties... you may have noticed that as part of the progress towards a globalized economy, 'Money' now has open borders...but the restrictions of movement for people are growing as nationalism rises and wealth and the power it yields, becomes ever more concentrated in fewer hands...this is a dangerous precedent and history repeats if lessons of the past are not learned.Gary Daily , 7 Jul 2018 12:20
I can well recall when humanity and the ability of the individual to attain freedom and liberty based upon the merit of the individual was once celebrated.
What really irks me and causes me to voice my opinion on this forum, ( thank you Guardian for your continued efforts at informing us all and especially for promoting participation) is how easily people are duped .. when 'others' can easily see that they are being lied to. My parents fought for freedom and liberty against vicious tyranny in Europe and paid a HUGE price..by the time the scales had tipped the balance towards fascism, it was far too late for anything other than all out war... the fact that they survived the required sacrifice to pitch in to protect democracy, and the freedom and liberty which comes with it, still seems miraculous..Billionaires on the left should put some of that money into paying for and distributing subscriptions to newspapers and magazines which live up to the standards of professional journalism. These papers should be made available, free, at high schools, colleges, libraries, and commercial centers of loitering and "neighborly" discussions. May I suggest the NYT, WP, The Guardian, and The Economist.ConBrio -> WillisFitnurbut , 7 Jul 2018 12:16The "fact" that there have been 700 attempts to eliminate it should tell you that in all likelihood the The Electoral College will continue.aquacalc -> ghstwrtrx7 , 7 Jul 2018 12:01Whether or not a group of states can effectively circumvent the Constitution is an open question.
"What the country sorely needs is a new constitution."memo10 -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 11:48No thanks! The Founders were quite a bit more intelligent than the current national 'brain trust' -- on the both sides of the Aisle -- that would be charged with writing a new Constitution.
Dorthy Boatman -> scotti dodson , 7 Jul 2018 11:36A defense attorney once told me that his job was one of the toughest out there because an astonishing percentage of defendants are guilty as charged.
That's true. But it doesn't excuse the crooked system whatsoever. It doesn't make the innocent poor people any less innocent.
Since when have politicians and rich people ever followed the law? And what recourse would that be exactly?WillisFitnurbut -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 11:17I like how you immediately expose your racism, right out of the gate. Haven't you got a storm trooper meeting to head out to soon?Elephantmoth -> DeltaFoxWhiskyMike , 7 Jul 2018 11:14Sorry I forgot the link: http://www.http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-bigSisyphus2 -> NYbill13 , 7 Jul 2018 10:41Back to the days of Dickens, workhouses, indentured slaves, etc.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
G. Poulin , says: December 11, 2019 at 9:37 pm GMT
So if propaganda is so easy and effective, remind me again why democracy is such a great idea?El Dato , says: December 12, 2019 at 6:00 am GMT@G. Poulin You have two choices:Johan , says: December 12, 2019 at 11:49 pm GMT1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily stays that way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)
2) Being "managed" on behalf of various power centers. This can be liveable or can turn into strip mining of your "resources".Sadly, there is no algorithm that allows you to detect whether your are engaged or are being engaged on behalf of others. That would be easy. But one should start with a minimal state, hard money and the sons of the upper crust on the front lines and forbidden from taking office in government.
That being said, this article is a bit meandering. Came for Bellingcat but was confused.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel journalist Chris Hedges.
Maximum Clown World.
@El Dato "1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily stays that way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)"There are no revolutions by means of pitchforks in a democracy, everything is weakened by compromise, false promises, infiltration, manipulation, etc. You cannot stay angry all the time too, it is very bad for your health, it needs to be short and intense to be effective, which is exactly what democracy prevents.
Democracy turns you into a petted animal.
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
From J.D. Vance's appearance last night on Tucker Carlson Tonight Vance has just said that the donor elites of the GOP are out of touch with the party's base. More:
CARLSON: But more broadly, what you are saying, I think is, that the Democratic Party understands what it is and who it represents and affirmatively represents them. They do things for their voters, but the Republican Party doesn't actually represent its own voters very well.
VANCE: Yes, that's exactly right. I mean, look at who the Democratic Party is and look, I don't like the Democratic Party's policies.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Most of the times, I disagree with them. But I at least admire that they recognize who their voters are and they actually just as raw cynical politics do a lot of things to serve those voters.
Now, look at who Republican voters increasingly are. They are people who disproportionately serve in the military, but Republican foreign policy has been a disaster for a lot of veterans. They are disproportionately folks who want to have more children. They are people who want to have more single earner families. They are people who don't necessarily want to go to college but they want to work in an economy where if you play by the rules, you can you actually support a family on one income.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: Have Republicans done anything for those people really in the last 15 or 20 years? I think can you point to some policies of the Trump administration. Certainly, instinctively, I think the President gets who his voters are and what he has to do to service those folks. But at the end of the day, the broad elite of the party, the folks who really call the shots, the think tank intellectuals, the people who write the policy, I just don't think they realize who their own voters are.
Now, the slightly more worrying implication is that maybe some of them do realize who their voters are, they just don't actually like those voters much.
CARLSON: Well, that's it. So I watch the Democratic Party and I notice that if there is a substantial block within it, it's this unstable coalition, all of these groups have nothing in common, but the one thing they have in common is the Democratic Party will protect them.
VANCE: Yes.
CARLSON: You criticize a block of Democratic Voters and they are on you like a wounded wombat. They will bite you. The Republicans, watch their voters come under attack and sort of nod in agreement, "Yes, these people should be attacked."
VANCE: Yes, that's absolutely right. I mean, if you talk to people who spent their lives in D.C. I know you live in D.C.
CARLSON: Yes.
VANCE: I've spent a lot of my life here. The people who spend their time in D.C. who work on Republican campaigns, who work at conservative think tanks, now this isn't true of everybody, but a lot of them actually don't like the people who are voting for Republican candidates these days.
|
|
|
May 19, 2019 | russia-insider.com
A close-knit oligarchy controls all major corporations. Monopolization of ownership in US economy fast approaching Soviet levels
Starting with Ronald Reagan's presidency, the US government willingly decided to ignore the anti-trust laws so that corporations would have free rein to set up monopolies. With each successive president the monopolistic concentration of business and shareholding in America has grown precipitously eventually to reach the monstrous levels of the present day.
Today's level of monopolistic concentration is of such unprecedented levels that we may without hesitation designate the US economy as a giant oligopoly. From economic power follows political power, therefore the economic oligopoly translates into a political oligarchy. (It seems, though, that the transformation has rather gone the other way around, a ferocious set of oligarchs have consolidated their economic and political power beginning from the turn of the twentieth century). The conclusion that the US is an oligarchy finds support in a 2014 by a Princeton University study.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has not seen these levels of concentration of ownership. The Soviet Union did not die because of apparent ideological reasons but due to economic bankruptcy caused by its uncompetitive monopolistic economy. Our verdict is that the US is heading in the same direction.
In a later report, we will demonstrate how all sectors of the US economy have fallen prey to monopolization and how the corporate oligopoly has been set up across the country. This post essentially serves as an appendix to that future report by providing the shocking details of the concentration of corporate ownership.
Apart from illustrating the monopolization at the level of shareholding of the major investors and corporations, we will in a follow-up post take a somewhat closer look at one particularly fatal aspect of this phenomenon, namely the consolidation of media (posted simultaneously with the present one) in the hands of absurdly few oligarch corporations. In there, we will discuss the monopolies of the tech giants and their ownership concentration together with the traditional media because they rightfully belong to the same category directly restricting speech and the distribution of opinions in society.
In a future instalment of this report, we will show that the oligarchization of America – the placing it under the rule of the One Percent (or perhaps more accurately the 0.1%, if not 0.01%) - has been a deliberate ideologically driven long-term project to establish absolute economic power over the US and its political system and further extend that to involve an absolute global hegemony (the latter project thankfully thwarted by China and Russia). To achieve these goals, it has been crucial for the oligarchs to control and direct the narrative on economy and war, on all public discourse on social affairs. By seizing the media, the oligarchs have created a monstrous propaganda machine, which controls the opinions of the majority of the US population.
We use the words 'monopoly,' 'monopolies,' and 'monopolization' in a broad sense and subsume under these concepts all kinds of market dominance be it by one company or two or a small number of companies, that is, oligopolies. At the end of the analysis, it is not of great importance how many corporations share in the market dominance, rather what counts is the death of competition and the position enabling market abuse, either through absolute dominance, collusion, or by a de facto extinction of normal market competition. Therefore we use the term 'monopolization' to describe the process of reaching a critical level of non-competition on a market. Correspondingly, we may denote 'monopoly companies' two corporations of a duopoly or several of an oligopoly.
Horizontal shareholding – the cementation of the oligarchyOne especially perfidious aspect of this concentration of ownership is that the same few institutional investors have acquired undisputable control of the leading corporations in practically all the most important sectors of industry. The situation when one or several investors own controlling or significant shares of the top corporations in a given industry (business sector) is referred to as horizontal shareholding . (*1). In present-day United States a few major investors – equity funds or private capital - are as a rule cross-owned by each other, forming investor oligopolies, which in turn own the business oligopolies.
A study has shown that among a sample of the 1,500 largest US firms (S&P 1500), the probability of one major shareholder holding significant shares in two competing firms had jumped to 90% in 2014, while having been just 16% in 1999. (*2).
Institutional investors like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and JP Morgan, now own 80% of all stock in S&P 500 listed companies. The Big Three investors - BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – alone constitute the largest shareholder in 88% of S&P 500 firms, which roughly correspond to America's 500 largest corporations. (*3). Both BlackRock and Vanguard are among the top five shareholders of almost 70% of America's largest 2,000 publicly traded corporations. (*4).
Blackrock had as of 2016 $6.2 trillion worth of assets under management, Vanguard $5.1 trillion, whereas State Street has dropped to a distant third with only $1 trillion in assets. This compares with a total market capitalization of US stocks according to Russell 3000 of $30 trillion at end of 2017 (From 2016 to 2017, the Big Three has of course also put on assets).Blackrock and Vanguard would then alone own more than one-third of all US publicly listed shares.
From an expanded sample that includes the 3,000 largest publicly listed corporations (Russell 3000 index), institutions owned (2016) about 78% of the equity .
The speed of concentration the US economy in the hands of institutions has been incredible. Still back in 1950s, their share of the equity was 10%, by 1980 it was 30% after which the concentration has rapidly grown to the present day approximately 80%. (*5). Another study puts the present (2016) stock market capitalization held by institutional investors at 70%. (*6). (The slight difference can possibly be explained by variations in the samples of companies included).
As a result of taking into account the common ownership at investor level, it emerges that the US economy is yet much more monopolized than it was previously thought when the focus had been on the operational business corporation alone detached from their owners. (*7).
The Oligarch owners assert their controlApologists for monopolies have argued that the institutional investors who manage passive capital are passive in their own conduct as shareholders as well. (*8). Even if that would be true it would come with vastly detrimental consequences for the economy as that would mean that in effect there would be no shareholder control at all and the corporate executives would manage the companies exclusively with their own short-term benefits in mind, inevitably leading to corruption and the loss of the common benefits businesses on a normally functioning competitive market would bring.
In fact, there seems to have been a period in the US economy – before the rapid monopolization of the last decade -when such passive investors had relinquished control to the executives. (*9). But with the emergence of the Big Three investors and the astonishing concentration of ownership that does not seem to hold water any longer. (*10). In fact, there need not be any speculation about the matter as the monopolist owners are quite candid about their ways. For example, BlackRock's CEO Larry Fink sends out an annual guiding letter to his subject, practically to all the largest firms of the US and increasingly also Europe and the rest of the West. In his pastoral, the CEO shares his view of the global conditions affecting business prospects and calls for companies to adjust their strategies accordingly.
The investor will eventually review the management's strategic plans for compliance with the guidelines. Effectively, the BlackRock CEO has in this way assumed the role of a giant central planner, rather like the Gosplan, the central planning agency of the Soviet command economy.
The 2019 letter (referenced above) contains this striking passage, which should quell all doubts about the extent to which BlackRock exercises its powers:
"As we seek to build long-term value for our clients through engagement, our aim is not to micromanage a company's operations. Instead, our primary focus is to ensure board accountability for creating long-term value. However, a long-term approach should not be confused with an infinitely patient one. When BlackRock does not see progress despite ongoing engagement, or companies are insufficiently responsive to our efforts to protect our clients' long-term economic interests, we do not hesitate to exercise our right to vote against incumbent directors or misaligned executive compensation."
Considering the striking facts rendered above, we should bear in mind that the establishment of this virtually absolute oligarch ownership over all the largest corporations of the United States is a relatively new phenomenon. We should therefore expect that the centralized control and centralized planning will rapidly grow in extent as the power is asserted and methods are refined.
Most of the capital of those institutional investors consists of so-called passive capital, that is, such cases of investments where the investor has no intention of trying to achieve any kind of control of the companies it invests in, the only motivation being to achieve as high as possible a yield. In the overwhelming majority of the cases the funds flow into the major institutional investors, which invest the money at their will in any corporations. The original investors do not retain any control of the institutional investors, and do not expect it either. Technically the institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard act as fiduciary asset managers. But here's the rub, while the people who commit their assets to the funds may be considered as passive investors, the institutional investors who employ those funds are most certainly not.
Cross-ownership of oligarch corporationsTo make matters yet worse, it must be kept in mind that the oligopolistic investors in turn are frequently cross-owned by each other. (*11). In fact, there is no transparent way of discovering who in fact controls the major institutional investors.
One of the major institutional investors, Vanguard is ghost owned insofar as it does not have any owners at all in the traditional sense of the concept. The company claims that it is owned by the multiple funds that it has itself set up and which it manages. This is how the company puts it on their home page : "At Vanguard, there are no outside owners, and therefore, no conflicting loyalties. The company is owned by its funds, which in turn are owned by their shareholders -- including you, if you're a Vanguard fund investor." At the end of the analysis, it would then seem that Vanguard is owned by Vanguard itself, certainly nobody should swallow the charade that those funds stuffed with passive investor money would exercise any ownership control over the superstructure Vanguard. We therefore assume that there is some group of people (other than the company directors) that have retained the actual control of Vanguard behind the scenes (perhaps through one or a few of the funds). In fact, we believe that all three (BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard) are tightly controlled by a group of US oligarchs (or more widely transatlantic oligarchs), who prefer not to brandish their power. It is beyond the scope of this study and our means to investigate this hypothesis, but whatever, it is bad enough that as a proven fact these three investor corporations wield this control over most of the American economy. We also know that the three act in concert wherever they hold shares. (*12).
Now, let's see who are the formal owners of these institutional investorsIn considering these ownership charts, please, bear in mind that we have not consistently examined to what degree the real control of one or another company has been arranged through a scheme of issuing different classes of shares, where a special class of shares give vastly more voting rights than the ordinary shares. One source asserts that 355 of the companies in the Russell index consisting of the 3000 largest corporations employ such a dual voting-class structure, or 11.8% of all major corporations.
We have mostly relied on www.stockzoa.com for the shareholder data. However, this and other sources tend to list only the so-called institutional investors while omitting corporate insiders and other individuals. (We have no idea why such strange practice is employed
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Non-profit activity lets super-elites broker political power tax-free, reshaping the world according to their designs.
America's super-wealthy have too much power. A republican regime based on the consent of the governed cannot survive when a few hands control too large a sum of money and too much human capital. A dominion of monopolists spells ruin for the common man.
The Federal Reserve calculates that, at present, America's total household wealth equals $104 trillion . Of that, $3.4 trillion belongs to America's 600 billionaires alone. Put another way, 3% of the nation's wealth belongs to 0.0002% of the population. Those 600 names control twice as much wealth as the least wealthy 170 million Americans combined . This is a problem. Economic power means political power. In an era of mass media, it has never been easier to manufacture public opinion and to manipulate the citizenry.
Look no further than the consensus view of Fortune 500 companies as to the virtues of Black Lives Matter. That movement's incredible cultural reach is, in large part, a function of its cachet among American elites. In 2016, the Ford Foundation began a Black-Led Movement Fund to funnel $100 million into racial and social justice causes. George Soros' Open Society Foundation immediately poured in $33 million in grants.
Soros and company received a massive return on investment. The shift leftward on issues of racial and social justice in the last four years has been nothing short of remarkable. Net public support for BLM , at minus 5 percent in 2018, has surged to plus 28 percent in 2020. The New York Times estimates that some 15 to 26 million Americans participated in recent protests over George Floyd's death.
And the money keeps flowing. In the last three months, hundreds of millions of dollars have poured into social and racial justice causes. Sony Music Group , the NFL , Warner Music Group , and Comcast all have promised gifts in excess of $100 million. MacKenzie Bezos has promised more than a billion dollars to Historically Black Colleges and Universities as well as other racial and social justice organizations. Yet, as scholars like Heather MacDonald have pointed out -- America's justice system is not racist. Disquieting anecdotes and wrenching videos blasted across cyberspace are not the whole of, or even representative of, our reality. But well-heeled media and activism campaigns can change the perception. That's what matters.
The American tax code makes all of this possible. It greases the skids for the wealthy to use their fortunes to augment their political power. The 501(c)(3) designation makes all donations, of whatever size, to charitable nonprofits immune from taxation.
A man can only eat so much filet mignon in one lifetime. He can only drive so many Lamborghinis and vacation in so many French chalets. At a certain point, the longing for material pleasures gives way to a longing for honor and power. What a super-elite really wants is to be remembered for "changing the world." The tax code makes the purchasing of such honors even easier than buying fast cars and luxury homes.
For the super-wealthy, political power comes tax-free.
No one ever elected Bill Gates to anything. His wealth, and not the democratic process, is the only reason he has an outsized voice in shaping coronavirus policy. The man who couldn't keep viruses out of Windows now wants to vaccinate the planet. That isn't an unreasonable goal for a man of his wealth, either. Gates's foundation is the second largest donor to the World Health Organization, providing some 10 percent of its funds . That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense -- and it yields results. In April , Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn't quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an all-time high .
No one ever voted on those lockdowns, either. Like the mask-wearing mandates, they were instituted by executive fiat. The experts , many of them funded through donations given by tech billionaires like Gates , campaigned for policies that radically altered the basic structure of society. Here lies the danger of billionaire power. Without adequate checks and balances, the super-wealthy can skirt the normal political process, working behind the scenes to make policies that the people never even have a chance to debate or vote on.
A republic cannot be governed this way. America needs to bring its current crop of oligarchs to heel. That starts with constraining their ability to commandeer their massive personal fortunes to shape policy. Technically, the 501(c)(3) designation prevents political activities by tax-exempt charities. Those rules apply only to political campaigning and lobbying, however. They say nothing about funding legal battles or shaping specific policies indirectly through research and grants. America's universities, think tanks, and advocacy organizations are nearly universally considered tax-exempt nonprofits. Only a fool would believe they are not political.
One solution to the nonprofit problem to simply get rid of the charitable exemption all together. If there is no loophole, it can't be exploited by the mega-wealthy. Most Americans' charitable giving wouldn't be affected. The average American gives between $2,000 and $3,000 per year . That is well under the $24,800 standard tax deduction for married couples. Ninety percent of taxpayers have no reason to use a line-item deduction. Such a change likely wouldn't affect wealthy givers either. In 2014 , the average high-income American (defined as making more than $200,000 per year or having a million dollars in assets) gave an average of $68,000 to charity, and in 2018 93 percent said their giving had nothing to do with tax breaks.
Eliminating the tax exemption for charitable giving would make it simple to heavily tax the capital gains that drive the wealth of America's richest one thousand people. One could also leave the exemption in place for most Americans (those with a net worth under $100 million), while making larger gifts, especially those over a billion dollars, taxable at extremely high rates close to 100%. Bill Gates wants to give a billion dollars to his foundation? Great. But he should pay a steep fee to the American people to purchase that kind of power.
There is nothing socialist in these or similar tax proposals. We are not making an abstract commentary on whether having a billion dollars is "moral." These are simply prudential measures to put the people back in charge of their own country. Reining in billionaires and monopolists is a conservative free market strategy.
Incentives to make more money are generally good. The libertarians are mostly right -- people are usually better judges of how to spend and use their resources than the government.
But not always. The libertarian account does not adequately recognize man's political nature. We need law and order. We need a regime where elections matter and the opinions of the people actually shape policy. Contract law, borders, and taxes are all necessary to human flourishing, but all impede the total and unrestricted movement of labor and money. At the very top of the wealth pyramid, concentrated economic power always turns into political power. An economic policy that doesn't recognize that fact will create an untouchable class that controls both the market and the regime. There's nothing freeing about that outcome.
An America governed by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros will be -- arguably, already is -- a disaster for the middle class and everyday Americans. Cracking down on their "selfless" philanthropy, combined with antitrust enforcement and higher progressive tax rates, is a key way for Americans to leverage the power of the ballot box against the power of the banker's vault.
Josiah Lippincott is a former Marine officer and current Master's student at the Van Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.
AlexanderHistory X • 12 hours agoI'd like to thank the author for actually discussing policy proposals that actually make sense. That's a rarity on TAC. However, he needs to keep a couple of things in mind:
1. You can't just say something isn't socialist on a conservative website. Conservatives have been conditioned for decades to believe that anything the GOP considers to be bad is called by the name "socialism". And taxes are bad. Therefore socialist. To bring any nuance to that word will be devastating to long-term conservative ability to argue points.
2. This proposal won't just hurt the ability of left-leaning tech giants, but also right-leaning oil and defense industry barons. A double-edged sword.
joeo • 12 hours agoThis is an interesting idea that might have had a shot, big maybe, 50 plus years ago. America is too far gone to fix with political changes, not that you could make any major changes like this in the current political environment.
The rotting edifice that is the United States is coming down one way or another. Just accept it.
bumbershoot joeo • 10 hours agoI would end tax exempt status for organizations. When everyone pays taxes we all become better stewards of how that money is used.
Ted joeo • 10 hours agoCertainly! Just so long as the word "organizations" encompasses churches as well, I think lots of people on all sides of the political spectrum would agree.
YT14 joeo • 7 hours ago • editedStarting with the Roman Catholic Church.
YT14 • 12 hours ago • editedComplicated argument. Basically, charitable people will always give charity, even from taxed income. However, if people give charity from taxed income, the state can no longer control what the institutions given money do with that money as long as salaries and surplus are taxed.
Woland • 11 hours agoInteresting proposal. Removing tax deduction should of course throw IRS out of monitoring charitable giving. So less power to Lois Lerner and colleagues.
bumbershoot • 10 hours agoTo think both Mr. Dreher and Mr. Van Buren just recently posted about the superwealthy leaving the big cities, citing as the main reasons the Covid thing on the one hand, and "excessively high" income taxes on the other. Most comments that followed were in the line of "that's what happens when you let socialists run things" and "stop giving money to the poor, then they'll work and get rich." And here we have someone proposing more and higher taxes on the wealthy to bust their political nuts.
Note that the author carefully left out any mention of conservative megadonors shaping public policy. Must be the quiet part, to avoid tarring and feathering by his own side.
AdmBenson • 10 hours agoReining in billionaires and monopolists is a conservative free market strategy.It certainly never has been one before, but we on the left welcome this new appreciation of the perils of growing inequality.
Now all you have to do is convince the entire Republican Party that this isn't "socialism." Good luck!
gnt • 8 hours ago • editedSay you like the game of Monopoly so much that you want it to last longer than the few hours it takes for one player to dominate and beat the others. Well, you could replace $200 as you pass Go with progessive taxation on income, assets, or a combination thereof. If you do it right, you can make the game last into perpetuity by ensuring that the dominance of any one player is only temporary.
YT14 gnt • 7 hours agoIt's an interesting proposal, but it seems that if you're worried about super-elites brokering political power tax-free, you might focus on direct brokering of political power. For example, we could pass a law requiring full disclosure of all sources of funding for any political advertising.
If we wanted to be aggressive, we could even pass a constitutional amendment to specify that corporations are not people. It seems odd to worry about the political power exercised by institutions with no direct control over politics, and ignore the institution whose purpose is politics.
Another approach to deal with the direct influence of the super-elite would be to make lobbying expenses no longer tax deductible. I'm sure you could find support for that.
Pete Barbeaux • 4 hours agoYou are aware that this way IRS will lose control? Lois Lerner will be able no more to go after conservative non-profits?
GeorgeMarshall65 • 3 hours agoThis is the 5th TAC article since May to take something word-for-word from a Bernie Sanders-esque Leftist platform and call it something "Conservatives" want. GTFOOH.
L RNY • 2 hours agoMr. Lippincott: That kind of influence over expert opinion is immense -- and it yields results. In April, Gates called for a nationwide total lockdown for 10 weeks. America didn't quite sink to that level of draconian control, but the shutdowns we did get absolutely crushed small businesses. Massive tech firms, however, made out like bandits. Microsoft stock is at an all-time high.
So the argument here is that the experts were not going to call for a lockdown, but Mr. Gates' outsized influence made them do it? The experts weren't going to do it anyway? Did that outsized influence extend to every other country in the world which imposed lockdowns? Was there a secret communique between Mr. Gates and the NBA so they suspended their season in mid-March? In the US, CA, Clark Cty in NV, Illinois, Kansas City, MA, MI, NY, OR, and WI all began lockdowns in March. Around the world, 80 countries began lockdowns in March. No matter what Mr. Gates said, lockdowns were deemed to be appropriate. Plus, Mr. Lippincott admits that Mr. Gates' proposal was not followed. In terms of "massive tech firms making out like bandits" v small businesses, might that have anything to do with their value?
I very much agree with this article and I think we need another Teddy Roosevelt Monopoly (oligarchy) buster but much has changed in the 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt was President. The first thing that comes to mind is that the aristocracy was mostly protestant and the business class was mostly domestic with high tariffs keeping foreign competitors out so we could break up these companies without a foreign country purchasing them and possibly creating a national security risk.
Today's aristocracy is much more diverse. Its more Jewish and it has much more minority representation from African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc so that creates the first problem in breaking up a monopoly or an oligarchy which would be the accusation of targeting minorities for discrimination. The second problem is that many of the aristocratic class in the US consider themselves global citizens and have dual citizenship. They can live anywhere anytime they choose so if you target them the way say Cuomo and DiBlasio and Newsom do then they will leave. Third problem is our global society particularly the digital / virtual society. If you break that up without safeguards then you will only be inviting foreign ownership then you will have a national security issue and even less influence.
The biggest problem is the NGOs, nonprofits that the rich set up to usurp the government on various issues from immigration to gender identity to politics. These NGO nonprofits arent your harmless community soup kitchen doing good works. The anarchy, arson, looting, rioting in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Baltimore these are paid for by NGO nonprofits and they have the money to threaten local government, state government and federal government. Trump was 100% correct when he started to tax college endowments but he didnt go far enough. The tax laws have to be rewritten with a very strict and narrow interpretation of what exactly constitutes the public good and is deserving on non-profit status. If you say education then I will say you are correct but endowments are an investment vehicle under the umbrella of an educational nonprofit. Thats like a nonprofit hospital buying a mutual fund company or a mine or a manufacturing plan and claiming its non-profit. For me its relatively simple unless someone has a some other way. If you look at the non-profit community good...what are the budgets for say hospitals, schools, orphanages, retirement homes, etc. Put monetary limits on nonprofits which can vary depending on industry and the rest is taxed at a high rate. We simply cannot have NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) using a nonprofit status to bring down a country's financial system, over-throwing a country, financing civil strife and civil war, usurping the government on things like immigration, etc.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2020 | www.defenddemocracy.press
July 25, 2020
Billionaires like Jeff Bezos aren't obscenely wealthy because they work harder than everyone else or they're more innovative. They're obscenely wealthy because their corporate empires drain society's resources -- and we'd all be better off without them.
This week, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw the largest single-day increase in wealth ever recorded for any individual. In just one day, his fortune increased by $13 billion. On current trends, he is on track to become the world's first trillionaire by 2026.Those on the right wing of politics argue that extreme wealth is a function of hard work, creativity, and innovation that benefits society. But wealth and income inequality have increased dramatically in most advanced economies in recent years. The richest of the rich are much wealthier today than they were several decades ago, but it is not clear that they are working any harder.Mainstream economists make a more nuanced version of this argument. They claim that the dramatic increase in income inequality has been driven by the dynamics of globalization and the rise of "superstars." Firms and corporate executives are now competing in a global market for capital and talent, so the rewards at the top are much higher -- even as competition also constrains wages for many toward the bottom end of the distribution.
According to this view, high levels of inequality are a reward for high productivity. The most productive firms will attract more investment than their less productive counterparts, and their managers, who are performing a much more complex job than those managing smaller firms, will be rewarded accordingly.
Read also: Sat. Jan. 25 Global Day of Protest - The People of the World Say: No War With Iran!But here again the narrative runs aground on contact with reality. Productivity has not risen alongside inequality in recent years. In fact, in the United States and the UK productivity has flatlined since the financial crisis -- and in the United States, it has been declining since the turn of the century.
There is another explanation for the huge profits of the world's largest corporations and the huge fortunes of the superrich. Not higher productivity. Not simply globalization. But rising global market power.
Many of the world's largest tech companies have become global oligopolies and domestic monopolies. Globalization has played a role here, of course -- many domestic firms simply can't compete with global multinationals. But these firms also use their relative size to push down wages, avoid taxes, and gouge their suppliers, as well as lobbying governments to provide them with preferential treatment.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are a case in point. Amazon has become America's largest company through anticompetitive practices that have landed it in trouble with the European Union's competition authorities. The working practices in its warehouses are notoriously appalling . And a study from last year revealed Amazon to be one of the world's most "aggressive tax avoiders."
Part of the reason Amazon has to work so hard to maintain its monopoly position is that its business model relies on network effects that only obtain at a certain scale. Tech companies like Amazon make money by monopolizing and then selling the data generated from the transactions on their sites.
The more people who sign up, the more data is generated; and the more data generated, the more useful this data is for those analyzing it. The monetization of this data is what generates most of Amazon's returns: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the most profitable part of the business by some distance.
Read also: What Really Worries South Koreans: TrumpFar from representing its social utility, Amazon's market value -- and Bezos' personal wealth -- reflects its market power. And the rising market power of a small number of larger firms has actually reduced productivity. This concentration has also constrained investment and wage growth as these firms simply don't have to compete for labor, nor are they forced to innovate in order to outcompete their rivals.
In fact, they're much more likely to use their profits to buy back their own shares, or to acquire other firms that will increase their market share and give them access to more data. Amazon's recent acquisition of grocery store Whole Foods is likely to be the first of many such moves by tech companies. Rather than the Darwinian logic of compete or die, the tech companies face a different imperative: expand or die.
States are supporting this logic with exceptionally loose monetary policy. Low interest rates make it very easy for large companies to borrow to fund mergers and acquisitions. And quantitative easing -- unleashed on an unprecedented scale to tackle the pandemic -- has simply served to raise equity prices, especially for the big tech companies.
As more areas of our lives become subject to the power of big tech, the fortunes of people like Bezos will continue to mount. Their rising wealth will not represent a reward for innovation or job creation, but for their market power, which has allowed them to increase the exploitation of their workforces, gouge suppliers, and avoid taxes.
The only real way to tackle these inequities is to democratize the ownership of the means of production, and begin to hand the key decisions in our economy back to the people. But you would expect that even social democrats, who won't pursue transformative policies, could get behind measures such as a wealth tax.
Read also: L'Eurogroupe maintient la Grèce sous le joug de la dette illégitime"Building back better" after the pandemic will be impossible without such a tax -- and the vast majority of both Labour and Conservative voters support such an approach, according to a recent poll. And yet it appears that Labour's leadership are retreating from the idea.
In an interview the other day, I was asked why we should care about Jeff Bezos's wealth if it makes everyone else better off. But the extreme inequalities generated by modern capitalism are making obvious something that Marxists have known for decades: the superrich generate their wealth at the expense of workers, the planet, and society as a whole.
In a rational and fair society, the vast resources of a tiny elite would be put to use solving our social problems.
|
|
|
Feb 04, 2019 | www.nytimes.com
Grindelwald Boston Mass Jan. 29Doug Johnston Chapel Hill, NC Jan. 29@Horsepower the tax bill has, as predicted by almost everyone but the GOP lawmakers, caused the deficit to balloon. Currently, the resulting debt must be paid by the descendents of all of us but the ultra-wealthy. The alternative to that approach, openly proposed by the GOP, was to take away vital services from most of us, like medical care, public education, and retirement support. I'm surprised that you don't find those things "consequential to the life of most Americans".
Eddie Cohen M.D ecohen2 . com Poway, California Jan. 29There is no reason -- economic, social or moral -- why anyone needs a personal fortune above $500 million dollars.
Mary Ann Seattle, WA Jan. 29In the age of AI the US needs a grand rebuilding of our infrastructure including electrical grids, bridges, highways, mass transit systems, and conversion to renewable energy.
It also needs a medical care system that provides a high level of to all of our citizens including the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. What better down payment on these costly necessities than a tax on the ultra rich.
John Murphysboro, IL Jan. 29Elizabeth Warren showed her chops years ago when she was a guest on Bill Moyer's PBS show, and I've been a fan ever since. But - we don't just need more of Teddy Roosevelt - we need a good dose of Franklin Roosevelt, too.
Given where this country is at, taxing the uber-rich alone isn't going to be enough to solve our problems. We need a jobs program - good, family wage jobs - that have been chipped away at for decades by both automation and off-shoring.
Taxing will help fund much needed gov't infrastructure problems, but it's purchasing power that drives the economy - and we can't have one without a vibrant middle class that's actually making and doing stuff. Since the Clinton years, the USA has spawned a bloated investor class, making a lot of money shuffling paper, but what do they produce that drives this country forward? Our infrastructure is fast becoming 3rd world.
Barry Fogel Lexington, MA Jan. 28In Senator Warren we finally have a politician who understands the difference between wealth and income and is willing to start taxing wealth. This is especially important as the truly wealthy receive very little of their money in the form of income and are therefore taxed on far less than they are actually worth. This only serves to exacerbate our inequality problem. The big banks, in particular, are very worried about what would happen should Warren become president. Like that other Roosevelt - Franklin - she welcomes their hatred. Good for her.
Steve Tripoli Hull, MA Jan. 29Extreme income inequality is damaging to social capital and to public health - and thus in the long run to sustainable prosperity. The American epidemic of depression, opioid abuse and suicide is is correlated with the acceleration of income inequality.
Worldwide, countries with high income inequality have more depression, more suicide and less happiness, even when their per capita GNP is higher than their neighbors'. The toxic effects of inequality are especially great in a nation like the US where children are taught that anyone can make it if they work hard enough. In fact, there's a lot more upward mobility in those awful socialist Nordic countries, where teaching public school is a prestigious and well-paid job, college and vocational training are taxpayer-funded (not 'free'), and no one goes bankrupt from a serious illness or injury.
Silas Greenback Guilford, CT Jan. 28Without endorsing anyone's proposals here, a couple of examples from recent history on what's actually possible, despite what people may think: -- Six weeks before the Berlin Wall fell and reunited Germany, the then-West German government issued a report projecting that German reunification was at least 20 years away. -- Japan went from a highly-nuclear power dependent country, with no prospect of changing, to one that drastically cut its dependence on nuclear in just one year after the Fukushima disaster. -- One of my favorites: FDR sits down with the leaders of General Motors at the dawn of WWII and says I need so many tanks, so many trucks etc etc for the war effort. A GM exec responds on these lines: "Mr. President, we can't fulfill those needs and still produce X-hundred-thousand cars a year." FDR: "You don't understand. You're no longer a car company." So the lesson is, no one knows what's possible in a society till you try.
Lisa Bay Area Jan. 28Eliminating carried interest seems perfectly rational. Compensation by any other name is compensation and taxable as ordinary income as it is for everyone else in this country. Once upon a time, capital gains were taxed at 15% and ordinary income at rates as high as 91%. That led to all sorts of devices to game the system, including the infamous collapsible corporation.
But with the difference down to around 10-15%, we may as well bite the bullet and tax income from capital at the same rate we tax income from work. I doubt this will hurt savings, investment, or capital formation.
It is still nice to have money, and owning capital assets will still beat the alternative.
Finally, Senator Warren's proposal seems like an acceleration of the estate tax.
Having worked in trusts and estates law for decades, I suspect that this proposal will invite use of the same techniques used by estate planners, lawyers, and accountants to drive down the fair market value of assets. Her proposal may work, if it is ever enacted, but the devil, as usual, will be in the details. This is a very complex concept, simple as it may seem at first blush. That is not an argument for not trying, but for being very careful in the implementation, beginning with the statutory language.
Tom New Jersey Jan. 28@Taz Bernie talks in bumper-sticker slogans; Elizabeth talks substance.
Kodali VA Jan. 29@Steve B People receiving Social Security only pay taxes on the benefits if their income exceeds the same thresholds that apply to people who go out and work for a living, and pay Social Security taxes that go to the elderly. Ellen, stop treating Social Security like it's a savings bank.
Your Social Security taxes paid for the generation before you, and the Social Security taxes raised now are paying for you. The average Social Security recipient today will receive twice as much as they paid into the system during their earning years.
So please give the "I'm just getting back the money I paid into the system" routine a rest. It's a fiction. The wealth of the over 65s is growing faster than any other age group in our society, and the fraction of government spending on over-65s is the only part of government that has grown in decades.
If you're making enough to pay income taxes, pay your taxes and stop complaining. That means you're doing OK. You'd better hope young people don't wake up and realize just how much of their hard-earned pay is going to pay for retirees.
RobertF Acton Ma Jan. 28The seriousness in her policies is in her work ethics and brilliance. She means what she says and works her heart out to achieve those goals. There isn't anyone out there that matches those qualities.
Doug Rife Sarasota, FL Jan. 28This tax will require staffing up the IRS and that will require dems control over both houses of Congress as the GOPers have defunded the IRS.
The ultra right, ultra rich will be paying more and more of their fortunes to their already privately-owned senators to defeat this and any other progressive tax proposals. We need more, more and more people to get into the democratic process and VOTE to recapture the nation's leadership in 2020!
Ana Luisa Belgium Jan. 28Pretax income concentration at the top increased starting in the 1980s as a direct result of the large reductions in the top marginal income tax rates. Those who complain that a 70% top marginal tax rate is confiscatory need to understand that's the whole point.
When top marginal tax rates are confiscatory that leads to lower pre-tax income inequality because tax aversion of the wealthy leads they to pay themselves less income to avoid paying the government so much in taxes.
Unlike most workers, corporate executives can easily arrange for their boards to pay them far more than their marginal product would justify.
Furthermore, wealth tends to concentrate automatically when top marginal tax rates are low. This is simply due to the math of compound interest. When investment returns are not taxed sufficiently by the estate tax or by capital gains taxes, they will be reinvested leading to extreme wealth accumulation over generations that is automatic and not the result of any kind of investing skill.
Even if a 70% top marginal tax rate did not raise a penny more in tax revenue it would still be justified on the grounds of preventing extreme concentration of wealth and income. Recent economic research has shown that in a purely capitalistic society in which there is no taxation nor redistribution all wealth in the whole society will ultimately be owned by a single household. https://voxeu.org/article/what-would-wealth-distribution-look-without-redistribution
San Francisco Voter San Framcoscp Jan. 28@Baldwin Actually, it's 2% on what is on top of those 50M, so 2% on 100M, if you have a net worth of $150M. That being said, nobody with $150M net worth just "sits" on his money for 35 years. To get there in the first place, in the 21st century you usually have to pay an expert and engage in financial speculation (= speculation about financial transactions, not an investment in the "real" economy), and of course you won't stop paying that expert once you reach $150M, so you continue to add millions to your wealth anyhow. On the other hand, if you belong to the middle class, you easily pay $30,000 taxes a year.
After ten years, that's $300,000, and after 33 years that's a million dollars paid in taxes. Seen in this way, even having the middle class paying taxes seems "unfair", because when they only earn $75,000 a year, why should they pay a million in taxes over 33 years ... ?
Conclusion: taxes are paid year after year not in function of how many you will have paid in total at the end of your career, but in function of what we collectively need to run this country smoothly (military, government, education, roads and bridges, EPA, ...).
A "fair" tax code is a tax code that allows anyone who works hard to live comfortably, weather your a hedge fund manager or teacher. And in order to get there, we can't continue the GOP's constantly lowering taxes for the wealthiest all while cutting services to the 99%. NO one with $150M will suffer by paying $2M in taxes a year ...
Dadof2 NJ Jan. 29I applaud Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez for espousing Teddy an Franklin Roosevelt's ideas about reducing the concentration of 90% of wealth in the upper 1/10th of 1 per cent (0.1%). That is the situation which can lead to major social unrest, widespread crime, and ultimately, civil war as happened in England in the 17th century, in Russia in 1917, and in the French Revolution that beheaded Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette - along with thousands of other members of the nobility.
We see this anger and violence today in the United States - in mass shootings, in failing public schools (the salaries are not sufficient to attract qualified teachers who instead will work in more remunerative fields, like law and computer technology. What works better is to reduce the concentration of wealth so people in the lower 90% can have more prosperity and social stability in their lives.
All people need a reliable source of food, healthcare, and a place for them and their families to live. All people need access to good education, family planning, and higher education sufficient to alllow them to work. With so much reliance on mechanical work, we also need for all people to have a minimum income - something that no one talks abou yet - but enough to live safely.
There is support for this not only among Democrats but also among Republicans. The help should be for everyone, not based on need (Marxism). This is common sense not socialism.
Mike L NY Jan. 29It was hilarious to read that Rush Limbaugh is SO terrified of AOC and Liz Warren that he, the grandmaster of Goebbels-like mis-information, is calling them "hitlerian" as he and Hannity push Trump every day to emulate Mussolini! But why is simple: I read that Limbaugh makes about $100 million a year, which puts him in the super-rich category. I doubt highly that he's paying the maximum 37(?)% on his income and if he is he needs better accountants and tax lawyers! But AOC's proposal means that $90 million of his $100 million would be taxed at 70%, leaving him "only" a measly $27 million a year to try not to starve on. Along with whatever millions are left after taxes on the first $10 million, say, $5 million (again, needs better tax advice). So he's stuck trying to survive on $32 million! (BTW, Hannity only makes about $29 million before taxes, Oh! The Humanity!--Or is it "Oh! The Hannity"?) That's really why they are vitriolic. Taxes are for the "little people", the suckers who call in and rant, who watch Fox and believe, no matter how illogical their logic. Rush and Sean see a REAL movement to tax their excessive income and will fight it tooth and nail, with fact and fiction (mostly fiction) to protect themselves and their wealth.
Ken McBride Lynchburg, VA Jan. 29Interesting how it is almost exactly a hundred years since this problem was dealt with in the last Gilded Age. Enough time so that the generations that remember are long gone and so the problem came back.
The Uber rich did this to themselves with their complete disconnect from the economic realities facing the 99%. TARP was the kicker - we gave a trillion dollars to the 1% while the 99% were left to fend for themselves. Despite the protestations of the 99%. Now that's political power in the hands of the few for the benefit of the few. Time to stop it now.
Henry's boy Ottawa, Canada Jan. 29"wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent combined." The corrupt neoliberalism of the 1% is unsustainable but is reflective of a downward spiral of decline. While we experience continuous political campaigning the U.S. is, in reality, a criminal and corrupt corporate state enriching the 1% and masquerading as a democracy, an Inverted Totalitarianism.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Louis D. Brandeis
6 RecommendFran B. Kent, CT Jan. 29Great. The pendulum swings back to sensible taxation rates for the ultra wealthy. Hard to feel sorry for hedge fund managers. I can just see Sean Hannity railing against it now. He would have to cough up.
6 RecommendDavid Dyte Brooklyn Jan. 28This column makes a good case for Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury, or head of the Consumer Protection Bureau which she invented following Dodd Frank legislation. But the best way to reach the widest audience is a Presidential campaign. Most of the responses here focus on enough wealth, extreme wealth and self-interest. Beyond their tax liabilities is the reality of the power the the rich wield through lobbyists, campaign contributions, corporate takeovers, and tax dodges over our politics, governments, and over us, the people. It's a pity that any proposed tax fairness adjustments are reduced to epithets against socialism.
6 RecommendSeabiscute MA Jan. 29The problem is that the big money against this will say (ie: fund ads saying) anything (true or false) about any other subject to swing votes against any candidate who's a serious chance of pushing such a tax increase. One can only hope I am wrong.
6 RecommendCindy California Jan. 29@Socrates, another trenchant and witty comment! Thank you.
6 RecommendSteve Scaramouche Saint Paul Jan. 29Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing. Her Accountable Capitalism Act also addresses the root causes of inequality, although some critics have stated that it would lead to the semi-nationalization of business. I think its effect would be commonsense regulation of the economic playing field so that excesses do not occur in how rewards are distributed. It has the potential to address issues early enough to prevent problems.
6 Recommendcslaftery NY, NY Jan. 29@George Thanks to the Republican budget busting tax holiday for rich folks we will need every penny of revenue just to keep our fiscal boat afloat. We should add AOC's 70% rate just to patch our leaks in infrastructure, healthcare, education and social security for the retirees who were gutted by the 2008 Republican Great Recession.
6 RecommendGary Upper West Side Jan. 28Since the super-rich are already paying 2+20 for their wealth management, paying another 2 to the government hardly seems like it would kill incentive...
6 Recommendtexsun usa Jan. 29Throughout most of the history of civilizations, governments have been funded by a wealth tax. This was in the form of property tax, as that was the only wealth there was. Somehow when financial wealth started to build, it was made largely exempt. Proposals to close this loophole are well overdue. It's not so radical as it is just restoring traditional funding methods.
6 RecommendWayne Campbell Ottawa, Canada Jan. 28A sure sign of health when Warren, a veteran politician and Ocasio-Cortez, a first term member of Congress publish ideas early in the election cycle. The next steps are laws that dismantle Citizens United and protect voting rights.
6 Recommendstu freeman brooklyn Jan. 29Elizabeth Warren had better take care. If she doesn't tread softly on these plans to progressively tax the rich and make them spread the wealth to all those millions of people out there who have had a hand in generating their economic success, she'll be called something equally invidious to a 'socialist' -- a 'Canadian'.
6 RecommendAndrew Michigan Jan. 29Prof. Krugman is speaking truth to power but power tends to speak back, telling our citizens that progressives like Sen. Warren are aiming to increase taxes across the board. Never EVER do they narrow the stated target of such projected increases to the uppermost economic stratum. And progressives always manage to let them get away with this. Democratic candidates for political office need to assign members of their campaign staffs to Republican events and arm them with bullhorns for the expressed purpose of shouting out the words "for the rich" every time a typically disingenuous Republican opponent announces that a specific Democrat has a plan to raise Americans' taxes.
6 RecommendTom Pauloski Highland Park, IL Jan. 29"More important, my sense is that a lot of conventional political wisdom still assumes that proposals to sharply raise taxes on the wealthy are too left-wing for American voters." It's just shocking to me that conservative voters supposedly hate liberal elites, yet refuse continuously to tax the mega rich and/or ignore the tax cuts for those households. Do they not see the hypocrisy they're being fed by Fox News?
6 RecommendKem Phillips Vermont Jan. 29I know that it's inconvenient, but the US Constituion prohibits a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Hard to see how Ms. Warren's "plan" meets this standard. Serious presidential candidates need to propose plans that actually have a chance to work. After what we're experiencing now, we don't need four additional years of bombast.
6 RecommendAna Luisa Belgium Jan. 28@Mkm Can you give any arguments as to why this is unconstitutional, or a source as to when it was declared so? Note that once (ie, just a few generations ago) abhorrent laws concerning voting rights and segregation were considered just fine.
6 RecommendCA CA Jan. 29@Paul Wortman We indeed tend to believe that the poor and lower middle class must be (more) ignorant, and as such easier victims of the GOP's massive fake news campaigns. Studies show however that a majority of those earning less than $100,000 a year voted for Hillary, whereas a small majority of those earning more than that voted for Trump. That's because her platform included VERY clear and urgent, fact-based measures that would have helped the poor and middle class, after Obama already made serious progress on these issues (a public option added to Obamacare, and many other things). So imho the only ones risking "forgetting" about the needs of the 99% when it comes to voting, are those who don't carefully fact-check politicians' achievements and campaign agenda, before voting (or deciding not to vote) ...
6 RecommendPaul Rogers Montreal Jan. 29@BC The current standard deduction of $12K for single people means that the first $12K is not taxed ($24K joint) which means that your wish has already come true.
6 Recommendboourns Nyc Jan. 29@Socrates Please run for office.
6 RecommendDoug Lowenthal Nevada Jan. 29Fundamentally, a fallacy of modern American society is a perversion of the golden rule. Let's call it "tax not lest ye be taxed." Even though the electorate will never in their wildest dreams make this kind of income, their wildest dreams persist. And thus they will not permit the thought of "unfair" taxation on the ultra-rich, using all the talking points the richest 1% have lobbied deep into our political system at every level.
6 Recommendpjahwah Iowa Jan. 29At this stage in our history when wealth hasn't been more concentrated, raising taxes on the ultra-rich is exactly what populism is about. Think TR and FDR, not DJT.
6 Recommendmichaeltide Bothell, WA Jan. 29@Socrates Oh Socrates, you do have a way with words! Your first and second paragraphs are lol gems! I hope you keep coming back.
6 RecommendTom Maguire Darien CT Jan. 28@Ronald B. Duke, I think I remember people saying that during the civil rights movement too. Be patient. You'll get what you want by'n'by. Waiting for dynastic fortunes trickle away is sort of like waiting for the mountain to be worn away by the wind. It's not gonna happen in our lifetime. There's always a reason for not depriving the wealthy of any part of their fortunes. Each time we fail to do that, the need to do it becomes more dire. Things just don't get better by waiting for someone to voluntarily or even accidentally, divest themselves of money or power. It can be done by legislation, and that's better than by revolution. And, you know, the wealth accumulation has already begun. What has to happen now is to keep it from falling over and crushing all of us (Make that almost all of us).
6 RecommendHarold Winter Park, Fl Jan. 29@Rockets Pual Krugman is almost surely right about incentives on the individual level since few of us will hold off just because the second $50 MM is slightly less lucrative. Buts its funny how he ignores the macroeconomic effect. If the Bezos tax bill was $1 billion, I think we agree it would come exclusively out of savings. *IF* the government simply used the proceeds to reduce spending (below some credible prior baseline) then the net effect on national savings is zero; interest rates unchanged, economic activity unaffected, and so on. But if the government spends the money (as seems likely under President Warren) then national savings is reduced and the fed will (in the current environment) probably feel obliged to push back against a stimulative fiscal policy with a restrictive monetary policy: higher rates, less investment, less consumer spending, etc. So Bezos has no incentive to invest less but as a nation we will do just that. Is that good? Maybe - it would have been great in 2009. Seems to merit a discussion.
6 RecommendDJS New York Jan. 29The 2020 campaign for POTUS is shaping up to be very interesting. That is, if Trump makes it. Combine Warren and Harris we would have a great team. Warren adds specifics with intellectual heft and Harris inspires us with her open, honest and intelligent persona. Just need to find room for Amy K. on that team.
6 RecommendNative Tarheel Durham, NC Jan. 29@FunkyIrishman Your "radical plan " has been tried, and has failed.
6 RecommendHenry Crawford Silver Spring, Md Jan. 29This is far better than changing the rate on capital gains, which would tend to punish middle class retirees for having invested over the years (Mr. Rattner's proposal today) and, I think, would be difficult for the uber-wealthy to avoid. I'm not sure that $50 million is the correct starting point (perhaps a meager $25 million of net worth should be taxed) but this is a brilliant new concept that offers promise of slowing wealth inequality while not terribly constraining the wealthy.
6 RecommendMathman314 Los Angeles Jan. 29"We seem to be heading toward a society dominated by vast, often inherited fortunes." Welcome to kingship, 21st Century style.
6 Recommendstan continople brooklyn Jan. 29In reading this column and the associated comments, there seems to be one glaring omission: the necessity of overturning the Citizens United decision which provides the ultra-rich avenues to continually push their lower taxes agenda by hiring hoards of lobbyists, by "buying" politicians with campaign contributions, by funding misleading and excessive political advertising, and by controlling various media outlets that are little more than propaganda mills. Until Citizens United is overturned much-needed, rational progressive taxation reforms have little chance of becoming reality, and with the current composition of the Supreme Court overturning this decision is unfortunately extremely unlikely.
6 RecommendRosebud NYS Jan. 29@Yabasta Yeah, Dr. Krugman must have sustained a hit to the head since 2016 and would not recognize a photo of Hillary Clinton if it was flashed before him. His incessant savaging of Bernie was positively embarrassing to witness and never adequately explained. Only goes to show you that our much vaunted reason is designed to justify our emotions and that even Nobel laureates have deep subconscious axes to grind.
6 RecommendSteve NJ Jan. 29Under Eisenhower marginal tax rates were approximately 90%. This "Greatest Generation" built the interstate system. We can't even maintain the interstate system we have let alone build a new one. Our national-level political system is dominated by the rich. Our economic policies are totally skewed towards the rich. Our educational system is biased towards the rich. We've let capitalism trump democracy. If making America Great Again means taxing the rich back into reality, I have no problem with that. My only annoyance with Mr. Krugman's essay is his monomaniacal avoidance of saying the word, "Sanders." What's that about?
6 RecommendRima Regas Southern California Jan. 28This makes perfect sense to me. Under Senator Warren's plan households with more than $50 million of annual income would pay a 2% wealth surcharge. I can't imagine this would have any significant effect on any of the 75,000 wealthiest U.S. households. I'd much rather see Michael Bloomberg and his financial peers support broader efforts to make college free or reduce student debt levels than make more lavish gifts to elite institutions like John Hopkins.
6 RecommendSchrodinger Northern California Jan. 28cks, broken promises, scandal. and a presidency in trouble – all pushed Bill Clinton into taking a brand new tack: triangulation. In addition to the definition of triangulation offered by Dick Morris in his Frontline appearance on PBS, here is a quote from his book: "The idea behind triangulation is to work hard to solve the problems that motivate the other party's voters, so as to defang them politically The essence of triangulation is to use your party's solutions to solve the other side's problems. Use your tools to fix their car." The problem with that is that triangulation has not quite worked out that way. "Their car" wasn't what was actually being fixed. What the "tools" did address, however, were the goals of the Republican party. https://www.rimaregas.com/2017/09/04/triangulation-when-neoliberalism-is-at-its-most-dangerous-to-voters-updated-dem-politics-on-blog42 /
6 RecommendPeter Wolf New York City Jan. 29@Jonathan....Current S+P 500 dividend yield is 2.02%. That would provide cash to cover most of the wealth tax. A wealth tax might impact the market for high end art and collectibles, but that is probably a very small fraction of total wealth.
6 Recommendskier 6 Vermont Jan. 29@Duane McPherson I realize Warren may have some limitations re emotional appeal (also re men not wanting to vote for a woman), which is why I said I put her "at the top of my list for Dems, SO FAR." I'll see how this plays out on the campaign trail. Someone else may emerge who has both the smarts and the charisma- or Warren may find an emotional niche. Time will tell.
6 Recommendmrpoizun hot springs Jan. 28@George Warren Buffet has said, "There's class warfare all right. But it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
6 Recommendfaivel1 NY Jan. 29@Phyliss Dalmatian I'm afraid Sherrod is not liberal enough. Nowadays, if you talk about bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle, you're talking about making a deal with the devil.
5 RecommendUtahSteve 1953 Gardiner, NY Jan. 29@Yuri Asian Very passionate and authentic comment!
5 RecommendJames Ricciardi Panama, Panama Jan. 28This is a pie pie-in-the-sky comment, but I'll stand by the overall premise based on our history. It's all about the velocity of money and resources. You have to spend it to grow it. Infrastructure also includes 100% healthcare cradle to grave, baseline living standards, Social Security clean water, clean air, clean power, full education, etc. Infrastructure is the key to everything throughout history, period. Close all tax loop holes. Reduce all business taxes by at least half or more. Create a progressive tax rate starting at 0% raised all the way to 80% up the ladder. If you don't like it, renounce your citizenship with all of what that entails and leave. Completely get rid of the cap on Social Security. Everyone except those at the 0% tax rate pays in 7%. That is fair. Make the business contribution 3% of the first $100,000 Reinstate a stronger set of anti-trust guard rails. Re-instate a stronger form of Glass/Steagle. Reinstate a stronger Fairness Doctrine Realize that a corporation is NOT a person and if we think they are, subject them to the 13th amendment regarding one person owning another. They also are not allowed participate in anything of a political nature, in any way shape or form. Period. Full stop. Invest in the poor and middle classes in all ways. Raising standards from the bottom up raises all boats. It's not "trickle down" it's "trickle up". It's all about the velocity of money. You have to spend it to grow it. We can do this in this country.
5 RecommendTruthbeknown Texas Jan. 29Why do by indirection what is better done directly? Income tax rates should be adjusted to push the marginal rate to a percentage needed to produce the estimated revenue from Warren's proposal. This would (1) not require creation of a new beauracracy and a new wealth tax code to administer the new wealth tax, (2) not create incentives for lawyers and accounts to redefine net worth and would (3) not change incentives for investments by wealthy individuals, with unknown and unknowable side effects. If we also want to reduce fortunes directly, enact a truly functional estate tax, not the joke which we have now.
5 RecommendTom Maguire Darien CT Jan. 28One other thought, the high tax rates of the 1950s and 1960s carried with them many, many deductions which are no longer available -- -which were surrendered politically in exchange for lower overall ages. Maybe something additionally to be considered would be combing through the tax code and addressing the special interest provisions which conflate social policy about certain companies/products/goals with tax policy.
5 RecommendJohn Coctosin Florida Jan. 29@A P As you note, simply giving the money to their foundation can spare them the tax bill. They don't actually need to have the foundation disburse that much of it. And my casual impression is that Bill Gates' ability to direct billions through his foundation has preserved his "social capital" - he is still invited to Davos, can tour Africa with Bono or the Pope, get his phone calls returned by Important People, get his kids into whatever college he chooses to endow, hop on private jets to wherever, and so on. As punishments go forcing him to chair a major foundation is not much.
5 RecommendJonathan Lincoln Jan. 28The government has never proven itself to be a good steward of capital. They will tax and spend, tax and reallocate, tax and waste. No thanks. Would rather the incentives remain and America push back against socialist notions. So expected from Krugman.
5 Recommendb fagan chicago Jan. 28@CDN Eh? Real estate is already valued every year and taxed accordingly, it's called property taxes. Art and antiquities are already valued for insurance purposes. It's not difficulty at all.
5 Recommendusa999 Portland, OR Jan. 29@Shiv "I'm completely unable to determine how Jeff Bezos's work building Amazon has caused me or anyone else to be worse off. In fact, we're all better off." So you know nobody who had been making a decent living with a bookstore - or in publishing - or in many other small businesses that have been priced into oblivion by Amazon if they'd been lucky enough to survive the WalMart effect that came before. Robert Reich in "Supercapitalism" was right. The consumer side of a person can so easily derange the thinking of the rest of the person. Not following me? Than picture the dream world of big tech companies with their dreams of stupendous individual wealth by "disrupting" something where people have been making their livings. Each wave of disruption leaves people without their jobs. And these days, the chance of getting into a better-paying job after being disruptive aren't all that terrific if you look at the statistical outcomes. So is your view of morality served by the relentless push to undercut older businesses that provided employment, simply because the disrupting model is "more efficient"? Reconsider what "efficiency" is supposed to accomplish in the bigger picture of society rather than just shareholder (and top executive) financial reward.
5 RecommendWAXwing01 EveryWhere Jan. 30As an authentic Republican, not one of the brigands who hijacked the party as a means to plunder and pillage, I heartily endorse the Warren proposal. To make it somewhat more palatable for voters I would suggest it earmark 50% of the revenue generated go to starting to pay down the national debt. That would mean, using the 2.75 trillion estimate, that in the first decade we would reclaim from the wealthiest approximately what Republicans gave away in the deficit-financed tax cuts of 2017. In effect having had an interest-free loan from us for a decade they would return the cash we have been paying interest on. Would be quite big of them, actually.
5 RecommendAna Luisa Belgium Jan. 28Excellent!
5 Recommendstan continople brooklyn Jan. 29@Alice It's not as if we ignore which tax loopholes for the wealthiest have to be closed and how to do so, you know. Democrats have been trying to do this for quite some time already, but the GOP blocks it. And Obamacare already includes a tax increase for the wealthiest - that's one of the reasons why it cuts the deficit by $100 billion, rather than adding to it. That proves that the wealthiest DNC donors and Democrats (such as Obama himself, and Pelosi) FULLY agree to increase their own taxes. Conclusion: cynicism never helped us move forward, fact-checking does ... ;-)
5 RecommendJeoffrey Arlington, MA Jan. 28@Vink Why do you think they all own a dozen sprawling properties scattered around the globe? They are all Bond villain wannabes never far from a secret citadel. I hope they've got plenty of toilet paper on hand for the siege.
5 RecommendJoe Sneed Bedminister PA Jan. 29@Michael Blazin You think that... why? It's not at all clear. But it is clear that the law could be written so that any transaction could be taxed. So unless the billionaires want to hide their money under their mattresses.....
5 RecommendJim Gordon So Orange,nj Jan. 29A progressive wealth tax is an"idea whose time has come". See Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century . Harvard University Press. Use the revenue generated for infrastructure repair.
5 RecommendJohn Homan Yeppoon - Australia Jan. 29@carl bumba You'll need to visit those other countries to see how wrong you are and how right Socrates is.
5 Recommendmrpoizun hot springs Jan. 28@Rajiv The discussion is not about 'attacking' income, but taxing wealth.
5 RecommendZdebman Central US Jan. 29@Blue Moon As far as Social Security and Medicare, all we have to do to fix that is tax the millionaires' income the same as we do the peon- every dime that goes in their overseas accounts should be taxed, same as the rest of us.
5 RecommendPV Wisconsin Jan. 29There are numerous holes in this proposal, none of which have anything to do with "greed". 1. What Krugman, Saez and Zucman fail to mention is that Denmark repealed its wealth tax in 1996 and Sweden repealed its wealth tax more than a decade ago. Not hard to understand why -- it is ultimately a self-defeating tax policy that just drives wealth out of your economy. Krugman doesn't mention that Saez and Zucman's basic premise is that every country has to implement a wealth tax for it to work, which is never going to happen. 2. Warren's proposal is blatantly unconstitutional as a direct tax, so she would need to garner the political support not just to pass the tax but amend the constitution similar to what was done for the income tax. Highly unlikely. The bottom line is that the only way to actually pay for all of the middle-class goodies that Democrats want to be provided by the Federal government (free college, Medicare for all, free daycare, paid leave) is to tax the middle-class like what they do in Sweden and Denmark through VAT and much lower income tax thresholds. Of course, once everyone figures that out, those proposals won't poll nearly as well, which is why AOC is now claiming that it will be magically paid for through the hocus-pocus of Modern Monetary Theory.
5 RecommendCharlesbalpha Atlanta Jan. 29For Warren's tax proposal that "wouldn't lead to large-scale evasion if the tax applied to all assets and was adequately enforced ..." the IRS needs more staff and a bigger budget. Past Republican congresses have purposely gutted the agency's audit and enforcement capabilities at the direction of the very interests Warren's proposal targets.
5 Recommend"Would such a plan be feasible? Wouldn't the rich just find ways around it?" The most likely way around it would be to bribe Congress not to vote for it. Isn't that why they
|
|
|
Aug 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Voting Fraud Is Real: The Electoral System Is Vulnerable
by Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2020 - 21:05 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print
Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Cultuire Foundation,
The United States national election is now only three months away and it should be expected that the out-and-out lies emanating from both parties will increase geometrically as the polling date nears. One of the more interesting claims regarding the election itself is the White House assertion that large scale voting by mail will permit fraud, so much so that the result of the voting will be unreliable or challenged. To be sure, it is not as if voter fraud is unknown in the United States. The victory of John F. Kennedy 1960 presidential election has often been credited to all the graveyards in Mayor Richard Daley's Chicago voting to swing Illinois into the Democratic camp.
The Democrats are insisting that voting by mail is perfectly safe and reliable, witness the use of absentee ballots for many years. The assertions by Democratic Party-affiliated voting officials in several states and also from friends on the federal level have been played in the media to confirm that fraud in elections has been insignificant recently. That may be true, up until now.
The Democrats, of course, have an agenda. For reasons that are not altogether clear, they believe that voting by mail would benefit them primarily, so they are pushing hard for their supporters to register in their respective states and cast their ballots at the local mail box. Nevertheless, there should be some skepticism whenever a major American political party wants something. In this case, the Democrats are likely assuming that people at lower income levels who will most likely vote for them cannot be bothered to register and vote if it requires actually going somewhere to do it. They have spoken of "expansion of voting," presumably to their benefit. The mail is a much easier option.
A Fox News host has rejected the impelling logic behind the mail option, saying "Can't we just have this one moment to vote for one candidate every four years, and show up and put a ballot in without licking an envelope or pressing on a stamp? If you can shop for food, if you can buy liquor, you can vote once every four years."
The fundamental problem with the arguments coming from both sides is that there is no national system in the United States for registering and voting. Elections are run at state level and the individual states have their own procedures. The actual ballots also differ from voting district to voting district. To determine what safeguards are actually built into the system is difficult as how electoral offices actually function is considered sensitive information by many, precisely because it might reveal vulnerabilities in the process.
To determine how one might actually vote illegally, I reviewed the process required for registering and voting by mail in my own state of Virginia. In Virginia one can both register and vote without any human contact at all. The registration process can be accomplished by filling out an online form, which is linked here . Note particularly the following: the form requires one to check the box indicating U.S. citizenship. It then asks for name and address as well as social security number, date of birth and whether one has a criminal record or is otherwise disqualified to vote. You then have to sign and date the document and mail it off. Within ten days, you should receive a voter's registration card for Virginia which you can present if you vote in person, though even that is not required.
But also note the following: no documents have to presented to support the application, which means that all the information can be false. You can even opt out of providing a social security number by indicating that you have never been issued one, even though the form indicates that you must have one to be registered, and you can also submit a temporary address by claiming you are "homeless." Even date of birth information is useless as the form does not ask where you were born, which is how birth records are filed by state and local governments. Ultimately, it is only the social security number that validates the document and that is what also appears on the Voter's ID Card, but even that can be false or completely fabricated, as many illegal immigrant workers in the U.S. have discovered.
In a state like Virginia, the actual mail-in ballot requires your signature and that of a witness, who can be anyone. That is also true in six other states. Thirty-one states only require your own signature while only three states require that the document be notarized, a good safeguard since it requires the voter to actually produce some documentation. Seven states require your additional signature on the ballot envelope and two states require that a photocopy of the voter ID accompany the ballot. In other words, the safeguards in the system vary from state to state but in most cases, fraud would be relatively easy.
And then there is the issue of how the election commissions in the states will be overwhelmed by tens of thousands of mail-in ballots that they might be receiving in November. That overload would minimize whatever manual checking of names, addresses and social security numbers might otherwise take place. Jim Bovard has speculated how :
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOSTZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"The American political system may be on the eve of its worst legitimacy crisis since the Civil War. Early warning signals indicate that many states could suffer catastrophic failures in counting votes in November Because of the pandemic, many states are switching primarily to mail-in voting even though experiences with recent primaries were a disaster. In New York City, officials are still struggling to count mail-in ballots from the June primary. Up to 20% of ballots 'were declared invalid before even being opened , based on mistakes with their exterior envelopes,' the Washington Post noted, thanks largely to missing postmarks or signatures. In Wisconsin, more than 20,000 ' primary ballots were thrown out because voters missed at least one line on the form, rendering them invalid.' Some states are mailing ballots to all the names on the voting lists, providing thousands of dead people the chance to vote from the grave."
Add into the witch's cauldron the continued use of easily hacked antiquated voting machines as well as confusing ballots in many districts, and the question of whether an election can even be run with expectations of a credible result becomes paramount. President Trump has several times claimed that the expected surge in mail-in voting could result in " the most corrupt vote in our nation's history ." Trump is often wrong when he speaks or tweets spontaneously, but this time he just might be right. gcjohns1971 , 8 hours ago
joego1 , 8 hours agoThis was why the founders required voters to be property owners. You have to have a stake in the system to have a vote in the system or you will only vote for the property owners' wealth to be given to you.
rent slave , 7 hours agoPretty soon that would mean only Black Rock could vote.
Chocura750 , 7 hours agoSome people pay taxes and have wealth without owning property.Plus ,some property owners are nearly indigent and dependent on government handouts.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 8 hours agoVoting by mail gives the elderly and shutins the ability to vote. These are usually Republican leaning which makes me wonder why the Republicans oppose it. Mail in voting has been done for years without any problems.
Billy the Poet , 8 hours agoI had recently come to the conclusion, and in hind sight its a fairly obvious one that mail-in voting is no more prone to fraud than the electronic voting machines. Hell, it's easier to manipulate those, at least with the mail in ballots there is a paper trail.
Glad to see the article points this out.
But, the election outcome will be what TPTB want it to be. Voting and elections are too important to be left to us commoners. ay_arrow
NoDebt , 8 hours agoOne would have to have access to electronic voting equipment in order to manipulate the data. Mail in voter fraud involves nothing more than getting ahold of ballots and sending them in which sounds like a lower bar. No special access or skills necessary. It could end up like "we found a box of ballots in the truck of my car" on steroids.
Billy the Poet , 8 hours agoAny system run by the corrupt will be compromised.
Let me explain how I see this going down with new mail-in voting this cycle:
Lots of mail-in ballots will come in that are rejected for one reason or another (arrived too late, had no postmark, signature didn't match, whatever). The Ds will already have favorable judges lined up ready to overturn those rulings. While those rulings are waiting to be overturned, thousands more in a similar circumstance will keep mysteriously piling up. The hand-picked judge will rule them all valid and they will be counted.
HERE IS THE TRICK WHICH WILL BE EXPLOITED:
Remember when Trump won in '16 they simply stopped reporting results for about 6 hours from any state anywhere in the US? Went on from about 10pm (when it became obvious Trump was about to pull off his upset) to about 4am, give or take.
What were they doing in those hours? LOOKING FOR MORE VOTES FOR HILLARY. They couldn't find or manufacture enough in that time period.
But what if you were to stretch that period of time out not just for hours, but days or even weeks? Plenty of time to "find" the votes needed to tip the election so that once the judge rules in their favor, all of the rejected mail-in ballots, plus the number needed to tip the outcome are in. And once the judge rules, they are ALL in. Not just the technically questionable ones, but the outright fraudulent ones that were added after the fact.
ALL THEY NEED IS TIME. AND MAIL-IN VOTING GIVES THEM THAT TIME.
bIlluminati , 5 hours agoIt would also be easier to make sure that your loyal constituents remained loyal by watching them fill out ballots (or filling out ballots for them), rewarding them on the spot and mailing in the votes.
Much easier than dragging people to the polls and hoping that they stick around long enough and manage to pull the right lever.
You could go door to door and buy blank ballots and do the same thing. If people are willing to sell EBT cards they'd probably be willing to sell their ballot.
GoozieCharlie , 6 hours agoEven easier. See that ballots from known Republican strongholds don't get postmarked, or, if postmarked, never make it to their destination. Or Demonrat votes. Or open envelopes to see how they voted, and replace the ones that voted "the wrong way". President Trump could get as few as 50 million votes if the Dims want a landslide, and blame it on corona.
NeitherStirredNorShaken , 8 hours agoIn 2016 I was amazed (but not surprised) at the school buses full of adult coloreds tooling around on secondary roads near the triple point where OH, MI, and IN come together, on the Monday before election day. Also, i'd never seen so many coloreds in the convenience stores in that very lily white area.
Observer 2020 , 7 hours agoThe entire voting process including electorate is one massive fraud. Are people that vote and participate pretending they live in some kind of Democracy really believing the delusion?
And you're making fun of the of so called woke retards?
Here's what happens in a rigged vote when a recount is ordered. 10,000 voting machines burn in a warehouse fire the same night the recount is court ordered.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/us/politics/11voting.html
CatInTheHat , 6 hours agoAnyone who militates against the integrity of the electoral process is a traitor, nothing less.
The disloyal opposition's efforts to render this nation's electoral system a Third World burlesque, by qualifying to vote millions, if not tens of millions, of illegals and by advocating the wanton distribution of mail in ballots, constitutes the felonious disenfranchisement of natural born citizens - an act of treason.
Blatant election fraud in Broward county Florida..
Tim Canova vs. Wasserman Schulz
|
|
|
Aug 03, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
How The Billionaires Control American Elections
by Tyler Durden Sun, 08/02/2020 - 23:40 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print
Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how America's billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its opening twenty minutes, with key quotations and assertions from its opening -- and then its broader context will be discussed briefly:
"How Congress Maintains Endless War – System Update with Glenn Greenwald" - The Intercept, 9 July 2020
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ejqYrzEX14E
2:45 : There is "this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves, their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea what it is that the people they've voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and reality is enormous."
Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:
to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany
to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds' bombing of Yemen
to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty
On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes - overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney's daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.
Greenwald (citing other investigators) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the Parties. "The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated" by the press (in order to pump up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and internationally, the lie that America is a democracy -- actually represents the interests of the voters).
16:00 : The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- which writes the nearly $750B annual Pentagon budget -- is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing's Washington State.
"The majority of his district are people of color." He's "clearly a pro-war hawk" a consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest.
"This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed Services Committee -- someone with this record."
He is "the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military spending."
He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the "defense industry opened up their coffers" and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.
That's the opening.
Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all corrupt. And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters, such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the 'defense' contractors and the 'news' media etc., campaign for Democrats' votes by emphasizing how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about than they do about America's destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine, and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela and many other lands. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent 'defense' contractors and other profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again -- by deceived voters. And -- as those nearly unanimous committee votes display -- almost every member of the U.S. Congress is profoundly corrupt.
Furthermore: Adam Smith's opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith's neoconservative voting-record, but the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that "Sarah Smith mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy approach," and that she "routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign," only very few of the voters in that district followed such national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in the pocket of 'defense' billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon's big weapons-making firms defeated a progressive who would, if elected, have helped to re-orient federal spending away from selling bombs to be used by the Sauds to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish voting-record, which that district's voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped).
Of course, Greenwald's audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them of how deceitful their Party is. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same way, though using different deceptions, because Republican Party voters have very different priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore other types of deceptions and atrocities.
Numerous polls (for examples, this and this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want "bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality.
That's the way America's Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives' filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way -- and, of course, none does.
Patmos , 8 hours agoAlice-the-dog , 2 hours agoEisenhower originally called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Was probably still when Congress maybe had a few slivers of integrity though.
As McCain's wife said, they all knew about Epstein.
Question_Mark , 1 hour agoAnd now we suffer the Medical Industrial Complex on top of it.
EngageTheRage , 9 hours agoKlaus Schwab, UN/World Economic Forum - power plant "cyberattack" (advance video to 6:42 to skip intro):
please watch video at least from minute 6:42 at least for a few minutes to get context, consider its contents, and comment:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOvz1Flfrfw
source for UN/WEF partnership:
https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-forum-and-un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework/NewDarwin , 9 hours agoHow jewish billionaires control America.
EndOfDayExit , 7 hours agoVot3 for trump but don't waste too much energy on the elections. All Trump can do is buy us time.
Their plan has been in the works for over a century.
1) financial collapse with central banking.
2) social collapse with cultural marxism
3) government collapse with corrupt pedophile politicians.
JGResearch , 8 hours ago"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
Humans are just not wired for eternal vigilance. Sheeple want to graze and don't want to think.
KuriousKat , 8 hours agoMoney is just the tool, it goes much deeper:
The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far
worse than your darkest visions and fears.'
– Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear'The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes' *- Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
This information helps understand the shift to the bias we are witnessing at The PBS Newshour and the MSM. PBS has always taken their marching orders from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Some of the mebers of the CFR:
Joe Biden (47th Vice President of the United States )
Judy Woodruff, and Jim Lehrer (journalist, former anchor for PBS ) is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. John McCain (United States Republican Senator from Arizona , 2008 Republican Party nominee for the Presidency), William F. Buckley, Jr (commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review ), Jeffery E Epstein (financier)
https://www.cfr.org/membership/roster
The Council on Foreign Relations has historical control both the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment until President Trump came along.
Until then they did not care who won the presidency because they control both parties at the top.
FYI: Hardly one person in 1000 ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ). Until Trump both Republicans and Democrats control by the Eastern Establishment.There operational front was the Council on Foreign Relations. Historically they did not care who one the election since they controlled both parties from the top.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nation's wealth. The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every Presidential Administration and cabinet since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders.
Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets include British and American citizens.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
jmNZ , 3 hours agothere are 550 of them in the US..just boggles the mind they have us at each others throat instead of theirs.
x_Maurizio , 2 hours agoThis is why America's only hope is to vote for Ron Paul.
Voice-of-Reason , 6 hours agoLet me understand how a system, which is already proven being disfunctional, should suddenly produce a positive result. That's craziness: to repeate the same action, with the conviction it will give a different result.
If you would say: "The only hope is NOT TO TAKE PART TO THE FARCE" (so not to vote) I'd understand.
But vot for that, instead of this.... what didn't you understand?Eastern Whale , 8 hours agoThe very fact that we have billionaires who amass so much wealth that they can own our Republic is the problem.
MartinG , 5 hours agoall the names mentioned in this article is rotten to the core
Xena fobe , 4 hours agoTell me again how democracy is the greatest form of government. What other profession lets clueless idiots decide who runs the business.
quikwit , 3 hours agoIt isn't the fault of democracy. It's more the fault of voters.
_triplesix_ , 8 hours agoI'd pick the "clueless idiots" over an iron-fisted evil genius every time.
BTCtroll , 7 hours agoAm I the only one who noticed that Eric Zuesse capitalized the word "black" every time he used it?
F**k you, Eric, you Marxist trash.
freedommusic , 4 hours agoConfirmed. Blacks are apparently a proper noun despite being referred to as simply a color. In reality, no one cares. Ask anyone, they don't care expert black lies matter.
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings .
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
Our way of life is under attack.
But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
...I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to re-examine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self restraint, which that danger imposes upon us all.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation and obligation which I share, and that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people, to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and understand them as well, the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program, and the choices that we face.
I am not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully informed.
... that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises, and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger, public opinion.
-- JFK
|
|
|
Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
juliania , Aug 1 2020 14:44 utc | 105
Mao @ 68
This is a golden opportunity, universal mail-in ballots, for the US to transition back to hand written ballots, counted by hand in public (masked, gloved and shielded, open air, social distancing) and accepting of all writeins for the top position, then safely held for any future recounts. This could be done precinct by precinct, or via appropriate other groupings, in a gradual manner, with no deadline as to when the final count would be tallied (It's the virus, you know; we the public shall be patient). It's doable! Observers could be chosen by lot (also out in the open). Twelve ought to do it, for each count. No Brooks Brothers are eligible.
I can't see where this would be anything but simple. A worthy matter to be decided publicly. You want to protest? This is worth protesting about! Organized by the people, for the people. And not any private firm picking up the ballots. Our long suffering public postal service is all we need, thank you!
juliania , Aug 1 2020 14:53 utc | 107
juliania , Aug 1 2020 15:40 utc | 115Grieved @ 72 and psychohistorian above that, I hadn't read your two excellent posts when I gave my bit on mailin ballots, but the same 'weltgeist' seems to be in play.
With the electoral vote being such a bone of contention ever since 2000 in the US, that top-down orchestration is even in play there, with core freedoms having been usurped as the power shifts were undertaken.
I would volunteer for this, and I would march for it also. I'm 80 this month - time to roll up my sleeves!
juliania , Aug 1 2020 15:53 utc | 117This is from Lambert's Water Cooler yesterday at nakedcapitalism.com:-
• Imagine the timeline if Democrats had supported hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted in public after the 2000 debacle. Now we have a system that's broken because both parties want the capacity to steal elections. They made their bed .Also there is a podcast from Barack and Michelle Obama, both pictured. I would not have recognized her. (The picture of Dorian Grey does come to mind.)
Once again, weltgeist. I only just started reading the Watercooler. Lambert even sadly mentions the ailing Post Office, after paying appropriate attention to UPS. All other attention is on Red and Blue: up, up, up. TINA...
This is indeed a very cool thing (kudos to Lambert again):
"...we have two types of immunity: innate immunity, which jumps into action within hours, sometimes just minutes, of an infection; and adaptive immunity, which develops over days and weeks . That antibodies decrease once an infection recedes isn't a sign that they are failing: It's a normal step in the usual course of an immune response. Nor does a waning antibody count mean waning immunity: The memory B cells that first produced those antibodies are still around, and standing ready to churn out new batches of antibodies on demand." • So, even if the bloodstream isn't full of antibodies, the body retains the recipes for them. That is extremely cool." [my bold]And from the NYT this comes, so I guess Times readers profit from being mostly 'up'.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
A User , Jun 16 2020 3:36 utc | 87
I'm always amused, nah that is a little harsh - dumbfounded is more reasonable, when Americans express dismay that 'their' constitution is not being adhered to by the elites.The minutiae of American political history hasn't greatly concerned me after a superficial study at high school, when I realized that the political structure is corrupt and was designed to facilitate corruption.
The seeming caring & sharing soundbites pushed out by the 'framers' scum such as Thomas Jefferson was purely for show, an attempt to gather the cannon fodder to one side. This was simple as the colonial media had been harping on about 'taxation without representation' for decades.
It wasn't just taxes, in fact for the American based elites that was likely the least of it. The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the hands of the new American elites.
A well placed courtier would put a bagman into the regional center of a particular colony (each colony becoming a 'state' post revolution), so that if someone wanted to, I dunno, say export huge quantities of cotton, the courtier would charge that 'colonial' for getting the initial warrant, then take a hefty % of the return on the product - all collected by the on-site bagman then divvied up.
The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he had made his stash.
The system was ponderous inaccurate & very expensive. Something had to be done, but selling revolutionary change to the masses on the basis of the need to enrich the already wealthy was not likely to be a winner. Consequently the high faulting blather.
The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state.
IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Mao , Jun 11 2020 10:10 utc | 100
The nearly complete corruption of the U.S. republican form of government has largely come about due to the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court in January 2010 that basically permitted unlimited donor-spending on political campaigns based on the principle that providing money, normally through a political action committee (PAC), is a form of free speech. The decision paved the way for agenda-driven plutocrats and corporations to largely seize control of the formulation process for certain policies being promoted by the two national parties.
No one has benefited from the new rules more than the state of Israel, whose hundreds of support organizations and principal billionaire funders euphemized as the "Israel Lobby" have entrenched pro-Israel donors as the principal financial resources of both major political parties.
https://ahtribune.com/us/israelgate/4206-ilhan-omar-surrenders.html
|
|
|
Jun 09, 2020 | www.unz.com
Robjil , says: June 8, 2020 at 12:03 pm GMT
anonymous coward , says: June 8, 2020 at 1:03 pm GMTThe western world's biggest problem is the lack and the fear of Athenian Debate.
The west touts the word "Democracy" like crazy. It came from the ancient Greeks.
Yet, the west forgets the biggest part of Athenian Democracy. It is Athenian Debate.
Without Athenian Debate in the west, there are no Democracies in the west.
@RobjilThe western world's biggest problem is the lack and the fear of Athenian Debate.
Pretty sure there's quite a few ones bigger.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
shinola , April 16, 2020 at 3:34 pm
From The Intercept article "Wall Street Titans Finance Democratic Primary Challenger To Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"
"Freedom and democracy are best secured when banking secrecy and tax havens exist," Caruso-Cabrera wrote.
"Plutocratic Primary Challenger" would be more apropos.
edmondo , April 16, 2020 at 7:23 pm
MCC is married to a VC multi-millionaire. To have hubby's business friends throw a couple hundred grand at her is unsurprising. It's kind of like when your kid has to sell chocolate bars so the marching band to go to the Thanksgiving Day parade. I doubt she'll get a thousand votes. It's a lark and great fun to talk about over cocktails with the other Masters of the Universe.
But then again Claire Booth Luce was a Congressperson but she had the good taste to run in Connecticut not the Bronx.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Apr 15 2020 23:23 utc | 76
teatree @71--I see you're busy spreading BigLies. Please, jump out of your tree onto your head. Thanks.
"Neofeudalism by design" is today's Keiser Report Mantra --Max and Stacy present an excellent argument that tries to inform people about what I call the Money Power, which is the collective term for the Central Bank and the "Princely Class" within the Outlaw US Empire. And their critique about Sanders, Biden and "Progressives" I agree with 100%.
Become enlightened and watch at the link.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2020 | www.youtube.com
8 out of 10 Voting Machines, prefer Oligarchy.
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Update (2030ET) : Surprise! AP is reporting that Joe Biden has won the Illinois Democratic Primary ... just as WCIA reported... yesterday
* * *
An Illinois news station accidentally aired election day results on Monday showing former Vice President Joe Biden winning Tuesday 's primary election .
Station WCIA aired the results during a Monday showing of The Price Is Right , indicating Biden defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) by over 93,000 votes.
"While watching The Price is Right our station accidentally runs tomorrow's election results its [sic] Monday our election in Illinois is tomorrow," said Sherry Daughtery, who posted a video of the incident. Station Bureau Chief Mark Maxwell said that it was nothing more than a "routine test" rehearsal, and that airing the dry run was an error, according to Breitbart News .
We do routine test rehearsals before every election to make sure the graphics work properly and to give directors some practice. The error was in putting the dry run on air. That shouldn't have happened and we're looking into it. Obviously, we never intended to give the wrong information or wrong impression . None of those numbers were based on any real polling returns. Since your post is being widely shared, I'd appreciate it if you would consider updating the original post so people don't get the wrong idea. -Mark Maxwell via Sherry Daughtery
Why does this seem to happen just about every election?
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Half Of Young American Democrats Believe Billionaires Do More Harm Than Good by Tyler Durden Sun, 03/15/2020 - 21:25 With income inequality the political hot potato du-jour and wealth concentration at its most extreme since the roaring twenties, is it any wonder that even Americans' view of what used to be called 'success' is now tainted with the ugly taste of partisan 'not-fair'-ism.
Income inequality is roaring...
Wealth concentration is extreme to say the least...
But still, according to Pew Research's latest survey , when asked about the impact of billionaires on the country, nearly four-in-ten adults under age 30 (39%) say the fact that some have fortunes of a billion dollars or more is a bad thing...
...with 50% of young Democrats.
"The recent reigning conventional wisdom over the last several decades of what I call the 'Age of Capital' is that [billionaires] are 'up there' because they are smarter than us," said Anand Giridharadas, author of "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World."
But the Pew data, he says, suggest that young Americans are concluding that billionaires have amassed their wealth "through their rigging of the tax code, through legal political bribery, through their tax avoidance in shelters like the Cayman Islands, and through lobbying for public policy that benefits them privately. "
"Bernie Sanders taught a lot of people [about wealth inequality], including people who did not vote for him," Giridharadas said.
"The billionaire class is 'up there' because they are standing on our backs pinning us down."
The good news - for the rest of America's "capitalists" - is that a majority (58%) say the impact of billionaires on America is neither bad nor good.
Finally, one quick question - where were all these under-30s when Bernie needed them the most in the Primaries? Was it all just virtue-signaling pro-socialist bullshit after all?
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Noah Way , Mar 15 2020 23:48 utc | 44Sanders never had a chance because he represents the majority on almost every issue. That is not acceptable to a democratic party joined at the hip to the republican party, both completely subservient to monied interests.Exits polls in SC, CA, and MA showed large discrepancies in Biden's favor, well out of the margin of error. If the vote count reflected the exit polls Sanders would be well ahead in delegates. The US uses exit polls as a test of validity of foreign elections, but for some reason does not apply that methodology here. Duh.
Nothing new here. In 2006 Clinton Curtis testified in congress about election hacking in Ohio in 2004 where exits polls were wildly different than the final count. The Iowa caucus app debacle was a more visible demonstration of the hacking. No need for superdelegates now, Sleepy Joe has been selected to assure another 4 years of Trump or Trump-like policies.
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org
The Democratic presidential nomination race is a fascinating case study in how power works – not least, because the Democratic party leaders are visibly contriving to impose one candidate, Joe Biden, as the party's nominee, even as it becomes clear that he is no longer mentally equipped to run a local table tennis club let alone the world's most powerful nation.
Biden's campaign is a reminder that power is indivisible. Donald Trump or Joe Biden for president – it doesn't matter to the power-establishment. An egomaniacal man-child (Trump), representing the billionaires, or an elder suffering rapid neurological degeneration (Biden), representing the billionaires, are equally useful to power. A woman will do too, or a person of colour. The establishment is no longer worried about who stands on stage – so long as that person is not a Bernie Sanders in the US, or a Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.
It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies in promoting divisions based on those identities. What concerns it far more is that we might overcome those divisions and unify against it, withdrawing our consent from an establishment committed to endless asset-stripping of our societies and the planet.
Neither Biden nor Trump will obstruct the establishment, because they are at its very heart. The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two candidates, each vetted for obedience to power.
Although a pretty face or a way with words are desirable, incapacity and incompetence are no barrier to qualifying, as the two white men groomed by their respective parties demonstrate. Both have proved they will favour the establishment, both will pursue near-enough the same policies , both are committed to the status quo, both have demonstrated their indifference to the future of life on Earth. What separates the candidates is not real substance, but presentation styles – the creation of the appearance of difference, of choice.
Policing the debate
The subtle dynamics of how the Democratic nomination race is being rigged are interesting. Especially revealing are the ways the Democratic leadership protects establishment power by policing the terms of debate: what can be said, and what can be thought; who gets to speak and whose voices are misrepresented or demonised. Manipulation of language is key.
As I pointed out in my previous post , the establishment's power derives from its invisibility. Scrutiny is kryptonite to power.
The only way we can interrogate power is through language, and the only way we can communicate our conclusions to others is through words – as I am doing right now. And therefore our strength – our ability to awaken ourselves from the trance of power – must be subverted by the establishment, transformed into our Achilles' heel, a weakness.
The treatment of Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the Democratic establishment – and those who eagerly repeat its talking points – neatly illustrates how this can be done in manifold ways.
Remember this all started back in 2016, when Sanders committed the unforgivable sin of challenging the Democratic leadership's right simply to anoint Hillary Clinton as the party's presidential candidate. In those days, the fault line was obvious and neat: Bernie was a man, Clinton a woman. She would be the first woman president. The only party members who might wish to deny her that historic moment, and back Sanders instead, had to be misogynist men. They were supposedly venting their anti-women grudge against Clinton, who in turn was presented to women as a symbol of their oppression by men.
And so was born a meme: the "Bernie Bros". It rapidly became shorthand for suggesting – contrary to all evidence – that Sanders' candidacy appealed chiefly to angry, entitled white men. In fact, as Sanders' 2020 run has amply demonstrated, support for him has been more diverse than for the many other Democratic candidates who sought the nomination.
So important what @ewarren is saying to @maddow about the dangerous, threatening, ugly faction among the Bernie supporters. Sanders either cannot or will not control them. pic.twitter.com/LYDXlLJ7bi
-- Mia Farrow (@MiaFarrow) March 6, 2020
How contrived the 2016 identity-fuelled contest was should have been clear, had anyone been allowed to point that fact out. This wasn't really about the Democratic leadership respecting Clinton's identity as a woman. It was about them paying lip service to her identity as a woman, while actually promoting her because she was a reliable warmonger and Wall Street functionary . She was useful to power.
If the debate had really been driven by identity politics, Sanders had a winning card too: he is Jewish. That meant he could be the United States' first Jewish president. In a fair identity fight, it would have been a draw between the two. The decision about who should represent the Democratic party would then have had to be decided based on policies, not identity. But party leaders did not want Clinton's actual policies, or her political history, being put under the microscope for very obvious reasons.
Weaponisation of identity
The weaponisation of identity politics is even more transparent in 2020. Sanders is still Jewish, but his main opponent, Joe Biden, really is simply a privileged white man. Were the Clinton format to be followed again by Democratic officials, Sanders would enjoy an identity politics trump card. And yet Sanders is still being presented as just another white male candidate , no different from Biden.
(We could take this argument even further and note that the other candidate who no one, least of all the Democratic leadership, ever mentions as still in the race is Tulsi Gabbard, a woman of colour. The Democratic party has worked hard to make her as invisible as possible in the primaries because, of all the candidates, she is the most vocal and articulate opponent of foreign wars. That has deprived her of the chance to raise funds and win delegates.)
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
-- Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) March 3, 2020
Sanders' Jewish identity isn't celebrated because he isn't useful to the power-establishment. What's far more important to them – and should be to us too – are his policies, which might limit their power to wage war, exploit workers and trash the planet.
But it is not just that Democratic Party leaders are ignoring Sanders' Jewish identity. They are also again actively using identity politics against him, and in many different ways.
The 'black' establishment?
Bernie Sanders' supporters have been complaining for some time – based on mounting evidence – that the Democratic leadership is far from neutral between Sanders and Biden. Because it has a vested interest in the outcome, and because it is the part of the power-establishment, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is exercising its influence in favour of Biden. And because power prefers darkness, the DNC is doing its best to exercise that power behind the scenes, out of sight – at least, unseen by those who still rely on the "mainstream" corporate media, which is also part of the power-establishment. As should be clear to anyone watching, the nomination proceedings are being controlled to give Biden every advantage and to obstruct Sanders.
But the Democratic leadership is not only dismissing out of hand these very justified complaints from Bernie Sanders' supporters but also turning these complaints against them, as further evidence of their – and his – illegitimacy. A new way of doing this emerged in the immediate wake of Biden winning South Carolina on the back of strong support from older black voters – Biden's first state win and a launchpad for his Super Tuesday bid a few days later.
It was given perfect expression from Symone Sanders, who despite her surname is actually a senior adviser to Biden's campaign. She is also black. This is what she wrote: "People who keep referring to Black voters as 'the establishment' are tone deaf and have obviously learned nothing."
People who keep referring to Black voters as "the establishment" are tone deaf and have obviously learned nothing.
-- Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) March 3, 2020
Her reference to generic "people" was understood precisely by both sides of the debate as code for those "Bernie Bros". Now, it seems, Bernie Sanders' supporters are not simply misogynists, they are potential recruits to the Ku Klux Klan.
The tweet went viral, even though in the fiercely contested back-and-forth below her tweet no one could produce a single example of anyone actually saying anything like the sentiment ascribed by Symone Sanders to "Bernie Bros". But then, tackling bigotry was not her real goal. This wasn't meant to be a reflection on a real-world talking-point by Bernie supporters. It was high-level gaslighting by a senior Democratic party official of the party's own voters.
Survival of the fittest smear
What Symone Sanders was really trying to do was conceal power – the fact that the DNC is seeking to impose its chosen candidate on party members. As occurred during the confected women-men, Clinton vs "Bernie Bros" confrontation, Symone Sanders was field-testing a similar narrative management tool as part of the establishment's efforts to hone it for improved effect. The establishment has learnt – through a kind of survival of the fittest smear – that divide-and-rule identity politics is the perfect way to shield its influence as it favours a status-quo candidate (Biden or Clinton) over a candidate seen as a threat to its power (Sanders).
In her tweet, Symone Sanders showed exactly how the power elite seeks to obscure its toxic role in our societies. She neatly conflated "the establishment" – of which she is a very small, but well-paid component – with ordinary "black voters". Her message is this: should you try to criticise the establishment (which has inordinate power to damage lives and destroy the planet) we will demonise you, making it seem that you are really attacking black people (who in the vast majority of cases – though Symone Sanders is a notable exception – wield no power at all).
Symone Sanders has recruited her own blackness and South Carolina's "black voters" as a ring of steel to protect the establishment. Cynically, she has turned poor black people, as well as the tens of thousands of people (presumably black and white) who liked her tweet, into human shields for the establishment.
It sounds a lot uglier put like that. But it has rapidly become a Biden talking-point, as we can see here:
NEW: @JoeBiden responds to @berniesanders saying the "establishment" is trying to defeat him.
"The establishment are all those hardworking, middle class people, those African Americans they are the establishment!" @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/43Q2Nci5sS
-- Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) March 4, 2020
The DNC's wider strategy is to confer on Biden exclusive rights to speak for black voters (despite his inglorious record on civil rights issues) and, further, to strip Sanders and his senior black advisers of any right to do so. When Sanders protests about this, or about racist behaviour from the Biden camp, Biden's supporters come out in force and often abusively, though of course no one is upbraiding them for their ugly, violent language. Here is the famous former tennis player Martina Navratilova showing that maybe we should be talking about "Biden Bros":
Sanders is starting to really piss me off. Just shut this kind of crap down and debate the issues. This is not it.
-- Martina Navratilova (@Martina) March 6, 2020
Being unkind to billionaires
This kind of special pleading by the establishment for the establishment – using those sections of it, such as Symone Sanders, that can tap into the identity politics zeitgeist – is far more common than you might imagine. The approach is being constantly refined, often using social media as the ultimate focus group. Symone Sanders' successful conflation of the establishment with "black voters" follows earlier, clumsier efforts by the establishment to protect its interests against Sanders that proved far less effective.
Billionaires should not exist. https://t.co/hgR6CeFvLa
-- Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 24, 2019
Remember how last autumn the billionaire-owned corporate media tried to tell us that it was unkind to criticise billionaires – that they had feelings too and that speaking harshly about them was "dehumanising". Again it was aimed at Sanders, who had just commented that in a properly ordered world billionaires simply wouldn't exist. It was an obvious point: allowing a handful of people to control almost all the planet's wealth was not only depriving the rest of us of that wealth (and harming the planet) but it gave those few billionaires way too much power. They could buy all the media, our channels of communication, and most of the politicians to ringfence their financial interests, gradually eroding even the most minimal democratic protections.
That campaign died a quick death because few of us are actually brainwashed enough to accept the idea that a handful of billionaires share an identity that needs protecting – from us! Most of us are still connected enough to the real world to understand that billionaires are more than capable of looking out for their own interests, without our helping them by imposing on ourselves a vow of silence.
But one cannot fault the power-establishment for being constantly inventive in the search for new ways to stifle our criticisms of the way it unilaterally exercises its power. The Democratic nomination race is testing such ingenuity to the limits. Here's a new rule against "hateful conduct" on Twitter, where Biden's neurological deficit is being subjected to much critical scrutiny through the sharing of dozens of videos of embarrassing Biden "senior moments".
Twitter expanding its hateful conduct rules "to include language that dehumanizes on the basis of age, disability or disease." https://t.co/KmWGaNAG9Z
-- Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) March 5, 2020
Yes, disability and age are identities too. And so, on the pretext of protecting and respecting those identities, social media can now be scrubbed of anything and anyone trying to highlight the mental deficiencies of an old man who might soon be given the nuclear codes and would be responsible for waging wars in the name of Americans. Twitter is full of comments denouncing as "ableist" anyone who tries to highlight how the Democratic leadership is foisting a cognitively challenged Biden on to the party.
Maybe the Dem insiders are all wrong, but it's true that they are saying it. Some are saying it out loud, including Castro at the debate and Booker here: https://t.co/0lbi7RFRqG
-- Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) March 6, 2020
Russian 'agents' and 'assets'
None of this is to overlook the fact that another variation of identity politics has been weaponised against Sanders: that of failing to be an "American" patriot. Again illustrating how closely the Democratic and Republican leaderships' interests align, the question of who is a patriot – and who is really working for the "Russians" – has been at the heart of both parties' campaigns, though for different reasons.
Trump has been subjected to endless, evidence-free claims that he is a secret "Russian agent" in a concerted effort to control his original isolationist foreign policy impulses that might have stripped the establishment – and its military-industrial wing – of the right to wage wars of aggression, and revive the Cold War, wherever it believes a profit can be made under cover of "humanitarian intervention". Trump partly inoculated himself against these criticisms, at least among supporters, with his "Make America Great Again" slogan, and partly by learning – painfully for such an egotist – that his presidential role was to rubber-stamp decisions made elsewhere about waging wars and projecting US power.
I'm just amazed by this tweet, which has been tweeted plenty. Did @_nalexander and all the people liking this not know that Mueller laid out in the indictments of a number of Russians and in his report their help on social media to Sanders and Trump. Help Sanders has acknowledged https://t.co/vuc0lmvvKP
-- Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) December 8, 2019
Bernie Sanders has faced similar smear efforts by the establishment, including by the DNC's last failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton – in his case, painting him as a "Russian asset". ("Asset" is a way to suggest collusion with the Kremlin based on even more flimsy evidence than is needed to accuse someone of being an agent.) In fact, in a world where identity politics wasn't simply a tool to be weaponised by the establishment, there would be real trepidation about engaging in this kind of invective against a Jewish socialist.
One of the far-right's favourite antisemitic tropes – promoted ever since the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion more than 100 years ago – is that Jewish "Bolsheviks" are involved in an international conspiracy to subvert the countries they live in. We have reached the point now that the corporate media are happy to recycle evidence-free claims, cited by the Washington Post, from anonymous "US officials" and US intelligence agencies reinventing a US version of the Protocols against Sanders. And these smears have elicited not a word of criticism from the Democratic leadership nor from the usual antisemitism watchdogs that are so ready to let rip over the slightest signs of what they claim to be antisemitism on the left.
But the urgency of dealing with Sanders may be the reason normal conventions have been discarded. Sanders isn't a loud-mouth egotist like Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for the establishment, if for one of its number who pretends to be against the establishment. Trump has been largely tamed in time for a second term. By contrast, Sanders, like Corbyn in the UK, is more dangerous because he may resist the efforts to domesticate him, and because if he is allowed any significant measure of political success – such as becoming a candidate for president – it may inspire others to follow in his footsteps. The system might start to throw up more anomalies, more AOCs and more Ilhan Omars.
So Sanders is now being cast, like Trump, as a puppet of the Kremlin, not a true American. And because he made the serious mistake of indulging the "Russiagate" smears when they were used against Trump, Sanders now has little defence against their redeployment against him. And given that, by the impoverished standards of US political culture, he is considered an extreme leftist, it has been easy to conflate his democratic socialism with Communism, and then conflate his supposed Communism with acting on behalf of the Kremlin (which, of course, ignores the fact that Russia long ago abandoned Communism).
Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Let me tell this to Putin -- the American people, whether Republicans, Democrats, independents are sick and tired of seeing Russia and other countries interfering in our elections." pic.twitter.com/ejcP7YVFlt
-- The Hill (@thehill) February 21, 2020
Antisemitism smear at the ready
There is a final use of weaponised identity politics that the Democratic establishment would dearly love to use against Sanders, if they need to and can get away with it. It is the most toxic brand – and therefore the most effective – of the identity-based smears, and it has been extensively field-tested in the UK against Jeremy Corbyn to great success. The DNC would like to denounce Sanders as an antisemite.
In fact, only one thing has held them back till now: the fact that Sanders is Jewish. That may not prove an insuperable obstacle, but it does make it much harder to make the accusation look credible. The other identity-based smears had been a second-best, a make-do until a way could be found to unleash the antisemitism smear.
The establishment has been testing the waters with implied accusations of antisemitism against Sanders for a while, but their chances were given a fillip recently when Sanders refused to participate in the annual jamboree of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent lobby group whose primary mission is to ringfence Israel from criticism in the US. Both the Republican and Democratic establishments turn out in force to the AIPAC conference, and in the past the event has attracted keynote speeches from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But Sanders has refused to attend for decades and maintained that stance this month, even though he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. In the last primaries debate, Sanders justified his decision by rightly calling Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "racist" and by describing AIPAC as providing a platform "for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights".
Trump's Vice-President, Mike Pence, responded that Sanders supported "Israel's enemies" and, if elected, would be the "most anti-Israel president in the history of this nation" – all coded suggestions that Sanders is antisemitic.
But that's Mike Pence. More useful criticism came from billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who is himself Jewish and was until last week posing as a Democrat to try to win the party's nomination. Bloomberg accused Sanders of using dehumanising language against a bunch of inclusive identities that, he improbably suggested, AIPAC represents. He claimed :
"This is a gathering of 20,000 Israel supporters of every religious denomination, ethnicity, faith, color, sexual identity and political party. Calling it a racist platform is an attempt to discredit those voices, intimidate people from coming here, and weaken the US-Israel relationship."
Where might this head? At the AIPAC conference last week we were given a foretaste. Ephraim Mirvis, the chief rabbi of the UK and a friend to Conservative government leader Boris Johnson, was warmly greeted by delegates, including leading members of the Democratic establishment. He boasted that he and other Jewish leaders in the UK had managed to damage Jeremy Corbyn's electoral chances by suggesting that he was an antisemite over his support, like Sanders, for Palestinian rights.
His own treatment of Corbyn, he argued, offered a model for US Jewish organisations to replicate against any leadership contender who might pose similar trouble for Israel, leaving it for his audience to pick up the not-so-subtle hint about who needed to be subjected to character assassination.
WATCH: "Today I issue a call to the Jews of America, please take a leaf out of our book and please speak with one voice."
The Chief Rabbi speaking to the 18,000 delegates gathered at the @AIPAC General Session at their Policy Conference in Washington DC pic.twitter.com/BOkan9RA2O
-- Chief Rabbi Mirvis (@chiefrabbi) March 3, 2020
Establishment playbook
For anyone who isn't wilfully blind, the last few months have exposed the establishment playbook: it will use identity politics to divide those who might otherwise find a united voice and a common cause.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating one's identity, especially if it is under threat, maligned or marginalised. But having an attachment to an identity is no excuse for allowing it to be coopted by billionaires, by the powerful, by nuclear-armed states oppressing other people, by political parties or by the corporate media, so that they can weaponise it to prevent the weak, the poor, the marginalised from being represented.
It is time for us to wake up to the tricks, the deceptions, the manipulations of the strong that exploit our weaknesses – and make us yet weaker still. It's time to stop being a patsy for the establishment. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Jonathan Cook
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is http://www.jonathan-cook.net/
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2020 | off-guardian.org
The handful of American citizens who have by some miracle escaped the wave of death caused by the coronavirus will be braving the toilet-paper maddened crowds to vote in the latest round of Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe Biden.
Since his "miraculous" wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis. You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
None of the mainstream media have questioned the validity of results or the fairness of the electoral process, although given the DNC's history you'd be forgiven for doing so.
After Biden's win, Trump immediately went on the offensive (so to speak), questioning Biden's mental acuity . This is likely just a taste of things to come.
It has to be said, Biden is vulnerable in this area. Seeing as he seemingly can't go a single public appearance without forgetting what day it is , what position he's running for , the words of the Declaration of Independence , who his wife is , or his own name .
Given this, you have to wonder what the point of the exercise is. Biden will likely be mauled by Trump, so are the Democrats even trying to win? Is the plan for Biden to have "health problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC to pick its own candidate? Or is the plan to have him run, win and then get Ned Starked by his vice-president whoever he or (more likely) she may be?
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
It seems like Bernie is a serial offender here. Setting up hope only to fold faster than Superman on laundry day when the pressure is on. You wonder if he's being used as a tool to engage the youth vote, or just a puppet designed to funnel all real leftist thinkers into a political cul-de-sac.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream media have been quiet about.
Questions arise
Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe Biden? why?! Are they planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each candidate pick as a running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
NOBTS ,
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi so she can debate Joe Biden on Sunday; then watch the fur fly. .last chance for the left.
Seriously, the only positive play left for Bernie, (if positive change is his intent )would be to immediately drop out and throw a "Hail Tulsi Pass" downfield ahead of the Sunday debate.michaelk ,
One would imagine that Tulsi Gabbard would tick all the liberal/left boxes and virtues the Guardian pretends to adore and aspire to. She seems almost too perfect in my eyes another story perhaps? Anyway, one wonders what all those politically correct and so obvioulsy woke feminist ladies at the Guardian have against Tulsi? The Guardian seems to have decided that its future lies overseas, in America, which is very odd for a newspaper/platform based in the UK? Consequently, they are increasingly obsessed with moving closer and closer to the Democrat party in the US.This is like the BBC that keeps talking to Americans about absolutely everything of importance that happens in the world and seeking their insights and opinions to a truly remarkably degree, considering how little they know and understand about the rest of the world and how poor they are at foreign languages and historical knowledge. Christ they know next to nothing about their own history, let alone the rest of the world! The idea that all these Americans are authorities on the world is ridiculous.
Harry Stotle ,
The ghosting of Gabbard illustrates how the MSM act in concert, and how they look after their own, i.e. backing those understand their role as puppets for corporate backers.It also illustrates how the likes of the Guardian turn identity politics off and on like a tap, but more importantly how even shibboleths like identity politics are still secondary to an economic model that has placed us on the road to armegeddon.
Maxine ,
Well, Tulsi is FAR from "too perfect" .She voluntarily took part in the Bush/Cheny invasion of Iraq .How could anybody with a working mind have believed the lies of these nortorious criminals? .And what sort of judgement did this show? .Just as bad, she is a big fan of India's monstrous Right-Wing leader, Modi .Nevertheless, the DNC's throwing her out of the debate is another hideous sign of its corruption .Like her or not, she should have her opinions heard by the public.Maxine ,
Don't get me wrong, I find the Gaurdian as despicable as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the NYT and the rest of the American MSM .OffG is a god-send.Admin2 ,
Thanks Maxine!michaelk ,
One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America.Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again.
Now it's all about stopping the 'monster' Trump first and foremost. The coming election won't actually be about anything of real substance, nothing like Bernie's political ideas about healthcare and education; but it'll be a crass referendum about Trump's personality. Biden, of course, doesn't really have a personality anymore, that's going fast, along with his mental capacity.
Trump will smash him to pieces and be re-elected again. Four more years, at least.
Maxine ,
I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary on behalf of Hillary .But I was overwhelmingly disappointed that he in the end supported her .Sadly, I am appalled that once again he announced he would support Biden if the latter won the primary this time. How could he?. Hillary and Biden are diametrically opposed to every one of Sander's professed principles!Andy ,
With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money grubbing ways.As for Michelle Obama coming into the fight , I can only laugh and carry on with my life. I fail to see what she has to offer, other than being Barry's wife. Not really awe – inspiring stuff. Young Hilary must be turning in her coffin at the thought of being pipped to the post, as the first female President by another ex presidents wife.
We truly are living in bizarro times. The men behind the curtain must be laughing their collective arses off at the results of this circus they have created.
binra ,
Tulsi is inspirational. I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption.harry stotle ,
America dispensed with the idea of democracy some time ago.The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies, injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive end-point.
There may be a full blown international conflict, rather than asymmetrical power used to intimidate weaker states (led by the USA, and backed to the hilt by Britain, Israel, and KSA).
These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this morass.
Pity more citizens in America fail to understand what has been done to them, or what this corrupt regime has inflicted on rest of the world.
Britain is no better – to expose what is happening we need a functioning MSM but what we have instead is the Guardian and BBC: platforms that are now infamous for churning out low calibre, or fake news.
different frank ,
https://twitter.com/i/status/1237466070145007617Seamus Padraig ,
Is the plan for Biden to have "health problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC to pick its own candidate?
That's my theory. I think they're going to suddenly 'discover' that Joltin' Joe has 'health problems' and then roll out their real candidate on the second ballot at the convention this summer–probably Michelle Obama.
Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
I think our only hope now is that the Corona Virus kills all other politicians in the US, leaving only Tulsi alive. Of course, the DNC would probably still find some way to deny her the nomination somehow
michaelk ,
The DNC's election tactics were superb. Corrupt, rotten, foul and manipulative as well, but they worked. The swathe of candidates at the start gave the impression of a democratic and fair race, whilst deflecting people away from the stark choice of supporting Biden or Sanders from the beginning.Whilst Trump succeeded by first capturing the Republican party and then going on to win the presidential election; Sanders chose not to follow that strategy, apparently believing, though it's an extraordinary thing to believe, that the leadership of the party was going to allow him to win the nomination 'fairly.'
Biden against Trump is going to be the worst, most grotesque, election contest, ever seen in the United States. Two totally unworthy candidates battling it out over the rotting corpse of a dying democracy. Probably the best result would be if most people just stayed at home on election day and boycotted the entire ghastly event.
wardropper ,
Yes. People should just stay home. But of course there is a regular percentage of observers who are incensed by the idea that people will realize how little effect their vote truly has."It's treason not to vote", they rage, quite oblivious to the really treasonous system which manipulates votes according to something quite different from the interests of democracy.
wardropper ,
It would be interesting to see, (although it's not going to happen) how the media, faced with an absolute zero voting turnout, would still manage to yap on about a "neck and neck race", with the most corrupt party emerging the clear winner after allGary Weglarz ,
The Democratic Party candidate selection process continues to roll along providing all the tension and suspense of an impending colonoscopy – sans anesthetic. It has been clear since 25 (yes 25) Democratic Party challengers have already "dropped out" of the race – that divide and conquer would be the order of the day. Spread the electorate out among a ridiculous number of mainstream centrist candidates and then throw all that support to one candidate – Joe Biden. Why would the party establishment choose Biden? Perhaps the following recent quote from Joe might shed some light. In trying to reference the Declaration of Independence Biden had the following to say to a crowd at a campaign rally:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women created by -- you know, you know . . . the thing."
Since we all know "the thing" is said to "work in mysterious ways" – one can deduce that the Democratic Party elites are perhaps depending upon "the thing" to work some sort of a miracle for them. At any rate it is all rather "mysterious" indeed.
Since Tulsi Gabbard has had the temerity to not join the 25 brain-dead placeholders and to "drop out" herself, and since she has further shown the very bad form of continuing to speak to anyone who will listen about America's illegal amoral regime-change wars – she has sadly had to be simply – "disappeared." Yes, I know, this term is usually associated with the death-squad democracies my government supports endlessly and shamelessly in Latin America, but if nothing else our American MSM have shown that you don't need death squads when they are on the job. They are quite capable of completely and entirely "disappearing" anyone sharing a message that has not been – "oligarchy approved." Trying to find reference to Tulsi in MSM is like trying to get through a day without being brutally reminded of Joe Biden's blinding dementia problem – pretty much impossible.
As the author suggests the Democratic Party establishment surely must have some plan other than simply sabotaging Sanders and then throwing a demented Biden to the Orange One to act as a pinata during the presidential debates. We American's do love "reality TV," but this I fear would be about as crass and horrific a spectacle as watching someone drown puppies on live television. Surely we must assume that the DNC and party oligarchy plan to use Biden as yet another "place-holder" to be replaced between now and fall presidential debates. The name "Hillary 'the rot' Clinton comes to mind – and suddenly one is reminded that there are worse things in life than a colonoscopy.
Of course the actual credibility of all of this spectacle to date depends upon one actually believing that both the polling numbers, and the voting processes, are honest and ethical and accurate, which seems to me to be about as likely as "you know, you know . . . the thing," performing some sort of a "miracle" on behalf of the Democratic Party so that it can valiantly vanquish the Orange One – using of all things – a dementia sufferer.
From my limited vantage point here in southern California it would appear that America is very much like a runaway train speeding toward a very very thick brick wall while gaining speed minute by minute. This train of course has no "driver" – save the inexorable laws of history as they pertain to crumbling "empires."
With that in mind I think I'll go shopping again so I can pretend none of this is happening – while joining with my neighbors in "hoarding" as much toilet paper as I possibly can! Actually, truth be told, the local toilet paper supply is now long gone and people are now hoarding paper towels – (I kid you not) – which of course portends a lot of very very sore bottoms by the time this is all over.
Seamus Padraig ,
You can have a dogshit sandwich or a catshit sandwich, just so long as its kosher.
So true! +1000
Charlotte Russe ,
Unfortunately, for all of Bernie's enthusiastic supporter 2020 was a redux of 2016. Amnesia, initially sets in caused by the initial excitement. Bernie's campaign overwhelms those yearning for change. Sanders is cognizant of how young voters and the marginalized are economically suffering. He knows exactly what to say to arouse an audience of thousands.Devoted crowds eagerly rally around Bernie anticipating the upcoming primaries, believing he'll win everyone of them. After all, how could anyone be against a message promoting social justice.
And lo and behold, right out of the box the security state shenanigans begin. A "Shadow app" surfaces in Iowa, followed by a narrow win in New Hampshire. And although Bernie won the popular vote in the first two primaries he still comes out the loser to CIA Pete. However, not to be deterred Bernie won the Nevada caucus in a landslide. That was the moment when security state needed to make its move. It was now or never. These ghouls could not let Bernie pick up any more momentum. If they did, it would be too late to stop him–Milwaukee could turn into a bloodbath. It was time for the intelligence agencies to take a stand.
Clyburn a sellout bourgeois conservative black was called upon to do his duty. You don't get to be a "misleader" of the poor and the dejected if you won't convince them to smile while jumping off a cliff.
Slick Clyburn, gathered all the other crooked black politicians and they united in force behind brain dead Biden. When misleader Clyburn speaks his downtrodden constituency listens. South Carolina was a wipeout–Biden overwhelmingly won. And that's all the security state needed. Using the state-run mainstream media news propaganda machine in 72 hours Biden's campaign was raised like Lazarus from the dead.
Drooling Joe, received a slew of slick endorsements from all the longtime party hacks. A narrative was easily generated– Sanders was a loser and only Biden could beat Trump. At the end of day, don't you dumbasses want to beat Trump. So let's unite behind alzheimer Joe–he's our best chance.
As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC.
He never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. There were other things showing Bernie's lack of interest in winning. He stupidly embraced the Russiagate concocted narrative and then was victimized by it himself. He refused to tear into Biden describing in detail how every piece of reactionary legislation Joe passed was based on payoffs he'd received for either his son or his brother. In South Carolina, Bernie never used the millions donated to play video clips proving Biden is a warmongering racist.
Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden?
The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the DNC.
Naturally the DNC didn't want Tulsi near the debate stage–she's the bravest of the lot. Tulsi would have proved Biden was a crook and a war criminal. Tulsi presence would be a boom for bernie, but Bernie didn't want that since he was in cahoots with the DNC.
And in the end, that's what it was always all about NOTHING. Bernie is the Tammy and Jim Baker of politics a prophet of false hope. He gathers up all the guiless and guillibe and then tosses them into the lion's den.
In Biden's case it's easy to know why the slithering DC establishment gang embraced him with open arms -- they all wanted to come back home
Here are some of the people Biden is considering for senior positions, per Axios:
- "Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank. Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race.
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason.
- Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, as the US ambassador to the United Nations or the US trade representative. Buttigieg also endorsed Biden shortly after dropping out.
- Some Biden advisers see Sen. Kamala Harris of California as a contender for attorney general if she's not on the ticket.
- JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bank of America Vice Chairman Anne Finucane have both been floated for positions at the Treasury Department.
- The Biden campaign is also considering a slew of veterans from the Obama administration for key positions. Among those being considered:
- Former Secretary of State John Kerry may reprise his role or take on a Cabinet position focused on combating climate change.
- The former national security adviser Susan Rice may be nominated for a State Department role.
- Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a contender for attorney general."
Every loathsome contemptible neoliberal military interventionist is waiting in the wings to continue where Obama left off ..
Gall ,
Super Tuesday was so obviously rigged. The vote in California deviated from exit polling by over 15% and don't get me started on that Shadow app used for the Iowa caucus. The only difference wasn't as blatantly obvious as the last Primary.Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play.
Charlotte Ruse ,
Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden.In avid Bernie locations polling centers were closed. And when all else failed voting machines are hacked. No one should underate the power of state-run mainstream media propaganda they hammered Sanders and launded the creep Biden.
And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in it to win it.
The elections are more democratic in Afghanistan. When I previously commented on several posts the Democratic Party Primaries need to be monitored by a UN Raconteur many found it amusing.
Maxine ,
Why did Bernie become a candidate if he were not in it to win? .I can't figure that one out.Eric McCoo ,
Blackmail ? The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election – Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397RealPeter ,
There is a lot in what Charlotte says. Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting worse.Andy ,
Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday. http://tdmsresearch.com/Ken ,
The fix is in for the status quo, and it's quite likely another 4 years of the orange asshole.RobG ,
The real left in America was destroyed in the early 20th century. What goes now is a complete joke. https://www.youtube.com/embed/LehcJeNbFBw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparentGeoffrey Skoll ,
Everybody knows (listen to Leonard Cohen) Tulsi Gabbard does not exist, just like everybody knows Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, Assad, that Putin Nazi, spread some kind of Bad Gas in Douma, repeatededly over several years since 2014, which the Intrepid White Helmets made better–just watch their Hollywood, Oscar winning movie. Of course Joe Biden is senile, else why would he challenge our carrot-topped Fearless leader, and everybody knows that Putin-Nazi Boris and Natasha tried to rig the 2016 election but were thwarted by Moose-Squirel, and other CIA assets.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter Fenton , Mar 10 2020 18:18 utc | 9
Election results from the computerized vote counts of the 2020 California Democratic Party presidential primary differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll's closing.According to the exit poll Sanders won big in CA (by 15%). The unobservable computer counts cut his lead by half (to 7.3%).
In the total delegate count to date, substituting the estimated California and Texas exit poll delegate apportionments for the apportionments derived from the computer counts, results in candidate Sanders currently leading candidate Biden by 42 delegates instead of trailing by 45.
The possibility exists that massive voter suppression is currently occurring during the extended unfinished count of California ballots.
information_agent , Mar 10 2020 18:20 utc | 10
ben , Mar 10 2020 22:17 utc | 21@Peter Fenton
As soon as electronic voting machines were introduced, exit polls stopped being accurate. Weird, isn't it?
ben , Mar 10 2020 22:23 utc | 22US POLITICSMarch 9, 2020
"The Grayzone and CODEPINK demand emergency OAS election observers in 2020 Democratic presidential primary"An excerpt from my article posted @ 21;Jackrabbit , Mar 10 2020 23:49 utc | 34"In light of clear irregularities in voting results in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary and structural barriers to voter participation, The Grayzone and CODEPINK call on the Organization of American States (OAS) to provide emergency international election monitors in the primary contest."
"The OAS must send an emergency election monitoring team to the United States to ensure independent scrutiny of a presidential primary that has been marred by clear irregularities and the systematic and highly discriminatory obstruction of citizens' right to vote," Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal stated. "
Merlin2 @27: ... where's Circe?Copeland , Mar 10 2020 23:59 utc | 35ben @22 has already informed us that he's busy trying to get election monitors:
"The Grayzone and CODEPINK call on the Organization of American States (OAS) to provide emergency international election monitors ..." Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal stated."
!!
There is nothing subtle about paring down the number of polling stations in populous areas, or having malfunctioning voting machines, or the surprise of buggered up voter lists, scrambled with typos, that keep people from getting hold of a ballot.Morbidist , Mar 11 2020 0:34 utc | 36As much as I'm sure election interference is a factor, I think the biggest story of the primary is the credulity and submissiveness of the average Democratic voter. Republican voters gave the middle finger to their establishment and hoisted Trump into the presidency.Democrats were stampeded into the arms of a demented old segregationist by a pork-fattened Uncle Tom (Clyburn) and the pansies at MSNBC and the Washington Post. It's a true sight to behold---Super Tuesday may have been a self inflicted deathblow for the old jackasses; I will watch the party die with glee.
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2020 | www.wsws.org
The campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is making a last-ditch stand in the Michigan primary Tuesday, amid mounting indications that the Democratic Party as a whole has moved decisively into the camp of his main rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Sanders cancelled rallies in Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois -- all states where he trails Biden in the polls -- in order to concentrate all his efforts in Michigan, where he won an upset victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
On Sunday, Senator Kamala Harris endorsed Biden, the latest of nine former presidential contenders to announce their support for their one-time rival, joining Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg, Beto O'Rourke, John Delaney, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, and Deval Patrick. Harris is to join Biden for a campaign rally in Detroit Monday.
The consolidation of the Democratic Party behind Biden is a damning exposure, not merely of the politically reactionary character of this organization, but of the contemptible falsification on which the Sanders campaign has been based: that it is possible to transform the Democratic Party, the oldest American capitalist party, into the spearhead of a "political revolution" that will bring about fundamental social change.
Former Vice President Biden is the personification of the decrepit and right-wing character of the Democratic Party. In the past 10 days alone, Biden has declared himself a candidate for the US Senate, rather than president, confused his wife and his sister as they stood on either side of him, called himself an "Obiden Bama Democrat," and declared that 150 million Americans died in gun violence over the past decade. This is not just a matter of Biden's declining mental state: it is the Democratic Party, not just its presidential frontrunner, that is verging on political senility.
It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, as well as the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee, aims to run the 2020 campaign on the exact model of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016: portraying Trump as personally unqualified to be president and as a Russian stooge, while opposing any significant social reform and delivering constant reassurances to the ruling financial aristocracy that a restored Democratic administration will follow in the footsteps of Obama, showering trillions on Wall Street and doing the bidding of the military-intelligence apparatus.
One could ask of the nine ex-candidates who have now endorsed Biden, why they were candidates in the first place? Why did they bother to run against the former vice president, clearly the preferred candidate of the party establishment? None of them voices any significant political differences with Biden. All of them hail the right-wing political record of the Obama-Biden administration, even though that administration produced the social and economic devastation that made possible the election of Donald Trump.
Even more revolting, if that is possible, is the embrace of Biden by the black Democratic politicians. The former senator from Delaware is identified with some of the most repugnant episodes in the history of race relations in America: the abusive treatment of Anita Hill, when she testified against the nomination of Clarence Thomas, before Biden's Judiciary Committee; an alliance with segregationist James Eastland on school integration in the early 1970s, highlighted at a debate by Kamala Harris, eight months before she endorsed Biden; and the passage of a series of "law-and-order" bills that disproportionately jailed hundreds of thousands of African Americans, all of them pushed through the Senate by Biden.
How did a politician who boasted of his close relationships with Eastland and Strom Thurmond become the beneficiary of a virtual racial bloc vote by African Americans in the Southern states? Because African American Democratic Party leaders, including Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina and hundreds of others, represent one of the most right-wing and politically corrupt sections of the party.
The thinking of this layer was summed up in a column Saturday in the Washington Post by Colbert King, a former State Department official and local banker, a prominent member of the African American elite in the nation's capital, who wrote in outrage, "America's black billionaires have no place in a Bernie Sanders world."
King denounced the suggestion that black CEOs and billionaires are "greedy, corrupt threats to America's working families or the cause of economic disparities and human misery." Voicing the fears of his class, he continued, "I know there are those out there who buy the notion that America consists of a small class of privileged, rapacious super-rich lording over throngs of oppressed, capitalist-exploited workers. You can see it in poll numbers showing the share of Americans who prefer socialism to capitalism inching upward."
What the Washington Post columnist reveals is what Bernie Sanders has done his best to cover up: the Democratic Party is a party of the capitalist class. It can no more be converted to socialism than the CIA can become an instrument of the struggle against American imperialism.
True, Sanders can dredge up Jesse Jackson for a last-minute endorsement, proof that demagogues engaged in diverting mass left-wing sentiment into the graveyard of the Democratic Party recognize and embrace each other across the decades. But with that exception, the entire black Democratic Party establishment has lined up behind Biden -- including, most recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Senator Kamala Harris.
Harris's statement is worth quoting. "I have decided that I am with great enthusiasm going to endorse Joe Biden for president of the United States," she said. "I believe in Joe. I really believe in him, and I have known him for a long time." The senator was no doubt responding to the incentives dangled in front of her by Biden after she left the race last December, when he gushed, "She is solid. She can be president someday herself. She can be the vice president. She can go on to be a Supreme Court justice. She can be an attorney general."
Sanders seeks to counter this all-out Democratic Party campaign for Biden by seeking to woo sections of the trade union bureaucracy with appeals to economic nationalism. New Sanders television ads in Michigan feature a United Auto Workers member declaring that his state "has been decimated by trade deals," while Sanders declares that Biden backed NAFTA, drawing the conclusion, "With a record like that, we can't trust him to protect American jobs or defeat Donald Trump." The Vermont senator will find that very few auto workers follow the political lead of the corrupt gangsters who head the UAW.
More than 13 million people, mainly workers and youth, voted for Sanders in 2016 in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Millions more continue to support him this year, with the same result. Sanders will wrap up his campaign by embracing the right-wing nominee of the Democratic Party and telling his supporters that this is the only alternative to the election, and now re-election of Trump.
Indeed, in appearances on several Sunday television interview programs, Sanders went out of his way to repeat, as he said on Fox News, "Joe Biden is a friend of mine. Joe Biden is a decent guy. What Joe has said is if I win the nomination, he'll be there for me, and I have said if he wins the nomination, I'll be there for him "
|
|
|
Mar 08, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
David Carl Grimes , March 6, 2020 at 4:39 pm
How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won.
Hillary had tons of endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she didn't win as many. This does not compute.
The only difference is Biden is personally more appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did not?
flora , March 6, 2020 at 4:50 pm
The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet now)
Tvc15 , March 6, 2020 at 5:14 pm
I'll put the foil bonnet on Flora. DCG, the fishy smell is election fraud courtesy of the DNC. Unless we have paper ballots hand counted in public, I don't buy the miraculous Biden resurgence narrative from his supposed silent majority. Give me a family blogging break.
Cuibono , March 6, 2020 at 6:42 pm
I absolutely fail to understand why anyone would consider this idea tin foil. Who do we think we're dealing with here? These folks are playing to win and they will do anything and everything in their power to do so. The system is set up perfectly to support psychopaths
lyman alpha blob , March 6, 2020 at 10:01 pm
Me neither. That fact that the Democrat party has never even tried to address the problems with election integrity, even when they've had the presidency stolen from them, speaks volumes.
They allow a phony riot to stop the count in FL, then hardly make a peep when the Supremes anoint Bush in 2000 in a decision not meant to set precedent, and their response is the Help America Vote Act which foisted these easily hackable machines on us as a solution? The only reason you do that is if you want to be able to rig elections yourself.
After the debacle of the Iowa caucus this year and the unheard of swing to Biden this week, it sure looks like the fix is in.
Carolinian , March 6, 2020 at 6:31 pm
Please educate me–no seriously!–as to how hand marked paper ballots are so very different from machine marked paper ballots. If you assume that machine marked ballots–marked with the candidate's name (written in human readable English) and securely stored for a potential hand recount–are crooked then aren't you assuming that the entire election machinery is crooked and not just a vote tabulating machine? After all long before computers were invented there was that thing called ballot box stuffing.
Reply ↓flora , March 6, 2020 at 7:45 pm
Machine marked ballots have a middleman. Said machines 'phone home' to a central server, which may well be running a program that fractionally 'shifts' votes as needed to edge out a win for the estab preferred candidate (of either party). The 'red shift' in vote results after electronic voting has been noted by statisticians.
One interesting coincidence here is that I was going to link to some statisticians' work I know of, work that was easily available online as late as early January this year. When I search for the links now they are either gone or the links are warned off as 'suspect'.
flora , March 6, 2020 at 7:53 pm
Info easily found online. Here's one very recent story's take away:
"Some of the most popular ballot-marking machines, made by industry leaders Election Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, register votes in bar codes that the human eye cannot decipher. That's a problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what's tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate.
"Even on machines that do not use bar codes, voters may not notice if a hack or programming error mangled their choices. A University of Michigan study determined that only 7 percent of participants in a mock election notified poll workers when the names on their printed receipts did not match the candidates they voted for."
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/vendors-push-risky-new-voting-machines-over-safe-paper-ballots/
Read the whole story.
Carolinian , March 6, 2020 at 8:10 pm
In the just past election are there any reports of ballots being printed out that had a different name than the one the voter selected to be printed? And if that did happen would it be anything other than accidentally pressing the wrong button? Surely if this "voters didn't look at the ballot" (which personally I greatly doubt) idea was really the cheating scheme then it would be highly likely to be exposed.
flora , March 6, 2020 at 8:14 pm
Re-read the part about the 'computer reads and tabulates the barcode information, not the english text printout'. A hack or middleman could fiddle the barcode printout/information (unrecognized by the human eye) , not the text printout.
flora , March 6, 2020 at 8:24 pm
Also consider that the fiddle works best if it's only a few percentage points different than expected, one way or the other. People then say of unexpected results, 'oh, it was really close, but that's how it goes, elections can be unpredictable', and accept the election results as 'the will of the people.' It's called "electronic fractional vote shifting". Really. It's called that. Fractional vote shifting.
Carolinian , March 6, 2020 at 8:35 pm
Right–without a doubt. But the reason it prints that piece of paper is for a later human audit by eye should a recount be demanded. In that case the barcode would become irrelevant. There is a paper trail.
That said, I would agree there could be secret ballot concerns about the way I voted. You feed the ballot into the counter right side up and unfolded with an election "helper" standing nearby.
Reply ↓flora , March 6, 2020 at 9:00 pm
One reason both parties prefer 'close elections'. A few points either way won't raise eyebrows. Won't raise a demand for a recount. (And, like compound interest, a 'few points' one way or the other in various elections, over time, can add up to large effects in political direction. imo.)
lyman alpha blob , March 6, 2020 at 10:12 pm
The problem is getting to the recount. My state does not allow recounts unless the machine tally is extremely close. So if you want to rig an election, just make sure your candidate wins by enough and there will never be a recount of those machine counted paper ballots.
I asked city officials for a few years to do recounts just to audit the machines, and was told it was not allowed under state law unless there was a close enough race – I believe the threshhold is in the low single digits. My wife later ran for office and lost by about 1% and I was finally able to get a recount. We counted all the ballots by hand and while the final outcome didn't change, what we found was that the hand recount tallied about 1-2% more votes than the machines had.
flora is right about the close elections. I find it very odd that in my younger days we had landslides fairly often and now every presidential election goes right down to the wire.
Tom Bradford , March 6, 2020 at 8:04 pm
OK. This is my experience as a counter in a UK General Election, where hand-marked ballot-papers are counted in public.
Each voting station has a sealed tin box. Arriving to vote your name is checked against the electoral role and you are handed a ballot paper. You go into a curtained booth with a stand-up desk and a pencil in a string and put a X in a box opposite the candidate you vote for. Outside the booth you fold your ballot paper and post it into the box through a narrow slot. When the election closes the box is delivered to – in our case – the town-hall – where the counters sit at tables three to a side with a team-leader at the head. One of the boxes is brought to each table, unsealed and the contents dumped into the middle of it. Each counter then snags a pile of marked votes and sorts them into piles as voted. Any uncertainties – where the vote isn't obvious – is passed up to the team leader for assessment. When all the votes are tallied – including the uncertainties – the total is compared with the note from the polling station stating the number of votes cast there, and if they don't agree the count for that box is done again.
All this is done under the eyes of representatives of the candidates who are free to move around the tables at will, and who in particular can watch over the team-leaders dealing with the uncertain ballot papers, but who are free to challenge any counter's tally.
Ballot boxes could be 'switched' between the voting station and the count, but that would only work if you knew how many papers were in the box per the count or could also substitute the tally signed off by the polling-station superintendent. Ballot-box stuffing wouldn't work as again the votes cast and counted for that box/station would not align.
Could it be gamed? I suppose, but it would take a massive effort and conspiracy – mostly at the polling-station/transit stage, tho' again the candidates can have observers there. The whole system is run by the local authority and most of those involved in the polling-station/count are local authority workers with their own political preferences so finding enough to suborn to fix the count would be a difficult, and politically dangerous operation. Even if one polling-station's box was corrupted in some way it would have little effect on the overall result, and if it stood out as atypical could invite investigation.
So no, it's not perfect, but I can't think of a better way of doing it.
Tom Bradford , March 6, 2020 at 8:15 pm
Ps. Each voting paper is numbered and taken from a book leaving a stub with the same number. So to 'stuff' or otherwise tamper with the voting papers in the box you'd also need to swap the actual voting paper book with a substitute bearing the same number system and I think, tho' don't quote me on this, books of ballot papers for the various polling stations are only issued on election day and at random.
Reply ↓flora , March 6, 2020 at 9:24 pm
Could it be gamed? I suppose, but it would take a massive effort
The 'massive effort' part is where computer voting can eliminate so much effort (when properly coded or uplinked), if you take my meaning.
Watt4Bob , March 6, 2020 at 8:40 pm
IIRC, in a nut-shell, some of the systems used have a bar code printed on the ballot at the time they are scanned into the system.
That bar code ' marks ', the ballot, and supposedly communicates the voter's intentions to the tabulating software that counts the votes.
The rest of the ballot looks proper to the voter, but the voter has no way of telling what the bar code means.
And from any IT professional's point of view, who cares what the ballot looks like, if the mark on your ballot, (the one that is counted) was not made by your hand (say, a bar code printed by a scanner), and/or, if there is a computer used to count the votes, that system is intended to allow falsification of election results.
Due to the lack of legal action on the part of either of our political parties, to refute the results of elections stolen by wholesale electronic election fraud, I can only conclude that election fraud is a wholly acceptable tool in their bi-partisan toolbox?
And yes, you're right, they've always stuffed the ballot box, think of electronic vote tabulation as the newest twist on an old trick.
The invention of electronic voting was intended to insure that voters can never vote their way to freedom.
Carolinian , March 7, 2020 at 8:45 am
So your argument is that we must have hand counted ballots because the machine marked version won't work because the recounters would have to hand count the ballots. Just to repeat, yet again, when I voted a ballot shaped piece of plain paper was printed with my candidate choice clearly printed along with a bar code, not qr. This then becomes the vote itself and it can be read by a scanner or by a human. If done by a human then it is utterly no different than if I had checked a box on a pre printed ballot.
And for all the objections cited by those above there are valid reasons for states to want such a system. Obviously an all manual system is very labor intensive and also subject to human error unless double checked by still more labor. You'd also have to print lots of ballots before every election while not knowing exactly how many will be needed.
If there are suspicions of vote machine companies–and there should be–a more logical approach might be to insist that all software is open source and that no machines are connected directly to the internet or have usb ports. Signs in the precincts should advise voters to check their paper ballot to make sure the correct choice is printed.
|
|
|
Mar 07, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Sanders (D)(1): "Bernie Sanders needs to find the killer instinct" [Matthew Walther, The Week ]. I've heard Useful Idiots, Dead Pundits, and the inimitable Jimmy Dore all make the same point, but Walther's prose makes the point most forcefully (as prose often does). The situation:
There is no greater contrast imaginable than the one between the popular (and frequently exaggerated) image of so-called "Bernie bros" and the almost painfully conciliatory instincts of the man they support.
This was fully in evidence on Wednesday afternoon when Sanders responded to arguably the worst defeat of his political career by chatting with journalists about how " disgusted " he is at unspecified online comments directed at Elizabeth Warren and her supporters and what a " decent guy " Joe Biden is.
He did this despite the fact that Warren, with the connivance of debate moderators, recently called him a sexist in front of an audience of millions, effectively announcing that she had no interest in making even a tacit alliance with the only other progressive candidate in the race and, one imagines, despite thinking that the former vice president's record on virtually everything -- finance, health care, race relations, the environment, foreign policy -- should render him ineligible for office.
It should go without saying that offering these pleasantries will do Sanders few if any favors.
Lambert here: This is a Presidential primary, not the Senate floor. There is no comity. Walther then gives a list of possible scorched earth tactics to use against Biden; we could all make such a list. But then:
Sanders's benevolent disposition does him credit. But the same character traits that make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political party.
Corbyn had the same problem...
Sanders really must not let Biden and the Democrat Establishment off the hook. He seems to have poor judgment about his friends. Warren was no "friend." And neither is Joe Biden.
If Sanders wants friends, he can buy a dog .
He should forget those false friends, go into the next debate, and slice Joe Biden off at the knees. Trump would. And will, if Sander loses.
His canvassers and more importantly his millions of small donors deserve no less. The race and the debate is now between two people, and only one can emerge the winner. Sanders needs to decide if he wants to be that person, and then do what it takes . (If the outcome of the Sanders campaign is a left that is a permanently institutionalized force, distinct from liberal Democrats, I would regard that as a net positive. If that is Sanders' ultimate goal, then fine. He's not going to achieve that goal by being nice to Joe Biden. Quite the reverse.)
UPDATE Sanders (D)(2): "Time To Fight Harder Than We've Ever Fought Before" [Nathan J. Robinson, Current Affairs ].
"Biden now has some formidable advantages going forward: Democrats who no longer see him as a failed or risky bet will finally endorse and campaign for him. He will find it easier to raise money. He will have "momentum." Bloomberg's exit will bring him new voters.
Sanders may find upcoming states even harder to win than the Super Tuesday contests. But the one thing that would guarantee a Sanders loss is giving up and going home, which is exactly what Joe Biden hopes we will now do."
Here follows a laundry list of tactics. Then: "The real thing Bernie needs in order to win, though, is external support. Labor unions, activists, lawmakers, anyone with a public platform: We need to be pressuring them to endorse Bernie.
Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie? (Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.)
Now that Elizabeth Warren is clearly not going to win, will organizations like the Working Families Party and EMILY's List and people like AFT president Randi Weingarten and Medicare For All advocate Ady Barkan switch and endorse Sanders?
Where is the Sierra Club, SEIU (Bernie, after all, was one of the first national figures to push Fight for $15), the UAW, Planned Parenthood? Many progressive organizations have been sitting out the race because Warren was in it."
Good ideas in general, but Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders, or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first.
Warren (D)(1): "Why Elizabeth Warren lost" [Ryan Cooper, The Week ]. "Starting in November, however, she started a long decline that continued through January, when she started losing primaries . So what happened in November?
It is hard to pin down exactly what is happening in such a chaotic race, but Warren's campaign certainly made a number of strategic errors. One important factor was surely that Warren started backing away from Medicare-for-all, selling instead a bizarre two-step plan.
The idea supposedly was to pass universal Medicare with two different bills, one in her first year as president and one in the third year. Given how difficult it is to pass anything through Congress, and that there could easily be fewer Democrats in 2023 than in 2021, it was a baffling decision. Worse, Warren then released a plan for financing Medicare-for-all that was simply terrible.
Rather than levying a new progressive tax, she would turn existing employer contributions to private health insurance plans into a tax on employers, which would gradually converge to an average for all businesses but the smallest. The clear objective here was to claim that she would pay for it without levying any new taxes on the middle or working classes. But because those employer payments are still part of labor compensation, it is ultimately workers who pay them -- making Warren's plan a horribly regressive head tax (that is, an equal dollar tax on almost all workers regardless of income).
All that infuriated the left, and struck directly at Warren's branding as the candidate of technical competence. It suggested her commitment to universal Medicare was not as strong as she claimed, and that she would push classic centrist-style Rube Goldberg policies rather than clean, fair ones. (Her child care plan, with its complicated means-testing system, had a similar defect).
Claiming her plan was the only one not to raise taxes on the middle class was simply dishonest. In sum, this was a classic failed straddle that alienated the left but gained no support among anti-universal health care voters. More speculatively, this kind of hesitation and backtracking may have turned off many voters." • On #MedicareForAll, called it here on "pay for" ; and here on "transition." Warren's plans should not have been well-received, and they were not. I'm only amazed that these really technical arguments penetrated the media (let along the voters).
Warren (D)(2): "Warren Urged by National Organization for Women Not to Endorse Sanders: He Has 'Done Next to Nothing for Women'" [ Newsweek ]. • Establishment really pulling out all the stops.
* * * "Why Southern Democrats Saved Biden" [Mara Gay, New York Times ]. (Gay was the lone member of the Times Editorial Board to endorse Sanders .) "Through Southern eyes, this election is not about policy or personality. It's about something much darker. Not long ago, these Americans lived under violent, anti-democratic governments. Now, many there say they see in President Trump and his supporters the same hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow .
They were deeply skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr. Trump. They liked Ms. Warren, but, burned by Hillary Clinton's loss, were worried that too many of their fellow Americans wouldn't vote for a woman."
Well worth a read. At the same time, it's not clear why the Democrat Establishment hands control over the nomination to the political establishment in states they will never win in the general; the "firewall" in 2016 didn't work out all that well, after all. As for Jim Crow, we might do well to remember that Obama destroyed a generation of Black wealth his miserably inadequate response to the foreclosure crisis, and his pathetic stimulus package kept Black unemployment high for years longer than it should have been. And sowed the dragon's teeth of authoritarian reaction as well.
"Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge ]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates, there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large DNC members, who were not individually elected .
The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists, six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers."
ewmayer , March 6, 2020 at 6:03 pm
"Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his opponents out of "niceness".
Lambert Strether Post author , March 7, 2020 at 1:57 am
> Bernie is thinking like an organizer
That's fine, but if his organization is then put at the disposal of Joe Biden, I don't see how the organization survives. (That's why the DNC cheating meme* is important; it provides the moral cover to get out of that loyalty oath (which the Sanders campaign certainly should have had its lawyers take a look at)).
NOTE * Iowa, Texas, and California have all had major voting screw-ups, all of which impacted Sanders voters disproportionately. The campaign should sue. They have the money.)
dcblogger , March 6, 2020 at 2:15 pm
I once met an union organizer and he said he could go back to any site he had worked and be on friendly terms with everyone. Bernie is thinking like an organizer. I think that making this about Social Security is his best bet. It demolishes Biden in a way that makes the election about the American people.
pretzelattack , March 6, 2020 at 2:25 pm
he needs to go after biden on the issues in a much more forceful manner than he typically does, with lots and lots of specifics. did i mention lots of specifics? and lots of pointed references to biden's past positions, and a focus on pinning him down on his position now. he needs to ask questions biden will not be prepared for with easy scripted responses.
JohnnyGL , March 6, 2020 at 2:59 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hcEljDeFEI
Well, he's baited Biden into a spat about SS for now, so that's a positive sign.
drumlin woodchuckles , March 6, 2020 at 7:10 pm
Perhaps if Sanders can keep successfully baiting Biden with hooks baited with Biden's own past statements over and over and over again, that Sanders can then go on to practice some very well disguised passive-aggressive pointing/not-pointing to Biden's mental condition by asking Biden at every opportunity: " don't you remember that, Joe? You remember saying that, don't you Joe? Don't you remember when you said that, Joe?"
Titus , March 6, 2020 at 3:31 pm
Except 70% of Women according to Stanford finding these kind of confrontations distressing to very distressing. Tricky. One changes emotions by using emotions so the trick here is "allowing" Biden to act deranged and expressing sorrow over it. For 70% of guys they won't get the emotional content, but will understand the logic of the questions and lack of answers. It can be done, Bill Clinton and Obama were very good at this. Look you want to be president you got to play the game at the highest level. Good practice for dealing with trump.
Timing was right for both Obama and Clinton. After the GFC voters would have gone for any Democrat because Republicans were toxic. Similarly, it was fortuitous for Clinton because Perot was running and he quit the race a couple of months before the election.
Obama got loads and loads of money from Wall Street. Neither of these guys would stand a chance in an election year when the economy was doing well.
It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for Super Tuesday.
I didn't see anyone pointing out that Bernie had to be confrontational when he seems to be winning.
Mo's Bike Shop , March 6, 2020 at 8:59 pm
Wait. How many days ago was the field of candidates wide open?
If Bernard does not roast Biden on Social Security I will be disappointed. If Smokin' Joe doesn't lash out with his typical aplomb, I'll be disappointed. I'm saving myself up for bigger disappointments.
I'll be happy with the Vermont interpretation of Huey Long. I'm glad that people are finally noticing we have one Socialist Senator.
Idea for an 'own the slur' bumper sticker: "I'm tickled pink by Bernie" -- Although I don't know how the post-dial-up-modem crowd might misinterpret that?
foghorn longhorn , March 6, 2020 at 2:56 pm
This is such bs.
Trump insulted the f*ck out of mccain, mittens, jeb, cruz, pelosi, schumer and the rest of the clown posse and what did they do?Passed every gd thing he sent to them.
Are we gonna fight or dance, it's past time to get it on.
Zagonostra , March 6, 2020 at 6:01 pm
"I admittedly don't even know what to call Pelosi and Schumer at this point, besides a simple "past their sell date".
How about corrupt, immoral dishonest, greedy, sociopaths for starters (for more accurate adjectives I recommend viewing Jimmy Dore)
Glen , March 6, 2020 at 5:22 pm
Bernie cannot say it, but I can.
I support Bernie because Bernie supports the polices I think we need to save the country: M4A, GND,$15/hr min, free college, etc. To me, being an FDR Dem like Bernie is the moderate position, we've done it before, we know it works. Biden's support of neoliberal polices that have wrecked America is the extreme position.
But the DNC does not support FDR's Democracy. They have ended up to the right of Ronald Reagan. Pelosi could have pushed a M4A bill but did not. Pelosi could have pushed any number of polices to show how Trump is failing the working and middle class, but she did not.
So if Bernie is not picked for the general, I no longer have a reason to support the Dems, and will stay home. Actually, I will probably not stay home, I will work to get Dems out of office, and in general, work to burn the party to the ground. Why? Because it is in the way, and does not support the working class or the middle class.
The Dem party has to decide – do they really support the working and middle class or not. Because only Bernie supports those polices, and the rest of the Dems running for President do not.
|
|
|
Mar 04, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Former DNC chairman who gave Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance during the 2016 election, exclaimed on Fox News that Biden's victory was "the most impressive 72 hours I've ever seen in U.S. politics," and told another analyst to " go to hell " for suggesting that the Democratic establishment was once again working to manipulate a nominee into frontrunner status.
The Democrats are in chaos and melting down on live TV.
Donna Brazile just told the @GOPChairwoman to "go to hell" when asked about the chaos.
Best of luck, Donna! Meanwhile, Republicans are more unified than ever! pic.twitter.com/hCwotuF9tx
-- Trump War Room - Text EMPOWER to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) March 3, 2020
|
|
|
Mar 03, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
I will be very interested to see what happens in the states with closed or semi-closed primaries. That should be a true test of Bernie enthusiasm compared to 2016.
Enjoy.
Alabama: Open primary , with 52 pledged delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 309,928
- Bernie 2016-- 76,399
American Samoa: Open caucus, with the territory awarding six delegates on the basis of the results of the caucuses.
Arkansas: Open primary , with 31 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 144,580
- Bernie 2016-- 64,868
California: Semi-closed primary -only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a ballot- with the 415 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 2,745,302
- Bernie 2016-- 2,381,722
Colorado: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a ballot- with 67 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 49,314
- Bernie 2016-- 72,115
Democrats Abroad: Open primary in which any U.S. citizen living abroad who is a member of Democrats Abroad can participate, with the 13 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
Maine: Closed primary –only Democrats can cast a ballot- 24 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016--Maine held a caucus in 2016 and awarded most of its delegates to Hillary.
- Bernie 2016--
Massachusetts: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a ballot- 91 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 603,784
- Bernie 2016-- 586,716
Minnesota: Open primary , 75 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 73,510
- Bernie 2016-- 118,135
North Carolina: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a ballot- 110 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 616,346
- Bernie 2016-- 460,316
Oklahoma: Semi-closed primary –only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can cast a ballot- 37 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 139,338
- Bernie 2016-- 174,054
Tennessee: Open primary , 64 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 245,304
- Bernie 2016-- 120,333
Texas: Open primary , 228 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 935,080
- Bernie 2016-- 475,561
Utah: Open primary , 29 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 15,666
- Bernie 2016-- 61,333
Vermont: Open primary , 16 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 18,335
- Bernie 2016-- 115,863
Virginia: Open primary , 99 delegates being awarded on a proportional basis.
- Hillary 2016-- 503,358
- Bernie 2016-- 275,507
|
|
|
Mar 03, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
John , March 3, 2020 at 7:45 pm
The Blue states need to move their primaries up to Super Tuesday or before.
It's way past time to stop letting Red states decide our candidates.
drumlin woodchuckles , March 3, 2020 at 8:52 pm
Super Tuesday is a Catfood Democrat conspiracy. The Catfood Democrat Party themSELVES engineered Super Tuesday in order to prevent a McGovern figure from winning the most delegates ever again ever.
|
|
|
Mar 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
MentalcaseToday , Mar 3 2020 18:14 utc | 28
What's the mystery? Lock Assange in solitary for months and gee golly, suddenly no one to expose how SCarolina was fixed for Joe Biden. Just like Debbie Wasserman screwed Bernie in 2016. Media "explains" it was the "black vote." You bet. Sure Joe got 51pc. I guess so.
|
|
|
Mar 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Bemildred , Mar 3 2020 20:31 utc | 45
I just voted in California, lots of "new tech", with touchscreens. Quite buggy. Be sure to wash your hands too. /sarcTook about an hour and a half starting at 10:00 AM to get in, about 10-15 to get through the voting process. Bazillions of people standing in line, half the voting booths empty. The big rollout. I predict a big mess tonight, lots of mistakes, lots of voters who give up and no "verified" results any time soon ...
And all those touchscreens will be junk in five years. $$$
|
|
|
Mar 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
bevin , Mar 3 2020 18:04 utc | 25
The thing to watch today will be the vote stealing by the Democrat oligarchy. They are the world champions at every sort of electoral malfeasance. Remember in 2016 how Bernie almost won New York until Brooklyn, his hometown, was counted and more than 20,000 voters disappeared? Then there was California where millions of votes went uncounted and Hillary was called the winner.
The Democrats are not really a political party in the sense that europeans understand the term, more like an agglomeration of electoral machines, controlled by politicians owned by vested interests, making up the rules as they go along.With both Biden and Warren desperate for anything that can be portrayed as momentum expect the unexpected: repeats of the sort of nonsense we saw in Iowa and local precincts in which 110% of the electorate give unanimous support to the candidate most likely to take away their social security and wave 'bye-bye' as they die untreated of diseases. Or malnutrition.
A
nd the cherry on top of the electoral sundae in today's primaries will be the near unanimity with which the most glaring irregularities are ignored by the media, and anyone suggesting that 2+2= anything as predictable as 4 will be called a conspiracy theorist, working for Putin and the KGB.
|
|
|
Mar 01, 2020 | off-guardian.org
Anything can happen, but it seems that both Warren and Biden are going down the tubes, and without yet having been able to stop Bernie. Buttegieg seems to be doing well, but the only reason to expect that to last is that he is a Deep State/CIA-creation like Obama was.
Just as Democrat-supporters have had to find the path to accepting -- or embracing–whatever they are told is necessary to defeat Trump (the CIA, the defiant heroism of Nancy Pelosi in tearing up Trump's speech, the "principled stands" of militarist reactionaries such as John Bolton, Alexander Vindman, and Mitt Romney, and deep hatred and contempt for ordinary people in general -- is there any doubt that there is no limit to how reactionary Democrats and "the Left" can get?), now they will have to accept Michael Bloomberg as the "alternative."
My own view is that Trump is not an "oligarch," because oligarchs exist among other oligarchs; that's a subject for further exploration, but it is clear that Bloomberg is, in fact, such an oligarch.
A thesis regarding the postmodern spectacle: What one might accept, even minimally, at one point, perhaps as necessary in a purely tactical sense ("the Left," broadly speaking), one can come to embrace at a later moment (confirmed OP Democrats who will vote "BNMW"). This is the moving line of bullshit as it moves around what stands in as a "principle" in this scene: "Because Trump."
The moving line really does some fantastic work for the neoliberal-globalist forces who want a "return to normalcy." What people who think of themselves as some kind of "resistance" at first grudgingly accept will later come to embrace.
In the wake of Iowa, and now New Hampshire, there are already good liberals talking up Bloomberg as the best chance for beating Trump -- this includes people who claim they would prefer Bernie. Somehow they are getting past the fact that only Bernie is given a realistic chance of beating Trump in an election. Certainly, things can change, but what is really going on here?
Among OP Dems it seems likely that the instinct for neoliberal globalist "normalcy" is kicking in, and so Dems are proposing to go with an oligarch billionaire -- just yesterday the worst thing on earth -- who has many times the wealth of Trump, and who represents the ugliest sector of globalist capital.
Will those supposedly in the left, and those supposedly to the left, of the Democratic Party, remain dutiful and accept (and then enthusiastically embrace -- again, any- and everything is possible here) this "alternative"?
They have failed every test thus far, but perhaps Sanders can turn them around. As I argued previously, this will take a movement of great strength and depth. Even if Sanders cannot win the general election, he would be doing the world a great favor in defeating Bloomberg. Despite serious reservations, I wish him well in this pursuit.
Of course, if Sanders were to win the nomination but not the general, those who despise him now would despise him that much more, and very likely even many who like him now would turn against him. It is hard not to see the maneuverings of the Clintons here, and even more the Clintonist mainstream of the Democratic Party, and just in recent days trial balloons are floating around with the proposal that Hillary could be Bloomberg's VP pick. No one should be surprised if things turn out the other way 'round.
When one considers this whole mess, and adds to it the way that Identity Politics, at least in its current predominant form as woke ideology for resistance LARPers, fits hand in glove with globalist economic and military agendas, I find it difficult to see how the Trump Disruption, Clarification, and the bits of Experiment that have gained traction are not qualitatively superior.
Of one thing we can be sure, however, namely that the circumnavigations and circumlocutions of those who claim to the contrary will continue to kick into ever-higher gears.
Bill Martin is a philosopher and musician, retired from DePaul University. He is completing a book with the title, "The Trump Clarification: Disruption at the Edge of the System (toward a theory)." His most recent albums are "Raga Chaturanga" (Bill Martin + Zugzwang; Avant-Bass 3) and "Emptiness, Garden: String Quartets nos. 1 and 2 (Ryokucha Bass Guitar Quartet; Avant-Bass 4). He lives in Salina, Kansas, and plays bass guitar with The Radicles.
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
There was a statement that Sanders made at the debate last night that deserves more attention, because it gets at the heart of the manufactured controversy over Sanders' own past statements and the glaring hypocrisy that defines so many of our foreign policy discussions. Sanders said this:
Excuse me, occasionally it might be a good idea to be honest about American foreign policy [bold mine-DL], and that includes the fact that America has overthrown governments all over the world in Chile, in Guatemala, in Iran. And when dictatorships, whether it is the Chinese or the Cubans do something good, you acknowledge that. But you don't have to trade love letters with them.
Several of Sanders' opponents last night were not interested in being honest about U.S. foreign policy. If they had been interested, they would have to admit that U.S. politicians acknowledge positive developments that take place under authoritarian regimes all the time, and most of the time they do this to justify U.S. support for those governments. The fact is that both Bloomberg and Biden have sometimes said very positive things about repressive authoritarian states without any caveats. They haven't prefaced their praise by saying that this is an oppressive government that violates human rights. They didn't say anything that could be construed as a criticism. Biden touted Mubarak as an ally and refused to call him a dictator just weeks before his ouster. Bloomberg praised the Saudi crown prince and his Vision 2030 plan last year without qualification:
But Bloomberg has praised another murderous dictator – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS – as recently as last year, long after he was implicated in the murder of Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
In a September 2019 interview with Arab News, Bloomberg praised Mohammed bin Salman's "Saudi Vision 2030" plan, focusing especially on its loosening of some restrictions on Saudi women. "I have had a number of women come up to me and say you don't understand this is the best thing that has ever happened to Saudi Arabia because half the population was cut out and now they are going in the right direction," Bloomberg said. He lauded King Salman and MBS for their efforts "to take that country into the new world," saying, "They have made progress going in the right direction."
He didn't acknowledge that MBS had jailed and tortured some prominent Saudi women activists. And Bloomberg didn't mention that 11 months earlier, U.S. permanent resident and Saudi journalist Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered by MBS's own henchmen. International investigators and the CIA later concluded that the killing was a premeditated crime ordered by MBS himself.
This wasn't just a case of Bloomberg letting optimism get the better of him. By the time he said these things, the increasingly repressive nature of the Saudi government under Mohammed bin Salman was well-known. The many war crimes and atrocities committed by his government in Yemen had been in the news for years (and they continue to happen ), Khashoggi's murder had happened almost a year earlier, and he could not have missed the stories about the ongoing detentions and torture of political activists, including Loujain al-Hathloul , who is still imprisoned to this day. As far as political rights are concerned, Saudi Arabia has clearly been moving in the wrong direction, but Bloomberg chose to ignore all of that.
It would be fair to acknowledge that there have been some positive changes in Saudi Arabia over the last few years at the same time that the crown prince has been cracking down on dissent, killing critics, and consolidating power, but if you're going to talk about those changes it would be important to state opposition and condemnation of the Saudi government's myriad abuses. On that occasion, Bloomberg only offered praise, and there is no evidence that he expressed any concern about Saudi government crimes and abuses until he was starting to run for president. The Saudi Arabia example is a telling one, because for the last several years many American politicians and media outlets embarrassed themselves by lavishing nothing but praise on the Saudi crown prince for his "reforms."
As a matter of U.S. policy, Saudi Arabia has been given a pass for the many atrocities it has committed in Yemen because the current administration places more value on selling them weapons and the previous administration wanted to "reassure" them of our support. The issue here is not just the double standard applied to U.S. clients, but that many of our leaders give these governments a pass on their human rights violations and war crimes in order to justify U.S. policies of support for those clients that cause even more death and destruction. In other words, when U.S. politicians praise authoritarian clients, it is usually part of an effort to whitewash the client government's record and to justify providing them with more weapons and aid. There are real consequences and human costs when politicians turn into cheerleaders for these governments.
Biden was vice president when the shameful policy of supporting the war on Yemen began, and when he was part of the Obama administration there is no evidence that he opposed this policy or spoke against it at any point. He has since turned against that policy, but he had nothing to say about it when he could have done something about it. While Bloomberg was singing the crown prince's praises, Sanders has been one of the leading critics of the Saudi government's crimes and an opponent of U.S. enabling of those crimes. Which one would you rather have making foreign policy decisions as president: Mohammed bin Salman's cheerleader or one of his most vocal critics?
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Boxed Merlot , 6 hours ago
Akzed , 5 hours agoTwenty-one of those were people that I spent $100 million ...
Names? I mean after all, if a guy's gonna bet frn100m on a hand of black jack, maybe he's in a different class than me. I wonder if he has those folks punching his clock, from the reports of his management style, it sounds like he's more interested in controlling people's lives than in getting things done efficiently.
Bill of Rights , 6 hours agoThat's $4.7M apiece. I forget, what are the limits for individual donations?
waspwench , 5 hours agoSo is the FBI going to investigate Bloomturd for admitted. election fraud?
Laughter fills the room.
GreatUncle , 6 hours agoAgreed. Mini-Mike is a control freak.
I would never have thought I would ever even contemplate such a thing but I am concluding that there should be limits on any one person's wealth. Mike has $57 billion and we cannot prevent him from using it to buy the government. There is something seriously wrong with such a scenario.
So Bloomberg just admitted he has been positioning himself to become king.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2020 | www.unz.com
Monotonous Languor , says: Show Comment February 26, 2020 at 3:39 am GMT
in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent.
as if it really mattered. Neoliberal Democrats policies are built on manufactured memes, anecdotal narratives, hyperbolic delusions, ephemeral boogeymen, sweeping generalizations, logical fallacies, and bloated definitions. In other words it's lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, all the way up and down the chain.
With Neoliberal Democrats like with Trotskyites , the only reality is power. For everything else, in any conflict between reality and fantasy, fantasy wins every damn time.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2020 | www.unz.com
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party. Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope or Change." That is, no change from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC. The way Rome's constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their way through a series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected to the position of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's neoliberal fiscal policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative bureaucracy, so all such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was a way of keeping decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius Caesar and others borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging games that would demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their financial liability to their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing private enabled the leading oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates. That was Rome's version of Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times have been busy spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot, "Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders, immediately." Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN warned, the race suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election returns. That means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will have a chance to deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point. Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem
Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution – by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican program on behalf of the One Percent.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2020 | www.unz.com
anonymous [284] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment February 26, 2020 at 10:19 pm GMT
Ironically the DEM party has become the Oligarchs party the DEMs debased themselves abandoning the WORKING class long time ago. The DEM recipe for WHITE conservative deplorables is something like DETROIT model a former city the cradle of the Auto/industrial manufacturing is now a desolated city bankrupt, violence, dilapidated etc.AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment February 26, 2020 at 11:17 pm GMTThis is the PLAN for all WHITE anglo saxon deplorables goyim Illiterate, Unemployed, violent and give them all the (tax subsidized) drugs opiods, pornography, that their subhuman hallow souls desired white genocide/
There is no quandary. The US democracy has long become "one dollar – one vote". Those who still believe that Dems represent working people should not take IQ test to avoid being deeply disappointed.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Likklemore , Jan 30 2020 15:21 utc | 24
There is no shortage of people with Visions.'Greta, bonnie Prince Charles and the pirate billionaires and trillionaires'- In another post I queried how did Greta go to Davos? Silly me; Greta was invited the keynote speaker. "Stop Climate change" was this year's theme: the Vision - 'stop the natural cycle of the universe' -
Now she intends to Trademark 'How Dare You' and set up a Foundation Indeed, Greta found her sugar daddies. Adults who encourage truancy.my grandpa was a wise bloke and admonished "when politicians and do gooders are in the same room, keep an eye on your money."
William F. Engdahl names the pirates in the "Stop Climate" (cycles) Money Trail.
Follow the "Real Money" Behind the "New Green Agenda"Of note: Mark Carney upon leaving his position of Governor Bank of England will serve as global warming adviser to Boris Johnson. Who knew Carney was a scientist?[.] Davos trustees
It was no accident that Davos, the promoter of globalization, is so strongly behind the Climate Change agenda. Davos WEF has a board of appointed trustees. Among them is the early backer of Greta Thunberg, climate multi-millionaire, Al Gore, chairman of the Climate Reality Project. WEF Trustees also include former IMF head, now European Central Bank head Christine Lagarde whose first words as ECB chief were that central banks had to make climate change a priority. Another Davos trustee is outgoing Bank of England head Mark Carney, who was just named Boris Johnson's climate change advisor and who warns that pension funds that ignore climate change risk bankruptcy (sic).
The board also includes the influential founder of Carlyle Group, David M. Rubenstein. It includes Feike Sybesma of the agribusiness giant, Unilever, who is also Chair of the High Level Leadership Forum on Competitiveness and Carbon Pricing of the World Bank Group. And perhaps the most interesting in terms of pushing the new green agenda is Larry Fink, founder and CEO of the investment group BlackRock.[.]
TCFD and SASB Look Closely
As part of his claim to virtue on the new green investing, Fink states that BlackRock was a founding member of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). He claims, "For evaluating and reporting climate-related risks, as well as the related governance issues that are essential to managing them, the TCFD provides a valuable framework."[.]
TCFD was created in 2015 by the Bank for International Settlements, chaired by fellow Davos board member and Bank of England head Mark Carney. In 2016 the TCFD along with the City of London Corporation and the UK Government created the Green Finance Initiative, aiming to channel trillions of dollars to "green" investments. The central bankers of the FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, it includes in addition to BlackRock, JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re, the world's second largest reinsurance; China's ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, mining giant BHP and David Blood of Al Gore's Generation Investment LLC. Note the crucial role of the central banks here.[.]
Pre-alert:
Tax on Excessive garbage output is coming to your town. You will be restricted to xxxKGs/LBS annually. Your garbage will be weighed and at December 31st any excess above the permissible will attract additional tax.
Anyone see the unintended consequences?
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Trailer Trash , Jan 23 2020 18:30 utc | 44>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming into view...
Per/Norway , Jan 23 2020 19:31 utc | 62
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.Piotr Berman , Jan 23 2020 20:19 utc | 82
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better and independent instead.Per
NorwayThe amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <- NorwayOf course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window, together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Trailer Trash , Jan 23 2020 18:30 utc | 44For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming into view...
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org
Is it any wonder that the nation's "liberal" cable news stations CNN and MSNBC can barely contain their disdain for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and even (to a lesser degree) for that of Elizabeth Warren while they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street "moderates" Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris?
Next time you click on these stations, keep a pen and paper handy to write down the names of the corporations that pay for their broadcast content with big money commercial purchases.
I did that at various times of day on three separate occasions last week. Here are the companies I found buying ads at CNN and MSDNC:
American Advisors Group (AAG), the top lender the American reverse mortgage industry (with Tom Selleck telling seniors to trust him that reverse mortgages are not a rip off)
United Health Care, for-profit "managed health care company" with 300,000 employers and an annual revenue of $226 billion, ranked sixth on the 2019 Fortune 500.
Menards, the nation's third largest home improvement chain, with revenue over $10 billion in 2017.
CHANITX, a drug to get off cigarettes ("slow Turkey") sold by the pharmaceutical firm Pfizer, 65th on the Fortune 500.
Tom Steyer (billionaire for president)
Lincoln Financial, 187 th on the Fortune 500, an American holding company that controls multiple insurance and investment management businesses.
Liberty Mutual, an insurance company with more than 50,000 employees in more than 900 locations and ranked 68 th on the Fortune 500 two years ago.
Allstate Insurance: 79 th on the Fortune 500, with more than 45,000 employees.
INFINITI Suburban Utility Vehicle (new price ranging from 37K to 60K), produced by Nissan, the sixth largest auto-making corporation in the world.
RCN (annual revenue of $636 million) WiFi for business
Jaguar Elite luxury autos.
Porsche luxury autos, selling new models priced at $115,000, $145,000, and $163,00, and $294,000.
Mercedes Benz luxury auto, including an SRL-Class model that starts at $498,000
Capital Group, one of the world's oldest and biggest investment management firms, with $1.87 trillion in assets under its control.
Otezla, a plaque psoriasis drug, developed by the New Jersey drug company Celgene and owned by Amgene, a leading California-based biotechnology firm with total assets of $78 billion.
Trelegy, a CPD drug produced by the British company GSK, the world's seventh leading pharmaceutical corporation, with the fourth largest capitalization of any company on the London Stock Exchange.
HunterDouglass – elite windows made by a Dutch multinational corporation with more than 23,000 employees and locations in more than 70 countries.
Humira – drug for Crohn's disease and other ailments, manufactured by Abbvie, with 28,000 global employees and total assets of $59 billion.
Primateme Mist – for breathing, produced by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals.
Glucerna – drug for diabetes, produced by Abbot Laboratories, an American medical company with more than 100,00 employees and total assets of $67 billion.
Prevagen – a controversial drug for brain health produced by Quincy Bioscience
DISCOVER Credit Card, the third largest credit card brand in the U.S., with total assets of $92 billion.
Fidelity Investments, an American multinational financial services corporation with more than 50,000 employees and an operating income of $5.3 billion.
Cadillac XT-6 high-end SUV, starting at $53K, made by General Motors (no. 10 on the Fortune 500 for total revenue), which makes automobiles in 37 countries, employees 173,000 persons, and has total assets $227 billion.
Comfort Inn, owned by Choice Hotels, one of the largest hotel chains in the world, franchising 7,005 properties in 41 countries and territories.
Audible/Amazon – books on tape from the world's biggest mega-corporation Amazon, ranked fifth on the Fortune 500, with 647,000 employees and total assets of $163 billion.
Ring Home Security, owned by Amazon
Coventry Health Insurance, no. 168 on the Fortune 500
SANDALS Resorts International, with 16 elite resort properties in the Caribbean.
Cigna Medicare Advantage, owned by the national health insurer Cigna, no. 229 on the Fortune 500
SoFi Finance, an online personal finance company that provides student loan refinancing, mortgages and personal loans.
Ameriprise Finance, an investment services firm, no. 240 on F500.
It's not for nothing that bit Fortune 500 firms are represented in my anecdotal sponsor list above. Last summer, SQAD MediaCosts reported that a 30-second commercial during CNN's prime-time lineup (Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, and Don Lemon), cost between $7,000 and $12,000. The price has certainly gone up significantly now that Trumpeachment is bringing in new eyeballs.
The three most prominent and recurrent advertising streams appear (anecdotally) to come from Big Pharma (the leading drug companies), insurance (health insurance above all), and finance (investment services/wealth management). These giant concentrated corporate and industry sectors are naturally opposed to the financial regulation and anti-trust policy that Senator Warren says she wants to advance. Amazon can hardly be expected to back the big-tech break-up that Warren advocates.
Big corporate lenders certainly have no interest in making college tuition free, a Sanders promise that would slash a major profit source for finance capital.
The big health insurance firms are naturally opposed both to the Single Payer national health insurance plan that Sanders puts at the top of his platform and to the milder version of Medicare for All that Warren says she backs. Warren and especially Sanders pledge to remove the parasitic, highly expensive profit motive from health insurance and to make publicly funded quality and affordable health care a human right in the U.S. The corporate insurance mafia is existentially opposed to such human decency.
Both of the "progressive Democratic candidates" (a description that fits Sanders far better than it does Warren) loudly promise to slash drug costs, something Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgene, Amphastar, and Abbot Labs can hardly be expected to relish.
None of the big companies buying advertising time on CNN and MSNBC have any interest in the progressive taxation and restored union organizing and collective bargaining rights that Sanders advocates.
The big financial services firms paying for media content on "liberal" cable news stations primarily serve affluent clients, many if not most of whom are likely to oppose increased taxes on the well off.
The resort, tourism, luxury car, and business travel firms that buy commercials on these networks are hardly about to back policies leading to the real or potential reduction of discretionary income enjoyed by upper middle class and rich people.
So, gosh, who do these corporate and financial interests favor in the 2020 presidential election? Neoliberal Corporatists like Joe Biden, Pete Butiggieg, Kamala Harris, and Amy Klobuchar, of course. Dutifully obedient to the preferences and commands of the nation's unelected dictatorship of money, these insipid corporate Democrats loyally claim that Sanders and Warren want to viciously "tax the middle class" to pay for supposedly unaffordable excesses like Medicare for All and the existentially necessary Green New Deal.
In reality, Single Payer and giant green jobs programs and more that We the People need and want are eminently affordable if the United States follows Sanders' counsel by adequately and progressively taxing its absurdly wealthy over-class (the top tenth of the upper 1% than owns more than 90% of U.S. wealth) and its giant, surplus-saturated corporations and financial institutions. At the same time, as Warren keeps trying to explain, the cost savings for ordinary Americans will be enormous with the profits system taken out of health insurance.
Sanders reminds voters that there's no way to calculate the cost savings of keeping livable ecology alive for future generations. The climate catastrophe is a grave existential threat to the whole species.
These are basic arguments of elementary social, environmental, and democratic decency that the investors and managers behind and atop big corporations buying commercials on CNN and MSNBC don't want heard. As a result, CNN and MSDNC "debate" moderators and talking heads persist in purveying the, well, fake news, that Sanders doesn't know how to pay Single Payer, free public college, and a Green New Deal.
It's not for nothing that CNN and MSNBC have promoted the hapless Biden over and above Sanders and Warren – this notwithstanding the former Vice President's ever more obvious and embarrassing inadequacy as a candidate.
It's not for nothing that MSNBC and CNN have habitually warned against the supposed "socialist" menace posed by the highly popular Sanders (a New Deal progressive at leftmost) while refusing to properly describe Trump's White House and his dedicated base as pro-fascists. MSDNC has even get a weekly segment to the silver-spooned multi-millionaire advertising executive Donny Deutsch after he said the following on the network last winter:
"I find Donald Trump reprehensible as a human being, but a socialist candidate is more dangerous to this company, country, as far as the strength and well-being of the country, than Donald Trump. I would vote for Donald Trump, a despicable human being I will be so distraught to the point that that could even come out of my mouth, if we have a socialist [Democratic presidential candidate or president] because that will take our country so down, and we are not Denmark. I love Denmark, but that's not who we are. And if you love who we are and all the great things that still have to have binders put on the side. Please step away from the socialism."
It's not for nothing that the liberal cable networks go out of their way to deny Sanders remotely appropriate broadcast time. Or that they habitually and absurdly frame Single Payer health insurance not as the great civilizing social and human rights victory it would be (the long-overdue cost-slashing de-commodification of health care coverage combined with the provision of health care for all regardless of social status and class) but rather as a dangerous and authoritarian assault on Americans' existing (and unmentionably inadequate and over-expensive) health insurance.
Dare we mention that the lords of capital who pay for cable news salaries and content are heavily invested in the fossil fuels and in the relentless economic growth that are pushing the planet rapidly towards environmental tipping points that gravely endanger prospects for a decent and organized human existence in coming decades?
It's not for nothing that the progressive measures advanced by Sanders and supported by most Americans are regularly treated as "unrealistic," "irresponsible," "too radical," "too idealistic," "impractical," and "too expensive."
It's for nothing that Sanders is commonly left out of the liberal cable networks' campaign coverage and "horse race" discussions even as he enjoys the highest approval rating among all the candidates in the running.
With their preferred centrist candidate Joe Biden having performed in a predictably poor and buffoonish fashion (Biden was a terrible, gaffe-prone politician well before his brains started coming out of his ears) falling back into something like a three-way tie with the liberal Warren and the populist progressive Sanders, the liberal cable talking heads and debate moderators have naturally tried to boost "moderate" neoliberal-corporatist "second" and "third tier" Democratic presidential candidates like Butiggieg, Klobuchar and the surprisingly weak Kamala Harris. It's not for nothing that these and other marginal corporate candidates (e.g. Beto O'Rourke) get outsized attention on "liberal" cable stations regardless of their tiny support bases. Even if they can't win, these small-time contenders take constant neoliberal jabs at Sanders and even at the more clearly corporate-co-optable Warren (who proudly describes herself as "capitalist in my bones").
Thanks to Harris's curiously weak showing, Biden's dotard-like absurdity, and the likely non-viability of Butiggieg (the U.S. is not yet primed for two men and a baby in the White House), the not-so liberal cable channels are now joining the New Yok Times and Washington Post in gently floating the possibility of a dark-horse neoliberal Democratic Party newcomer (Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry, Michelle Obama, Sherrod Brown, and maybe even Hillary Clinton herself) to fill Joke Biden's Goldman-and Citigroup-approved shoes in the coming primary and Caucus battles with "radical socialist" Bernie and (not-so) "left" Warren.
So what if running an establishment Obama-Clinton-Citigroup-Council on Foreign Relations Democrat in 2020 will de-mobilize much of the nation's progressive electoral base, helping the malignant white nationalist monster Donald Trump get a second term?
As the old working-class slogan says, "money talks and bullshit walks."
"Follow the money" is the longstanding mantra in campaign finance research and criminal prosecution. It should also apply to our understanding of the dominant media's political news content. U.S. media managers are employed by giant corporations (MSNBC is a division of Comcast NBC Universal, no. 71 on the Fortune 500 and CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting, no, 68 on the Fortune 500) that are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend the wealthy capitalist interests that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As Noam Chomsky has noted, large corporations are not only the major producers of the United States' mass commercial media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens the captivity of nation's supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case, almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses – advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that significantly shapes the nature of the institution."
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate affluent folks – the people who hire pricey investment advisors, go to Caribbean resorts and buy Jaguars and Mercedes Benzes and count for an ever-rising share of U.S. consumer purchases. It is those with the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Money talks, bullshit talks on "liberal" cable news, as in the legal and party and elections systems and indeed across all of society.
Watch the wannabe fascist strongman Trump walk to a second term with no small help from a "liberal" corporate media whose primary goal is serving corporate sponsors and its own bottom line, not serving social justice, environmental sanity, and democracy – or even helping Democrats win elections.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
"Why this expert warns that a voting watchdog has 'lost its way' -- and our elections are at risk" [ Alternet ]. "Verified Voting, the national advocacy group seeking accountable election results, has been "providing cover" for untrustworthy new voting systems and the public officials buying them, according to an esteemed academic board member who has resigned in protest
To be accused by the inventor of its "gold-standard" audit solution of selling out while states and counties are buy voting technology that will be used into the 2030s is remarkable .
Stark and other critics say that the cards produced by a so-called ballot-marking device (BMD) may not be accurate because potentially insecure software sits between a voter's fingers and the printout.
Thus, Stark contends that his audit tool cannot assess if the reported result is correct. Also, BMD systems are far more costly than hand-marked ballot systems, he and other critics have said.
They note that the acquisition costs are followed by per-machine service agreements designed to generate millions in annual revenues for vendors." • On BMDs, see NC here .
|
|
|
Dec 06, 2019 | www.nbcnews.com
It has long required the support of the wealthy -- and a certain level of personal wealth -- to run for president of the United States. In 2016, billions of dollars were raised by Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns. But the rich control much of this cash flow . In 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top .01 percent of all income earners in the United States accounted for 29 percent of all political committee fundraising.
There are many reasons why this is a dangerous thing. But a big one is accountability.
|
|
|
Nov 03, 2019 | crookedtimber.org
I went to see occasional Timberite Astra Taylor's remarkable film What is Democracy? last night. It takes us from Siena, Italy to Florida to Athens and from Ancient Athenian democracy through the renaissance and the beginning of capitalism to the Greek debt crisis, occupy and the limbo life of people who have fled Syria and now find themselves stuck. It combines the voices of Plato and Rousseau with those of ordinary voters from left and right, Greek nationalists and cosmopolitans, ex-prisoners, with trauma surgeons in Miami, Guatemalan migrants in the US, with lawmakers and academics, and with refugees from Syria and Afghanistan. All the while it poses the questions of whether democracy is compatible with inequality and global financial systems and the boundaries of inclusion.
steven t johnson 10.23.19 at 3:05 pm (no link)
At a first approximation, democracy is the alliance of the city dwellers for the power of the city, ignoring tribes and rural aristocrats, carefully contained so the landowners keep their land, and the slaves are kept under control. Or, to update it, the class collaboration of the wealthy (nowadays some sort of capitalist,) the middling strata and the common people for the power of the nation, carefully arranged so the people with great property make the decisions about the economy.Z 10.23.19 at 8:38 pm (no link)It doesn't sound like this is very informative or useful, so I will wait until I have a cheaper way to see it.
In my opinion, democracy as an actually existing property of a society is only imperfectly described in terms of institutional arrangements, philosophical constructs, political system or (as steven t johnson would have it) power relations between social groups. In addition to all that, but probably prior to all that, democracy relies on principles which are anthropological in nature, that pertains to the particular way human beings relate to each other on a given territory.steven t johnson 10.23.19 at 8:49 pm ( 12 )This means that I absolutely believe in the necessity of a "we" to underlie democracy but I doubt that this "we" needs to be (or indeed is ever) constitutive, it exists primarily if not exclusively as a matter of human relations not as a constitutive abstraction. This also means that I'm not surprised by the general absence of convergence in democratic forms around the world (much to the bemusement of English-speaking political philosophers, or in the last 20 years, German and Flemish politicians) and that I believe that global citizenship is under present circumstances a meaningless concept with respect to democracy. Some people understand this to be arguing for a national, ethnic or cultural definition of democracy, in which only people with a specific national identity, or a particular ethnicity, or specific cultural practices or (in the contemporary American libertarian version) specific personality traits may participate, as a matter of normative or positive judgment, depending on various proponents of this theory. This seems to me to be a rather ironic analytical error: if indeed a core property of democracy is rooted in the characteristic ways people relate to each other, it is highly implausible that this could change under the influence of even a substantial minority (in one direction or the other).
Incidentally, the idea that democracy is originally native to North-America is somewhat classical (Voltaire championed it, but as usual with him, it is hard to vouch for his seriousness). Since then it has resurfaced periodically for instance in William James Sidis (disturbed) book The Tribes and the States or in the works of Bruce Johansen. Serious discussions of this question lead, I believe, to the seemingly paradoxical observation that English and Dutch settlers came to adopt the democratic principles of the Haudenosaunee because they were themselves rather primitive (temporally speaking), and hence democratic, in their anthropological values. Suc discussion would also lead to the far more pessimistic conclusion that beyond their political models, native people in North-America facilitated the establishment of a political democracy by providing a large neighboring group to exclude out of humanity.
LFC@10 uses a reason for waiting as an excuse for a rhetorical question meant as a taunt. The reason I might see it, if it's cheap enough, is because new facts and the (rare) new perspective, if any, would seep into my thinking. The idea that my thinking doesn't change is unfounded. It changes, it just doesn't change by conversion experience. The cogent arguments of the wise on the internet are like Jesus on the road to Damascus, not quite able to be described consistently, but still irrefutable.steven t johnson 10.24.19 at 3:20 pm (no link)But, try as I may, continual reworking of old ideas by new -- to me -- information inevitably leads to the change. The process usually goes A Is that really true? B My old ideas get a parenthesis added. C The parenthesis gets worked into the rest of the paragraph so that I'm more consisten. D I've always believed that. The step where I abjectly plead for forgiveness for being a moron is never there, any more than actually being consistent.
As an example, it's only in the last few years I've wakened up to the extraordinary tendency to people to ignore either the progressive content of bourgeois revolutions, such as in pretending that destroying a national secular state in Iraq or Syria and replacing it with a cantonal confederation is a step backward. Or in surreptitiously pretending that democracy has nothing to do with the democratic state needing fighters against other states. Like most people on the internet, i do tend to get a little trendy, and repetitive. But apparently I'm too socially backward to get the memo on the correct trendy, and repetitive.
For a less contentious example, as part of the process I've realized that ancient Sparta was on the democratic spectrum, not least because of two kings which is definitely not twice the monarchy. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is still true, despite authority. But a true expert who actually cared could revise the elementary insight into a much more sophisticated, much superior way that might not even seem controversial. It might even seem just like the answer to the questions: Why did Sparta ever ally with Athens in the first place? Why did both Athens and Sparta ally (at different times) with Persia?
I will admit to a general prejudice against every historical discovery that a particular place etc. was the birth of virtue.
Re the Haudenosaunee as exemplars of democracy, this is as I recall long known to be true of Benjamin Franklin, one of the disreputable founders, nearly as disgraced as Tom Paine. (Indeed, the notion that the revolutionaries weren't the founders, but Philadelphia lawyers' convention was, is remarkable, though unremarked on.) But, what did Franklin admire about the Iroquois League? I think it was the power through unity of different "tribes." The league essentially genocided the Hurons to control the fur trade; launched long distance military expeditions to drive away many other peoples from large areas in the Ohio valley to free up hunting grounds; when it was convenient, they sold their rights, lands, there to the US. (The treaty of Fort Stanwix) was later repudiated, verbally at least, by other.eg 10.25.19 at 2:35 am ( 17 )The classic model of course was the Roman Republic. By coincidence I was reading Livy's first five books and the relationship between rights for the plebs and the need for them in war, stands out. Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy makes this even plainer. In the US much of this was conveyed to the Americans via Algernon Sidney's Discourses on Government as refracted through Cato's Letters. (I hope to live long enough to read Discourses on Davila by John Adams, solely because of the title.)
It would seem to me that the answer to the question "what is democracy" is best answered by another question: who gets (and doesn't get) the franchise?
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
EMichael , September 23, 2019 at 08:55 AM
Kudos to at least one Republican.EMichael -> EMichael... , September 23, 2019 at 08:58 AM"Well, Bill Weld, former governor of the Commonwealth (God save it!), really shot the moon to begin the week. Appearing on MSNBC, Weld made it plain. From the Washington Post:
"Talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control a U.S. election," Weld said during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"It couldn't be clearer, and that's not just undermining democratic institutions. That is treason. It's treason, pure and simple, and the penalty for treason under the U.S. code is death. That's the only penalty...The penalty under the Constitution is removal from office, and that might look like a pretty good alternative to the president if he could work out a plea deal.""
Well, all right, then.
Here we all are, piddling around with why Nancy Pelosi won't release the hounds in the House of Representatives, and waiting for some poor bastard in intelligence to come forward with what he really knows, and with a vulgar talking yam still in office. Meanwhile, Bill Weld has cut right to the heel of the hunt. You think you can't scare this guy? Put the gallows in his eyes. I mean, wow."
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a29191267/president-trump-treason-bill-weld/
Also from that link:" The greatest single hold of "the interests" is the fact that they are the "campaign contributors" -- the men who supply the money for "keeping the party together," and for "getting out the vote." Did you ever think where the millions for watchers, spellbinders, halls, processions, posters, pamphlets, that are spent in national, state and local campaigns come from? Who pays the big election expenses of your congressman, of the men you send to the legislature to elect senators?
Do you imagine those who foot those huge bills are fools? Don't you know that they make sure of getting their money back, with interest, compound upon compound? Your candidates get most of the money for their campaigns from the party committees; and the central party committee is the national committee with which congressional and state and local committees are affiliated. The bulk of the money for the "political trust" comes from "the interests." "The interests" will give only to the "political trust."
Our part as citizens of the republic is plain enough. We must stand our ground. We must fight the good fight. Heartsick and depressed as we may be at times because of the spread of graft in high places and its frightfully contaminating influence, we must still hold up our heads. We must never lose an opportunity to show that as private citizens we are opposed to public plunderers."
Written in 1906
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2019 | www.unz.com
DanFromCT , says: September 14, 2019 at 1:37 pm GMT
Politics in America is a function of those who control the public forum via the msm. Those who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further their own interests and no others. Why in the world would an American-hating msm give Americans an equal voice?The msm aren't merely some unfortunate artifact of the First Amendment we have to live. The msm control the formation of men's minds. As Jacques Ellul points out in his masterpiece on propaganda, it's those among us who're most educated and most inclined to closely follow the "news" who are most susceptible to brainwashing. These educated lemmings believe what they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted to like they were personal attacks.
This explains why college educated white women are the Dems' winning edge, trading empty moral posturing for condemning their own children and grandchildren to die hounded and dispossessed in their own land. But there are never any consequences when they insist they have the best of intentions. These women whose thoughts are authored by their own people's enemies will probably put a Warren or one of the other Marxists over the top in 2020.
A newly scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as surely as they do in Venezuela.
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
"Judge: Georgia must scrap old voting machines after 2019" [ Associated Press ]. "U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg's order on Thursday prohibits the state from using its antiquated paperless touchscreen machines and election management system beyond this year. She also said the state must be ready to use hand-marked paper ballots if its new system isn't in place for the March 24 presidential primary election."
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2019 | www.vice.com
"The top voting machine company [Election Systems & Software] in the country insists that its election systems are never connected to the internet. But researchers found 35 of the systems have been connected to the internet for months and possibly years, including in some swing states." • The only reason I can imagine, besides corruption, for election officials to buy these things is that they want the capability to fix elections, and that goes for both parties.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Election forensics analyst Jonathan Simon said , "The great irony, and tragedy, here is that we could easily go the opposite direction and quickly solve all the problems of election security if we got the computers out of the process and were willing to invest the modicum of effort needed for humans to count votes observably in public as they once did."
Jonathan Simon, god bless him, has used 55 words to say 11: We could easily fix our fraudulent election system, but we won't.
The answer is not to hand it over to Microsoft and the Pentagon and the ass clowns who make robotic death machines. The Pentagon can't keep track of $21 TRILLION DOLLARS over the past 20 years -- what makes us think they can keep track of hundreds of millions of votes?
The ruling elite have no interest in making sure our voices are heard. They want that as much as they want nunchucks to the balls. If they sought to have our voices heard, we would have paper ballots, ranked choice voting, real exit polls and a president who doesn't look and act like an over-cooked ham-and-cheese sandwich.
It's time to demand real elections.
SybilDefense , 1 hour ago link
darktideac , 1 hour ago linkI thought George Soros owns (controlling interest) %56 of all voting machines
Soros linked to voting machine mfrs
Now with Microsoft providing the lib-genda software...what could go wrong?
All this whiz bang gadgetry for unimportant things, like elections but when the Gov really wants info it's "fill this out in triplicate Mr Smith"!
Paper ballots should be mandatory, in triplicate, with the voter depositing copy A in the ballot box, mailing copy B to one of any approved secondary processing centers, chosen by the voters, retaining copy C for ones records and online verification that copies A and B remain true.
I see no reason why states couldn't swap ballots, allowing state 2 to "grade state 1's homework". At the end of the day, the state 1 opens a lottery drawn code telling them who will be grading their papers. For Example, at poll close, CA opens the supersecret envelope (reminiscient of Karnac the Great on Johnny Carson), revealing that TX will be in charge of processing CAs validation count. If it's off by a statistical significance...no fed money for the offending state until corrected)
There has to be a better way, and Microsoft/Soros/DARPA isn't going to enstill the confidence this country needs to survive. A #2 pencil, a few black dots and independent verification with (voter retained) proof is so simple it just may work. If the voter isn't intelligent enough to color the circle, they shouldn't be voting.
Ballot box computers should be reserved for researching the candidates, not for harboring the only copy of your choices...
Here's hoping Brenda Snipes isn't in charge of counting your 2020 Trump vote!
schroedingersrat , 2 hours ago linkYep, the US election system is the most stupid system I know. Why not just use paper votes or block-chain voting over the internet?
Yars Revenge , 5 hours ago linkThe funny thing is.. even if they tamper with elections. Your vote never mattered anyway!
platitudipus , 5 hours ago linkNow we know the deep state purpose of "Russian meddling" and "interfering in our elections.
Its to justify installing security software on voting machines to "protect us."
emmanuelthoreau , 6 hours ago linkIf you think the 2016 elections were a ****-show, wait until you see the fireworks we have planned for 2020.
Overdrawn , 7 hours ago linkTechnology is destroying most if not all of western civilization's institutions, and replacing them with nothing but mobocracy. The feedback effect means that every 3-4 years the power of the loudest and most popular -- and hence the lowest common denominator -- gets amped up another few degrees. It is not abating. The phones are everywhere, everywhere , in public. Necks bent over everywhere. When they can get these things synced up to eye movement on a headset or pair of glasses for mass consumption (meaning, really, really easy to use), look out. Silence, baby. Human race goes under.
If you were raised in an oddball environment before computers -- and then smartphones -- infested every corner of the human imagination, it's obvious what's happened. 40 years ago people didn't behave this way. They had tons of problems, sure, and those were fucked up times, but at least there was still some fight left in them. I just see a bitter, aggrieved, very small-minded set of people out there now, absorbed in themselves, their genitalia/identity/skin color, who have nothing to offer this planet except destruction. I have come to believe they will succeed. I could walk away from all this tech tomorrow and wouldn't blink an eye. But I realize that for many, that would be an event akin to becoming a quadruple amputee.
We've always been cynical about how much a single vote can mean, but for the most part, people have believed that their vote showed up somewhere, numerically, in a digit in a column in a newspaper every other November. If nothing else. Once that belief goes out the window, forget it. What, then, will tie you to the land or the people around you? The law? Ha. Only force, and that means outright tyranny. Which is what democracy, Socrates argued in The Republic, always leads to.
And all to serve these ******* computers instead of ourselves.
stopEUSSR , 7 hours ago linkIn UK we have paper ballot papers and postal voting, both have been abused recently by the Labour Party.
One man boasted on Twitter than he burnt over 1,000 votes for the Brexit Party, so effectively they would have won the election had this crime against democracy not been committed.
Police Investigating Mystery Man Who Claims He 'BURNED' Brexit Party Votes
Fraud, Convicts, And Ethnic Exploitation – How Peterborough Was REALLY Won
CosineCosineCosine , 7 hours ago linkWhy bother hijacking an election, when the deep state choose both candidates? And just because you use paper ballots doesn't mean it still can't be rigged. We use paper ballots in the UK, but elections can be rigged through the postal voting system amoungst other things.
runningman18 , 7 hours ago linkNow THIS is cathartic journalism :))
Why do we need an answer? Well, our election system is... how do you say... a festering rancid corrupt needlessly complex rigged rotten infected putrid pus-covered diseased dog pile of stinking, dying cockroach-filled rat **** smelling like Mitch McConnell under a vat of pig farts. And that's a quote from The Lancet medical journal (I think).
But have no fear: The most trustworthy of corporations recently announced it is going to selflessly and patriotically secure our elections. It's a small company run by vegans and powered by love. It goes by the name "Microsoft." (You're forgiven for never having heard of it.)
😊
Also - unless these voting machines are Faraday caged AND have Mu metal layers, they could be monitored or interfered with in real time, even if air gapped.
Know the basics of this and you're already a 1 in 100,000 tech red piller ;)
Passport ID, Paper system with a duplicate receipt ... ironically like Venezuela's system (the one thing they got right it seems) and monitoring of voting areas and counting streamed to the net of every polling station (ironically like the newish Russian system) make it close to foolproof and certainly verifiable if questioned and accountable.
Baron Samedi , 7 hours ago linkThe elites hijacked elections a long time ago using the false left/right paradigm. Just look at the banksters in Trump's cabinet to see the proof.
wkirkpa , 7 hours ago linkAuditable paper ballots for voters with verifiable identity - preferably with receipts - and dye-marking the hands of the voters.
We are a long way from secure elections. Our (((oligarchy))) wouldn't have it any other way!
Remember the old refrains: "If voting could change anything it'd be illegal." -- Emma Goldman, and "The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do." -- Joseph Stalin
Mike Rotsch , 7 hours ago linkWow. Dude just climbed out from under his favourite rock and met the reality gnome. Good for him.
I'm good with technology. I wasted whole moments of my life pondering electronic elections. Here's the thing. There is NO manner of electronic election process that does not forfeit one, or more, mandatory elements required of a free and fair election process. None. At all. Can't be done.
He–Mene Mox Mox , 8 hours ago linkMeanwhile, as we approach election time, we have cyber-operations taking place without Trump's knowledge.
GreatUncle , 8 hours ago linkThis article is nuts and full of BS! The Pentagon could care less who is president, since they only have to worry about congress funding them. Also, Microsoft is more worried about profits than people. Just ask anyone who works there.
The hijacking of American elections has been going on for 165 years. That is why almost every state has Ballot Access Laws, and why practically every district in the U.S. are gerrymandered by the two parties. And, you never had any truly free elections either, since the parties chose the candidates for you in the primaries, and all you do is ratify their selections. Your vote is rather meaningless.
I went to bed after having voted for BREXIT and through all the propaganda thought BREMAIN had won. I woke up the next morning and BREXIT had won. Those in tears were all BREMAIN as they thought they would win because the propaganda was so complete against the people.
SO NOW THEY ARE GOING TO FIX THE RESULT TO MAKE THE VOTES REFLECT THE PROPAGANDA.
One more step put in place the next step has to be to close down all channels of objection or certainly throttle it back to prevent people discussing it - the scrutiny of those being fit for public office removed.
|
|
|
May 15, 2019 | off-guardian.org
CNN rigged a poll to censor out nearly everyone under 45 years of age. Based on this nonsensical false sampling they claim Biden is now in the lead.
MSNBC was caught making up false numbers to report, increasing Biden from an actual 25% approval to a magical 28%, just enough to edge out Bernie Sanders. But this is a fraud, deliberate journalistic malfeasance at the highest levels. How could such a thing happen?
How could it not? Comcast owns NBC.
Comcast executive to host Joe Biden fundraiser"
CBS News 24/04/19MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda about "national security."
MSNBC also made hysterical, highly dangerous, and false claims about the Russians' ability and intention to shut down America's electrical grid, a completely false story that was retracted as soon as it went out by the Washington Post. This kind of unhinged war propaganda could lead the world straight to Armageddon.
Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time.
GrafterThe criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. We can start by removing them from Europe along with their so called "allies". Here in the disunited UK T.May and her little gang of Tory millionaires should be top priority for political oblivion. People worldwide urgently need to wake up to the sick joke that goes under the name of "American democracy".
mark
Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army or terrorist organisation.
They need to be constantly exposed for what they are rather than actually suppressed or controlled. They can be safely left to wither on the vine and decline into irrelevance. Social media and sites like this are a powerful antidote.
Seamus Padraig
As Trump might say, 'Fake News!'
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
launching his campaign on Thursday , even pulling in $700,000 during a Philadelphia fundraiser hosted by a Comcast executive.Befitting of his status as a former VP and the leader in most national polls, Biden managed to beat out Bernie Sander's day-one haul of $5.9 million, despite the still-simmering controversy over 'gropegate' and the backlash over his treatment of Anita Hill, a young black female lawyer who accused Supreme Court nominee (now Justice) Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Hill rejected a personal apology from Biden earlier this week, even as Biden clarified during an interview on ABC's "the View" that he wasn't apologizing for his personal behavior, but rather for the treatment she was subjected to during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he led at the time.
Biden's day-one haul also beat out the $6.1 million raised by Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke during his first day, though recent polls show that enthusiasm for O'Rourke among Democrats has waned as South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has benefited from a media blitz of fawning coverage.
Creative_Destruct , 45 minutes ago link
tonye , 23 minutes ago linkAfter all the manipulated outrage, the electoral choices will most likely still be between about whom it can essentially be said "meet the old boss, same as the old boss." Underneath the thin layers of standard rhetorical ******** the same strings connect the puppets to the puppet masters.
Taras Bulba , 3 hours ago linkYeah, Biden is an "old school" Democrat alright.
Complete Uniparty.
Just ask him about Ukraine.
Anunnaki , 4 hours ago linkIn case anyone is wondering what kind of thug Kolomoisky (Hunter biden's sponsor at burisma), here is a run down of the murder of Russians in Odessa on 2 May 2014 and kolomosky's close involvement.
Anunnaki , 4 hours ago linkBiden-Weinstein 2020. #MeToo wing of the Democrap Party
CatInTheHat , 4 hours ago linkAll he offers is TDS and lazy platitudes. He thinks people love his “Everyman” shtick. He is a legend in his own mind
dustinwind , 4 hours ago linkBIDEN is a corrupt douche bag.
If Biden is Democrats anointed one They will get a repeat of 2016 in 2020.
Biden has ZERO charisma and comes across as a complete phony
CatInTheHat , 4 hours ago linkWhat I read was "Biden is a typical American politician." All the career politicians depend on big checks from the rich and corporate elites who greatly appreciate their services rendered. America is pay to play. It has been for a long time.
John Hansen , 4 hours ago linkBiden is Hillary Clinton in male form.
If he runs an anti Trump campaign, which he is likely to do, because he has ZERO to offer Americans, he will LOSE.
No big deal, this is America, we are used to phonies, and false promises, just look at our border and demographic decline.
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2019 | irrussianality.wordpress.com
. The New York Times reports how 40 years later Robert Caro tracked down Luis Salas, 'the election judge who, under oath, had certified 200 disputed votes for Johnson in the notorious Ballot Box 13.' As the Times says :
He [Caro] knocked on the door of a mobile home near Houston, and the frail old man of 84 who answered was only too pleased to fish out from a trunk a 94-page history titled "Box 13," which described how he had switched votes from Stevenson to Johnson. He was proud of deceiving everyone. "We put L. B. Johnson as senator for Texas, and this position opened the road to reach the presidency."
Never again would Caro have to equivocate, "No one will ever be sure if Lyndon Johnson stole it." Now, in [his book] "Working," he writes yet another definitive sentence: He stole it.
Electoral corruption takes rather different forms nowadays. Corporate lobbying, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the like are far more common than ballot stuffing LBJ-style. But regardless of the form these abuses take, the idea that we have some type of pristine process which is pure and 'democratic' until defiled by 'foreign meddling' is rather naïve. That doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't be doing all we can to make matters better, or that we shouldn't be wary of things which might make them worse. But in doing the latter, we need to keep a sense of proportion and not to over-idealize existing systems or over-exaggerate the scale of the dangers.
The likes of Timothy Snyder would have us believe that democracy is on the verge of collapsing into tyranny. In reality, the choices are between various forms of democratic imperfection. Some are better than others, but all are inevitably flawed. A little bit more imperfection here and there isn't the end of the world.
Share this:
|
|
|
Feb 04, 2019 | www.nytimes.com
Yuri Asian Bay Area Area
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy.
The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious greed.
Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out by a rational majority who now see the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for their children if we continue to emulate ostriches.
Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent masters.
Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our future.
956 Recommend ,
|
|
|
Feb 04, 2019 | www.nytimes.com
Debra Petersen Clinton, Iowa Jan. 28
carlyle 145 Florida Jan. 28"The net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans is almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent combined." This describes a truly radical concentration of wealth that should raise red flags for anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country. How long can such a situation last...or grow even worse...without resulting in social upheaval on a massive scale, such as happened in France in the late 1700's or Russia in the early 1900s? And exactly what do those 0.1 percent want so much wealth for anyway? While some people of great wealth do try to use it to make the world a better place, far too manty of them seem not to know what to do with it, except to let it pile up to gloat over or use it to influence politicians to create policies that will give them even more. Proposals for higher taxes on the very wealthy are derided as too radical. But the economic chasm that exists in this country between the very wealthiest and everyone else represents a radical challenge that must be addressed.
8 RecommendEJ NJ Jan. 29All you smarties ignored us when your Globalism took away all our jobs. Prez Clinton aimed for middle with his love of approval. Our situation became worse so in desperation we believed the Huckster Trump and called him our "NEW DEAL" Trump has failed us and there is a chance for Dem government in two years. A cautious, donor friendly, middle of the road Democratic administration just like the last one will send us on the hunt again for a leader to save us from peonage.
8 RecommendDS Georgia Jan. 28@Charlie As enticing as is your suggestion, let's not lower ourselves that far down to Tweety's "standards of behavior". Pinocchio redeemed himself in the end; Tweety never will, and many hope he ends up sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.
8 Recommendstan continople brooklyn Jan. 28Thank you for this review of reactions from the experts -- and for the list of experts who focus on this topic. And thank you for sharing your views. The challenge with Warren's proposal isn't devising a good policy. The challenge will be explaining it to voters who don't understand economics or Piketty's book. It's a voter-education problem more than an economics problem. I wish Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez well in their efforts to explain their proposals. It seems a tall order, but it's just the kind of medicine we need.
8 RecommendFlora Maine Jan. 29Thanks to Trump we, as a nation, got to see that even Federal workers can barely get by. This was quite a revelation for many. There has long been a stigma in this country about sharing the truly dismal state of one's economic affairs. It's why we've made so little progress along the lines discussed here. It's also the reason once-middle class people place themselves in a debt spiral, to compete with others who, unbeknownst to them, are doing likewise. There will be much more discussion now of just how unequal and insecure this society is. The powers that be have tried to muffle the conversation for long enough. And kudos to Wilbur Ross for opening his fat mouth and provoking everyone's ire!
8 RecommendOgataOkiOwl Okinawa, Japan Jan. 28@dajoebabe Another sign that ours is "a system that is the only one in the world where such vast sums can be accumulated with so little being required in return" is the way foreign capital is swamping our property markets because people from un-free countries are trying to buy access to the rule of law. There aren't that many places in the world for the rich to flee where public infrastructure and the rights of citizenship are quite as robust as here in the US.
8 RecommendCPMariner Florida Jan. 28@Ana Luisa Amen!! Very well said. I hope you're correct in projecting that the U.S. "will finally become an entirely civilized country too." I fear that the 'Kochtopus' will strangle the initiatives proposed by Warren and other progressives before they can be enacted. But I won't roll over and give up. Dr. Krugman's columns and the comments from others such as yourself inspire me to continue to push back against the Repubs and support candidates such as Sen. Warren. Bravo Zulu to you and all the other NYT readers who speak up to state that the United States can strive to be the shining example of equality and fairness that does truly function to promote governance that works for the common good of ALL U.S. citizens.
8 RecommendBlue Moon Old Pueblo Jan. 28Dr. Krugman uses the argument of "marginal utility value" as the crux of one of his statements. Marginal utility, briefly described, is the value one might put on he first milkshake he's had in years. Probably very high. But what about the 10th milkshake in the same day? ("Yuck" would do nicely.) So it is with "the second $50 million", as Dr. Krugman argues. Quite right. After a given point - depending on the individual - wealth ceases to play an important part in one's life. Would a billionaire miss a million?... one thousandth of his net worth? Hardly. But when arguing such a point, beware the Slippery Slope argument (a classic fallacy). "Yeah, maybe just a million today; but tomorrow? Maybe TEN million!!
8 RecommendMaryellen Simcoe Baltimore Jan. 28"Taxing the superrich is an idea whose time has come -- again." Let's hope Democrats have their ducks in a row with this legislation when they regain the presidency and full control of Congress in 2020. And if we want to get even more radical with the "swollen" wealthy, we could rescind their recent trillion-dollar tax cut. Perhaps that will start acclimating them to what needs to be our new normal. We should consider cuts to our bloated defense budget as well. We can use all of this money to shore up Social Security and Medicare, in addition to Medicaid, and to promote more affordable public education, infrastructure to fight climate change, and universal health care. This additional revenue is not just something we should see as a windfall for society. In the end, it may prove to be what saves what's left of our society.
8 Recommendthewriterstuff Planet Earth Jan. 28@Registered Repub. Again, Warren is not a socialist. You may not know what a socialist is.
8 RecommendTom New Jersey Jan. 28@Mike Rowe The only people that this would effect are the people who can't afford lawyers and accountants. I have been audited twice. Both times it turned out the government owed me money, but the money I was owed, was eaten up because I had to pay and accountant to defend me. Trump still has not put forward his tax documents, do you really think that adding a few more IRS agents would change that.
8 RecommendJohn Hartford Jan. 29@Orthoducks Let's be honest: every society that has taken away the wealth of individuals and handed it to the government to allocate has been ruled by tyrants and has reduced their citizenry to penury at the point of a gun. Wealthy people reinvest their money in economic ventures that grow their wealth, which generates greater productivity while creating jobs and wealth for the society. If there is too much concentration of wealth (there is), let's tax it back down, but don't ever suggest that we should just take all the money from individuals because we can. That's the route Lenin and Mao went down; I thought we had learned that lesson.
8 Recommendnora m New England Jan. 29Whether you agree with Warren's proposal or not it's a good thing that this issue is being put out in the public domain because we've now reached the stage where income and wealth inequality is eroding the effectiveness of the open and dynamic capitalist economy that we all need. Some of the more perceptive of the super rich like Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg have recognized this and the dangers it threatens. It was a problem recognized in the 30's by J. M. Keynes speaking in America when he said "If the new problem of inequality is not solved the existing order of society will become so discredited that wild, foolish and destructive changes will become inevitable." It's worth remembering that Maduro and Chavez before him were the products of the vast inequalities in Venezuelan society. And there are plenty of other examples of a similar dynamic at work.
8 RecommendRMS Jan. 28The people who don't like a wealth tax are a) very wealthy, or b) corrupt politicians, or c) pundits who like to sound like they know everything. Yes, tax the wealthy. Even Willie Sutton could tell you that if you want money (tax revenue) go where it is. The time is right. They can choose: higher taxes or the guillotine.
8 RecommendPATRICK G.O.P. is the Party of "Red" Jan. 28@Shiv Taxes were at this rate in the 50's and inequality was nowhere as bad as it is now. Undertaxing Bezos and his ilk (and the way our tax system is now set up, generally), directs money to the CEOs and other muckety mucks, not to their employees. Republicans seem to think that there's a "natural" (as in, arising out of nature) situation where money goes to the person who has "earned" it. That's simply not true. The economy is a construct, created by law and custom. And right now, the law makes sure that Bezos gets a whole lot more than he should be getting, while his hapless employees (the folks who do the actual work) get way less than they should.
8 RecommendRMS Jan. 29I have admired Warren since she entered the political spectator sport. She has a lot of guts for a woman. I gathered from your essay that only 75,000 or so Americans hold as much wealth as the lower 90 percent of the entire population of 320,000,000 Americans. Decades have passed since Eisenhower rightly paid down the debt of the great war. In that time, fairly dispersed wealth trickled up to a few who employed "Trickle Down" propaganda and political manipulation, all too often agreed to, to reduce their tax burden thereby heaping all responsibilities of maintaining the nation on everyone but the rich. "Trickle Down Economics" was always a lie we all saw through. Party politics, bought and paid for, happily accepted wealthy dollars in exchange for legislation outlined by the wealthys' lobbyists. The reality has always been "Trickle Up" and "Trickle Out" economics as American wealth is grossly concentrated at the top. I like the taxation plan as presented. It still leaves the filthy rich, well, filthy rich. It started as our money they now have amassed. Decades of lies and corruption justify any new taxes on the wealthy who need to be convinced their absent patriotism should be reestablished by law. If the wealthy are going to "Crowd Source" America, let's make them "Crowd Pleasers". It's a great way to keep the peace. We do want peace, don't we?
7 RecommendAna Luisa Belgium Jan. 28@DJS Ummm, wealthy people, no matter how well meaning or even well-acting (and there are many who are neither), do not (or should not) be in charge of infrastructure, public health, national defense, public education and so on. As far as "helping needy people, who never see it," I wonder what you are thinking. I assure you that the recipients of food stamps, unemployment, social security, medicare and medicaid benefits certainly "see" it. As do the rest of us when we have clean air and water (currently under attack by Republicans), safe air flight (ditto), and well-maintained roads (also ditto).
7 RecommendYuri Asian Bay Area Jan. 29@Registered Repub (Reply to your reply to FunkyIrishman) Could you please explain how American workers can be simultaneously 30-40% more productive than Scandinavian workers, and all American "socialists" (which for you seems to be a synonym with Democrats, and as a consequence refers to the majority of the American people) "lazy" ... ? And of course America hasn't a 40% higher productivity rate than Scandinavian countries. In 2015, the US ranked merely fifth on the OECD's productivity list - after Luxemburg, Ireland, Norway and Belgium. A US workers adds $68 per hour to the GDP, a Danish worker half a dollar less, and a Swedish worker $9 dollars less. And maybe Americans "own more cars and live in bigger houses", but Norwegians are FAR happier, as all studies show. Producing tons of money as a country's highest ideal is clearly not the best way to have a happy, healthy and well-educated population and economy that works for all citizens. And funny enough, in the US it's precisely the party that loves to call itself "the party of values" that indeed systematically sees money as its main value ... http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries /
7 RecommendOckham9 Norman, OK Jan. 29@Paul Rogers Agree except for abolishing propaganda, which offends the First Amendment. Better to help others recognize political manipulation and reject irrational or emotional appeals. Thanks for your reply.
7 RecommendManish Seattle Jan. 29It doesn't matter whether large majorities of Americans or economists or tax experts support a wealth tax or higher marginal rates. The only poll that matters limits itself to 535 people, the members of the House and Senate. And the net worth of those 535 people is on average 5 times larger than that of the rest of America. Fourteen have net worths larger than the $50 million of the proposal. Will they vote to tax themselves more? Though the number may be small, in a contentious matter and a highly partisan and divided body, every vote matters.
7 RecommendSamwiseTheDrunk Chicago Suburbs Jan. 28Let's start simple: close the carried interest loophole. For all the talk of Obama being about the working class, he didn't get this done. Hedge fund guys had his administration and Dems lobbied up to prevent closing this. So it's not just the Republicans supporting the oligarchy. Democrats are guilty too.
7 RecommendBuddy Badinski 28422 Jan. 29Us Americans need to stop seeing ourselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, that's the problem. I don't care how we do it, either by raising rates, closing loopholes, or both, but the 1%, the 0.1%, and the 0.01% need to take home less money. They don't "work harder" than the rest of us, that's complete garbage. Maybe we pass a tiered law stipulating an allowed pay ratio between the CEO and lowest level employee, based on either company size as the number of people, or revenue, or some other formula. Or maybe we say you get a lower tax rate if you meet that ratio, and higher taxes if you don't. I'm glad people are moving the overton window though.
7 RecommendLen Charlap Princeton NJ Jan. 28@JW Maybe she should. Bernie does and it clearly demonstrates his conviction to the wealth inequality situation.
7 Recommendmrpoizun hot springs Jan. 28"Denmark and Sweden, both of which USED to have significant wealth taxes" Why don't they have them today?
7 RecommendPhil Las Vegas Jan. 28@Taz Obama was also a moderate Republican. This time, we need a liberal. Who was the last president to be nearly universally popular? (Except with the mega-rich) FDR. And remember what he said about his wealthy enemies? "I welcome their hatred!"
7 RecommendKelly McKee Reno, NV Jan. 28Existing US infrastructure is so degraded, the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) estimates it will cost $2 trillion just to bring it back up to code. President Trump cut taxes on the 1%, which will cost about that much in increased debt over ten years. Candidate Trump floated the idea that this imminent infrastructure cost should be born by the 'little people' via toll booths, as they schlep themselves to work and back each day just trying to make their rent money. Americans need to realize something about our government: it costs money, and that money is not in question. Someone is going to pay that bill: 'nothing is certain but death and taxes'. As the infrastructure debate illustrates, we can either make the wealthy pay that cost, or they will make us pay it. But somebody is going to pay it, of that you can be sure. (Just a suggestion: that $2 trillion is just for delayed maintenance on existing infrastructure. But that infrastructure was originally constructed, i.e. out of nothing, back at a time when the maximum marginal income tax was over 90%).
7 RecommendBruce Wheeler` San Diego Jan. 28Benjamin Franklin founded the first communally funded public hospital and library, and Jefferson the the first communally funded public school. Both also touted the benefits of capitalism, including Franklin in his autobiography, stressing self discipline and creativity in business; and Jefferson famously said, paraphrasing here, that he 'admired industry and abhorred slavery' while they touted science and technologies' advances and natural law. Therefore, they believed in and instantiated a mixed economics plan for the future of the nation, with both capitalist and socialist dimensions. This was over the objections and boos of men of lesser ideals, at the time. But the founders became Founders, and the other men of lesser ideals did not. Therefore, it is the ideals of the founders that should live on in our country, not other ideals. We can all take a simple pride in the American Exceptionalism that led Ben Franklin to maneuver against powerful loyalist-capitalists in the 1750's in Pennsylvania colony, and found the first hospital in Philadelphia above their private disbelief that it would ever work; the hospital would unquestioningly take in any and all from off of the streets who needed assistance. The combined ideal vision of America's founding fathers broke the mold of two-tiered monarchy capitalism, and established mixed capitalism on the new plateau of democracy. There's no need to apologize, if we aim to fulfill this vision in a now more pluralist America.
7 RecommendWhite Buffalo SE PA Jan. 29Simply: the USA has perhaps the largest set of overpaid, underperforming rich people the world has ever seen. Yes, there are always rich people ... but ... at some point they realize the only significant remaining goal is to make humankind ... well, more human. Teddy R and Franklin R "got it", even Dwight. But certainly not Saint Ronald. Without implementation of the Warren or other plans, we will let the rich destroy the fundamentals of society which allowed them to become rich. Rich includes: law and order, free speech, little corruption among police, ... children who will grow up and support the rich in their dotage.
7 Recommendjust visiting USA Jan. 29@Vink FDR, who was infinitely more canny and wise than Trump, understood this in no uncertain terms.
7 RecommendLawrence Zajac Williamsburg Jan. 29To me the current trend in concentration of income at the top looks like inflation. In places like San Francisco you have to earn 7 digit incomes to be able to afford housing. In response housing gets more expensive, and Google will have to increase your salary to make your ends meet. So now houses will get more expensive... Of course, if you are a school teacher, or a baker or a cashier at the supermarket, your goose is cooked. If a hedge fund manager can afford to pay $200+ million for a penthouse where you used to live, you are going to be homeless
7 RecommendBetaneptune Somerset, NJ Jan. 28The real justice of such a plan is that money could be made to move throughout the system stimulating the economy and shared prosperity. What should be obvious to all and hopefully will before the next election cycle is that the Dems are imaginatively searching for solutions and coming up with great ideas.
7 RecommendJ. Cornelio Washington, Conn. Jan. 29@Baldwin - How about property tax? Tax on your same home over an over again, with the home itself paid for with money that was already taxed. T'would be no worse than that.
7 RecommendJohnH Rural Iowa Jan. 29We have no hesitation in shaming those who get a dopamine rush from alcohol or from drugs or from sex or (occasionally) from an obscene accumulation of power. But as the saying goes, you can never be too rich or too thin. Well, that's a cultural meme not a Platonic truth, one probably dating back to at least Freud (if not Augustine) who preferred we "sublimate" our sexual lust for money/power lust because the latter is, at least theoretically, more "productive" for society. Except when it isn't. And when dopamine (a/k/a/ greed) driven plutocrats use their wealth to corrupt the system so that they can continue to accumulate more wealth and power, it isn't. Neuter them.
7 RecommendMiguel Valadez UK Jan. 29It's time we ask ourselves this: What happens if we do nothing versus if we do something? If we do nothing, we continue with a small group of family dynasties that owns everything, whose primary commitment is only to amassing more wealth. We have a precedent for this in the robber barons of the late 1800's. The outcome? They drove the U.S. economy off the cliff in the 1920's. (Yes, simplified, but not much.) What happens if we do what Warren proposes -- or something similar? More tax money to solve problems, and we need the money. We just gave these people around $1.5 trillion in tax breaks, and the data clearly show they will not trickle down on us. And we're not remotely addressing climate change or crumbling infrastructure -- situations that will strain our social and economic capacity for perhaps a century. But just as important, it would cap the capacity of 75,000 people to make all the de facto decisions for our society. Democracy would be reinvigorated. Throw in the destruction of Citizens United, and it would usher in a new era in America. Of course, it is guaranteed that the ultra-rich, their super-rich pals, and the politicians they buy through Citizens United will fight this tooth and nail. For them it would be: to the barricades! Just like corporations, their loyalty is to themselves and their wealth, not to their country.
7 RecommendJohn Hartford Jan. 29Wealth Redistribution is only one of the four legs of the stool of an inclusive society. Prof Krugman, AOC and Democrats would do well to expand the narrative to address right wing concerns: 1. Effective government spending on public services that improve welfare and national wealth and risk taking and knowledge generation (eg NASA) that the private sector just wont do - root out inefficiencies in the system, ensure incentives for productivity are maximized and keep operations lean and accountable to society. 2. Campaign finance reform: mandate air time for election coverage as a public good and give parties public funds and budget ceilings to ensure a level playing field. Also ensure redistricting makes all races competitive scross party lines as the preeminent rule. Eliminate the electoral college and moderately shift senate power to more populous states. 3. Equalise access to educational opportunities by removing the link between geography and housing and education quality and massively supporting early education programmes across the board. Improve educational outcomes to ensure the majority of society is capable of critical thinking. 4. Redistribute wealth and limit the power of elites to tilt the system in their favour: both in government policy and in how the judicial system operates (no more a la carte legal representation quality based on ability to pay).
7 RecommendPaul Wortman Providence Jan. 28@Michael Who says it will be changed? You? Progressive taxation is not seizing assets. Without it a modern state cannot function. And the AMT came into existence because of the efforts of people like Donald Trump to evade taxation.
7 Recommendheysus Mount Vernon Jan. 28Income inequality along with climate change are the two BIG issues that need to be addressed. The rollback in the progressive income tax that began with Ronald Reagan needs to be reversed. The proposals by Sen. Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Steven Rattner in today's Times need to be debated and carefully evaluated. But, there are related issues that are relevant to this debate concerning how to cope with automation and artificial intelligence that will dramatic effect the labor market for those still struggling for decent paying jobs. Democrats must not lose sight of their base--blue-collar, lower- and middle-class voters still struggling with wage stagnation and the loss of manufacturing jobs. That's where Hillary Clinton lost the last election, and while Democrats may feel good about taxing the rich, they must not forget the 99 plus percent who are still in need of help.
7 RecommendKarl Hoaglund Milwaukee, WI Jan. 29I feel this is exactly what this country needs. The rich have become richer and seem to demand more and more. Time to stop this incredible greed and put some of those dollars back to work in the country. Hopefully all of the Dems will agree with this.
7 RecommendNew Haven CT New Haven Jan. 29Excellent article and kudos to Elizabeth Warren. On top of her and AOC's proposals I would add a 100% inheritance tax on estates over $1M. This isn't my idea but that of my favorite law school professor: the taxee doesn't care because s/he's dead; any money passed on to children is a complete windfall to them. Let's end the aristocracy.
7 RecommendSchrodinger Northern California Jan. 28The time has got to be ripe for these kinds of proposals. The primary source of unhappiness in the working class throughout the western world is the feeling of being left behind and not having their problems addressed. In the US we need to fix our crumbling infrastructure, provide a livable minimum wage and universal health care. These goals can easily be achieve by addressing the outrageous accumulation of wealth by the top 1%. Implement Warren's plan, AOC's 70% tax, tax capital gains the same as income, and add a 1% fee on all stock trades. The money the rich are hoarding needs to be invested in the betterment of society. That would truly make America great again.
7 RecommendAna Luisa Belgium Jan. 28@Alice...Inflation has been low and stable for 20 years and quantitative easing has had no effect on it, despite the forecasts of most right-wing economists. If you knew anything about macroeconomics you would be aware that in the past some governments have had serious struggles with the control of inflation.
7 RecommendBill Belle Harbour, New York Jan. 29It's a sad, very sad day, when in order to have a very brief but concrete idea about what Warren just proposed, you have to read an op-ed, not a NYT article, as that article just skips the very content of her speech and instead focuses on what most MSM constantly focus on: a politician as an individual wanting a career in DC, and whether this or that will advance or hurt that career (supposedly based not on policy but "likability"). MSM, I really hope that this time you will do your job! That Trump and the lying GOP won the 2016 elections is as much due to Fox News constant barrage of fake news as to MSM's tendency to systematically silence the most relevant facts (most of the time not in order to distort the truth, as Trump falsely claims, but simply because of their "small" concept of political journalism, which often seems closer to a sports match report than to a way to build a truly informed and engaged democratic civil society, even though that's precisely the crucial job of the fourth branch of government, in a democracy).
7 RecommendEAK Cary NC Jan. 29@Linda Helping the poor seems to be your prescription for salvation. But what hope is there for those who don't help the poor when they actually made and continue to make people poor?
7 Recommendrtj Massachusetts Jan. 28It's the T word that hangs people up. On any given day, the paper wealth of billionaires can gain or lose one or two percent based on the fluctuations of the stock market. They happily play the numbers to stabilize -- and hopefully improve -- their portfolios, but they manage to take the lumps without having to alter their lavish lifestyles. They're fixated on control, which they believe is stolen from them by big government. But in the long run, they really don't feel the pain on a personal level. Let 'em be taxed.
7 RecommendDoc Who Gallifrey Jan. 29@Tom Maguire "If Ms. Warren is this generation's Teddy, what companies does Prof. Krugman see her breaking up?" Insurance, Drugstores, Cable/ISPs, Tech, Big Box stores for starters. https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warren_Antitrust_Speech.pdf
7 RecommendSimon Lyon Jan. 29Bully for Elizabeth Warren! Take the time to read or skim the engaging books she has written about the economic plight of the American family---available on Amazon, and in your local library.
7 RecommendPaul Wortman Providence Jan. 28If her bid for the nomination fails the winning candidate should commit to her being their Treasury secretary. She knows how to reform and tame finance.
7 RecommendHugh Massengill Eugene Oregon Jan. 29@Ana Luisa Hillary totally ignored the blue-collar voters in the Midwest "blue wall" states and did not advocate for stronger unions. In fact, she never agreed with the progressive proposal for a $15/hr. minimum wage. She was a centrist, establishment, Wall Street candidate who picked a center-right running mate rather than uniting the party by picking a progressive like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. The election NEVER should have been close, but Clinton was out-of-touch with the working class and most Sanders progressives--and it cost her.
7 RecommendAna Luisa Belgium Jan. 28Well, the first Democrat who takes after FDR sure has my vote. Hugh
7 Recommend@carlyle 145 This has nothing to do with globalism, and everything with the fact that for too long, many people didn't vote, allowing the GOP to fire up their base with fake news and as such force Democrats in DC to move more and more to the right, each time they had to compromise with the GOP because "we the people" didn't give them the votes to control DC. And in a democracy, ALL real, radical, lasting, democratic progress is step by step progress. So as long as progressives don't see that Democrats' are their natural allies and simply wait until someone comes along who claims to be able to single-handedly change everything overnight, it's the lying GOP and their Big Money corruption that will continue to destroy the country. Conclusion: stop "hunting for a leader to save us", in a democracy only "we the people" can save us. So instead of standing at the sidelines yelling "not enough!" to those fighting in the mud each time they managed to get us one step closer to the finish line, start focusing on that finish line too, then roll up your sleeves and come standing in the mud too, and then the next step forward will be taken much faster
|
|
|
bkh , , November 7, 2018 at 9:23 amNov 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
won control of the House again, ending an eight-year stint in the minority:The US Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections, dealing a serious blow to President Donald Trump.
While the GOP is poised to add to its Senate majority, yesterday's election was the best midterm result for the Democrats since 2006. They flipped dozens of Republican-held seats, including some that they were not expected to win (e.g., IL-06, OK-05), and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party. It is normal for the president's party to lose seats in the first midterm following a presidential election, and Democratic gains were in line with pre-election predictions. The striking thing about this year's result is that the president's party has lost so much ground despite relatively good economic conditions. Republicans had an extremely favorable Senate map, and despite that they barely managed to eke out a win in Texas of all places. It was not as thorough of a repudiation as the GOP deserved, but it was a significant rejection all the same.
The president's poor approval ratings and his unimpressive record to date have further dragged down a Republican Party that wasn't very popular to begin with. Americans seem to lose patience with unified government fairly quickly. Yesterday voters gave the Democratic Party an opportunity to put the president in check and hold him accountable for his overreaching and illegal wars. Trump and his officials should expect to face much more rigorous oversight and scrutiny from relevant Congressional committees, and Trump's haphazard and incompetent conduct of foreign policy should run into much stronger resistance from the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees. Trump won't be able to count on the leadership in the House to roll over for him over the next two years, and he and his Cabinet members are likely to be facing one investigation after another.
Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon.
Two More Years November 7, 2018 at 9:15 am
I voted for him in 2016, but I lost confidence in him as he started doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead of doing the job we hired him for, the job he promised to do during the campaign: deport the illegals, stop immigration and foreign work visas, get us out of the Middle East, rebuild US infrastructure, i.e. "America First".Yesterday I voted against the only national GOP politician I could get my hands on. He lost, and I'm glad, especially because he was a Tea Party Republican who betrayed our Tea Party principles by voting for Trump's out of control deficit spending and for more stupid Mideast wars.
We've got a lady Democrat now, but she looks fairly sane. We'll see. The problem with Democrat politicians is that a lot of them only pretend to be normal until they get to Washington.
I am no Trump fan, but what is going to change? It will still be a do nothing Congress. The wars will still go on and the health-care dilemma will still be ever-present. It is sad that the past 2 years have been wasted. Even if the Republican Congress could not do something about health-care due to the size of the problem, they could have at least done something about infrastructure, immigration, and these dumb wars. The failure is just as much Paul Ryan's fault as it is Trump's. I watched last night with far more interest than 2016 and am amazed that so many old Boomers were elected given the supposed youth movement. It never occurred to me that there are alot of Septuagenarian war-mongers who should have retired a decade ago still receiving votes. The Democrats took the House, but what is left of this nation is toast regardless.EliteCommInc. , , November 7, 2018 at 9:32 am
"Losing control of one house of Congress under current circumstances is a huge vote of no confidence in Trump and the GOP, and it could not have come a moment too soon."SteveM , , November 7, 2018 at 9:33 amHow much of this was national in nature is unclear. Many of the republicans that lost were "Never Trump" advocates or very "lukewarm" at best. I think this reflects more failure on the local level to turn or translate the positives into something beneficial locally.
I am just surprised the Republicans managed to lose the house given the economic numbers (though I remain deeply distrustful of them -- given exports) and what has been repeated stumbles by democrats.
Texas, is a perfect example. While Sen Cruz was not a never Trumper, he was mild fair in the president's corner. His election was about him, not the president. And I think the vote reflected less confidence in his leadership. Neither Texas nor Sen Cruze are as conservative as believed or at least not as they once were considered. Unfortunately, what carried him over the top was ethnicity, not his leadership.
It's probably too early to tell, just how big a factor the president was in the election or how much change will result. Thus far, the establishment that existed previously remains despite the presidential election that was intended to reshape or at least curb its self serving appetite --
Given the the money at play -- it is doubtful that that things are going to change much. Now that I put at the admin door step. Because his folded a lot against the reasons he was elected, during the last two years.
Re: "and with those gains voters have delivered a sharp rebuke to the president and his party."rayray , , November 7, 2018 at 10:44 amAnd with what promises did the Democrats win those votes? Why with the bogus "Medicare for All" and the equally bogus "Free College Education for All".
The problem with health care in America is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of health care services. Moving the "who pays" food around the plate accomplishes nothing. A "Medicare for All" plan under the existing fee for service model will only increase the pathological per capita health care cost in the U.S. Too bad the MSM in love with Nitwit Newbie Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is too stupid to connect the dots.
And higher ed is unaffordable simply because it's also over priced. Using government subsidies to sustain a bankrupt higher ed model amounts to re-arranging even more deck chairs on the Titanic.
The Democrats are the Party of Free Lunch and Free War. While the Republicans are the Party of Free War and Free Lunch.
Pick one
@SteveMSid Finster , , November 7, 2018 at 10:46 am
The fact is that any "solution" to health care that has any integrity to it is a single payer solution. That's also probably the only solution that reduces, as you accurately state, the pathological per capita health care cost.And to be clear, in terms of fiscal viability, the party of reducing taxes and raising budgets is currently and has been historically the GOP. The current administration has picked up that baton as well.
One final thing, I wouldn't count out Ocasio-Cortes as a nitwit. I've been reading her white papers and following her evolution and she makes 95% of the current GOP crop seem like toddlers. Yes, her idealism will backfire hard as it always does. But what's the other option? Endless corrupt cynicism? She's impressive. I'm pulling for her to stay focused and do well.
Forget what Trump said as a candidate. Every winning candidate since arguably 1988 ("kinder, gentler America") has run as a non-interventionist and promised to restore jobs, then immediately morphed into John McCain the moment they took the Oath of Office. Instead, watch what Trump has done since getting elected. From that perspective, it is obvious that there is no such thing as "Trumpism", only a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya.Oblomov , , November 7, 2018 at 11:06 am
The alternative to Ocasio-Cortez style state worship is the simple wisdom that governments are neither efficient nor effective at delivering what she proposes.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
a , Nov 6, 2018 1:33:39 AM | link
While this and the previous post on the US elections may well be right that the republicans and trump will retain their majorities, the posts omit major factors playing a determining role in these ev
While this and the previous post on the US elections may well be right that the republicans and trump will retain their majorities, the posts omit major factors playing a determining role in these events..1. Gerrymandering.. supposedly creates about a 5% advantage to the republicans. 5% in a 2-party system is almost a landslide. even this article downplaying the role of gerrymandering includes this line,
"All that said, it's still the case that analysts estimate that Democrats will have to win the overall House vote by some 5 to 10 percentage points in order to win a House majority. "
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-23/gerrymandering-effects-are-probably-overrated2. Voter-suppression. indications are that this may create and even bigger bias than gerrymandering. it includes numerous tactics, in florida the felon-dienfranchisement tactic alone suppresses 1.4 million majority black voters. it may be difficult for naive people like me to imagine the mindset of the vote-suppressors, this excellent short article by meghan tinsley, sketches the historical origins of these tactics, e.g.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/meghan-tinsley/civil-rights-and-voter-suppression-in-us
" The end of federal support for Reconstruction in 1877 ushered in the Jim Crow era, wherein southern states waged a relentless campaign of racial terror against empowered black citizens. From the outset, disenfranchising black citizens was a priority: the Black Codes enforced severe penalties for minor 'crimes', such as vagrancy, and permanently barred convicted felons from the vote. As these tactics spread, those who imposed them became increasingly brazen about their purpose: in 1884, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld felon disenfranchisement as an effective means to "preserve the purity of the ballot box".With the entrenchment of segregation in the late nineteenth century, felon disenfranchisement, combined with poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, effectively disenfranchised virtually all African-Americans in Southern states...
In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, hailed as the single most important legislative achievement of the Civil Rights Movement...
The effects were immediate and wide-reaching: whereas only seven percent of eligible African-Americans in Mississippi were registered to vote in 1964, the number had jumped to sixty-seven percent by 1969. Ostensibly colourblind policies, including laws that would require citizens to present state-issued photo identification before voting, were blocked because they would disproportionately prevent African-Americans from voting."
3. The sheer tidal force of money. The 1% control the world now, and they make sure that their freedom to use their money to dominate democracy is unrestricted cf. 'citizens united' etc. Thomas Fergusons work indicates that the number of votes follows the amount of money spent linearly... e.g.
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/big-money-not-political-tribalism-drives-us-electionsand other work suggests US policy reflects the interests of the 1% and not that of the people at large, when they differ,
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf4. Electronic vote flipping. this has the least hard evidence, but there are anecdotes, even in this election, of voters in texas ticking straight democratic slate options but finding that the machine had entered their senate vote for ted cruz. There are also anecdotes in earlier elections of vote tallies flipping suddenly, of electronic data not being recorded or being erased before it could be checked and analysed etc. For those inclined to pooh-pooh such reports, here is a troubling article on the 2012 mexican elections,
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/
|
|
|
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter AU 1, dh-mtl
Secure transaction histories provided by blockchain (same technology as Bitcoin) allows for internet-based direct democracy.
Under such a system, there will still be the need for government services like police, fire, inspection, schools, etc. but many (all?) of these can be outsourced. Auditors can report on their compliance/progress. Auditors can be themselves be audited, and a "government" that is responsive to the people would also support whistle-blowers instead of f*cking them over.
Direct democracy could greatly increase efficiency of public services and make government respond to the people instead of oligarchs and industry groups.
Defense? LOL! What is popularly termed "Defense" is offensive to the intelligence of any critical thinker.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 29, 2018 9:49:10 PM | 46
Peter AU 1 , Jun 29, 2018 9:58:40 PM | 47
Jackrabbit'I don't know much about blockchain but blockchain democracy sounds good.Pft , Jun 30, 2018 3:39:27 AM | 62
Defense as in a force that only defends a country's sovereign territory, not this so called defending a country's interests which is no more than a politically correct term for aggression.
Diplomacy as a first line of defense.Ramn Mazaheri from a link from kalrof 1 saysdh-mtl , Jun 30, 2018 8:34:19 AM | 74"Socialism is clearly based on two fundamental precepts: empowering the long-oppressed with democratic rights, and massive state-organised economic redistribution, which is anathema in capitalism. Thus, socialism is both a structure of government and an economic policy. Therefore, Iran certainly has socialism."
This might be the clearest definition of socialism I have read.
Obviously, redistribution is the main problem for neoliberal capitalists. In the 50's and 60's the west had the redistribution capitalist formula with capital controls and high taxes on the very rich which forced them to spend profits on expanding productive enterprises that produced jobs and benefits/wages that reduced corporate profits and corporate taxes, and a healthy middle class with spending power allowed their businesses to grow.
Globalism coupled with neoliberalism ended the Golden Age and those countries who try and reproduce social justice and reject globalism and free trade are sanctioned as enemies, or even worse, attacked or subject to regime change
Some thoughts on 'Government'Geoff , Jun 30, 2018 9:00:34 AM | 751.Human societies are complex abstract systems.
2.The system is a set of rules (thus abstract) that govern how members of the society interact with each other, in order to collectively provide the necessities of life.
3.Government is the body (i.e. group of people) accepted by the members of the society at large to tend the system (i.e. to develop it, manage it, operate it, change it as required, etc.). Without a government there is no system, and no society.
4.Societies work best when the rules are set up to maximize the aggregate benefit of all members. This is best achieved when the members of the society collectively (i.e. democratically) choose the people (i.e. government) who develop and manage the rules that govern them.
5.Large societies require large complex systems. High societal performance requires high levels of complexity.
6.To function effectively, very large, highly complex abstract systems requires that authority be distributed throughout the system, and be based on the person's role within the system.
7.The most important function of societal governance is to organize the production and distribution of the necessities of life for the society's members, i.e. the economic system.
8. For those parts of the economic system that are not natural monopolies, markets are very effective tools for economic planning and organization.
9.Markets are, by definition, a set of rules. Markets work best when the rules are set by in an unbiased fashion to provide a fair playing field for all participants.Some thoughts on what has gone wrong in the U.S.
1.The members of the U.S. society no longer collectively choose their leaders. Because the democratic system has been corrupted by money, a very small, very wealthy elite (many of them not even American), limit the choice to those who will serve the interests of the elite. The U.S. has turned into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'. The turning point was the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
2.This 'Oligarchic Dictatorship' works for the benefit of the elites, not the aggregate benefit of the society as a whole. Thus the system (while optimized for the few) is, in aggregate, sub-optimized.
3.Dictatorships are based on centralized authority, where as complex systems require distributed authority. The U.S.' oligarchic dictatorship, unable to handle complexity, tries to simplify the entire political-economic system. The result of trying to simplify the system, in order to make it compatible with centralized authority, is a system that increasingly fails to meet the needs of the people and is unable to effectively change and adapt as required to changing circumstances.
4.Market deregulation has not changed the fact that the markets are, by definition, a set of rules. It has only changed who makes the rules, from the government to market participants themselves. And in this case, as always, the 'Golden Rule' applies - he who has the gold makes the rules. And when market participants make the rules themselves, for the benefit of themselves, markets always tend towards monopoly. The U.S. economy is no longer a 'Market Economy' but rather a system of serial monopolies.What can be done to redress the problems?
Until the people of the U.S. reclaim their democracy – Nothing!
The U.S.' system of government is not the problem. The problem is that the system has been hi-jacked and turned from a democracy into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'.How much time and study have gone into the observations posted just in this one thread. Many Americans I meet just aren't able to investigate that much. I find most people in the small american town that I live in, are just intersted in exchanging banal pleasantries, which isn't too bad in its own way, but provincial perhaps at best.Curtis , Jun 30, 2018 9:50:17 AM | 78And amongst all the current epoch's american instiutionally educated I feel there is a lack of some indefineable quality of "experience," which I just don't have the wisdom to grasp in its entirety, but I kind of think of it as some people, if they can't see it directly, they just aren't capable of comprehending it. If you were to try to explain it to them, in the manner of these posts, they would become irriated or bewildered, or think you were eccentric .
Unfortunately, it's this same principal used by individuals and corporations, governments, which is, if they don't tell you, it won't harm you and you won't ever know. It's here where there's a problem I think, because it's been my experience that to be kept in the dark, is far more harmful, then it is to have delusions upended, as painful as that might be.
PSCurtis , Jun 30, 2018 9:50:17 AM | 78 b4real , Jun 30, 2018 10:02:35 AM | 79
The US is at 16 on the CPI Corruption Perception Index for 2017. But keep in mind perception is something that can be manipulated. I think the US should be lower and and cheer when it moves lower because it could mean more are getting the idea of the nature of the beast.
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017@55 PeterPeacefulProsperity , Jun 30, 2018 11:45:16 AM | 80"It is not so much a delegating of authority but having someone to mediate between views and find a solution that is acceptable to all."
Respectfully, it is absolutely a delegation of authority. When that delegation is not tightly constrained to one particular issue it will be usurped by corrupt individuals. IMO elections are good for one purpose only and that is to identify the psychopaths among us who should not ever be allowed near the reins of power.
@57 Jen
"A national government is needed to approve going to war (or using diplomacy instead of war...
Your premise is based upon what I am arguing against, the existence of an entrenched government. While I fully concede that genie will not be put back in the bottle any time soon, it is government that allows the greed and evil of a few to disrupt and complicate the lives of the many.
All individuals are ultimately responsible for their own well being and safety. To depend upon the actions of others when your life or livelihood is threatened is foolish.
It is not possible to dismiss my argument using examples that exist today under an entrenched government.
Criminals are released from prison every day and relocate to new communities (or not) and continue their crimes. Vendettas between families are commonplace everywhere today. Crips, bloods, the mexican mafia, ms13, etc are present in almost every city in the usa. Just an FYI, but I have found that beating the shit out of people who invade my space has been very effective. It also dissuades others from trying the same. I live in a rough neighborhood, and this is simply a fact of life for me.
It is the laws of the 24/7 rule makers which allows them to strengthen and prosper.
A 'new' bridge recently collapsed in Miami killing and I can guarantee you, "No one could have foreseen" and there will be no consequences for those whom profited in its construction. This under existing government.
I appreciate your response, (you are one of my favorite posters) but I believe you along with the majority are too dependent on a structure that does not ever have your best interests at heart.
@59 Ashley"When I talk to Anarchist friends they ALWAYS go silent when I mention railways and..."
I would say to you I have no problem with people who want railways building them and maintaining them. Should I choose to ride one, I would gladly purchase a ticket. I see no contradiction or hypocrisy in such. What I would object to is people who have no intention of utilizing it, being forced to subsidize it, lose their homestead in its construction and again being forced to subsidize it when the inevitable mismanagement of said train (due to greed) causes it to become unprofitable.
Hillary 'lost' six BILLION during her stint at state.
The Pentagon cannot account for between 6.5 and 21 TRILLION dollars of taxpayer money. Americans are subject to prison should they decide the government has not been a good custodian of their funds and decline to contribute any longer. They will take everything you have acquired and everything you may acquire in the future should any "free" american take this decision and act upon it.@69 Russ
"Thomas Paine was right in the first place when he pointed out that the vast majority of people would be better off without governments and other trappings of centralized civilization, which of course are designed to subjugate the many to concentrate wealth, power, and luxury for the few."
This.
@71 Lysias
(another of my favorite posters)" Most state positions were occupied by citizens chosen by lot for limited terms"
This would only slow the corruption not curtail. Now if "violation of the public trust" became a capital offense with public execution becoming mandatory upon conviction a democracy might have a chance to succeed. It really is that simple. I think Thomas Jefferson may have mentioned something about that...
@all
It was not my intent to hijack this thread.
To get back on topic, it should have been apparent to any thinking individual that Obama and Congress failure to prosecute the bush/cheney regime would lead to a continuation of the war crimes they unleashed. It is called precedent, and when Obama decided to look forward rather than reinforce the rule of law, he left the door open for a recurrence of torture by American soldiers. I can assure you that the full story is not being told, in regard the torture and disappearance of people in Yemen. Especially with trump stating that he has no qualms about using such means.
In a similar instance, congress voted to retroactively legalize illegal warrantless surveillance by the telecoms in 2007. I was not surprised when Snowden revealed the extent to which this process had grown. It is the same with the torture of Yemen people. It is the corruption that is inherent in people which gravitate to these positions. Hillary not being prosecuted for running her private server, (too many people do not understand the difference between using a personal email address and running a personal server) and I am certain that there is some other (non) surprise coming in the future by another government official for doing something similar or more extreme. Comey has already been found to have been using a gmail addy for government business.
It is their nature and will be proven time and time again. Also people, these are only the things they do which become known. Can you imagine what they are doing and have done that remains secret?
b4real
All roads of evil in this world lead to the City of London, as some of the commenters have already pointed out here on many occasions. The US is only the muscle man taking orders from the Brutish Crown Corporation and its peado-satanic "elites".Noirette , Jun 30, 2018 11:55:35 AM | 81The butcher of Iraq, with Nazi family roots, gen. Schwarzkopf was knighted by Her fucking "Majesty" for his services for the global empire in destroying that ME country, just as many US commanders, officials before him and after him. Iran's P Mossadegh was removed by the CIA on orders by the BP, one of the most evil companies in the world. Much more sinister, dark company is SERCO, a name that only few people hear from the MSM:
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/study/serco-corporate-octopus-tentacles-wrapped-around-globe/
At the same time the US is being managed by the British agents who monitor and influence, often shape, manage, distract the public opinion as needed: Frost, John Oliver, Simon Cowell, any more.
London have always been a cozy, safe home for many "divide and conquer" radical propaganda agents of the Empire: SOHR, Chowdhary, Qardawi, Osama bin Laden, Khomeini, Muslim Brotherhood, many more...
The most densely populated by millionaires, billionaires and security cameras.
That's were global trade of oil, finance "engineering", gold manipulation have been taking place.
Rooted in John Dee necromancy, Jewish Kabala, Francis Bacon group (aka "William Shakespeare") created anglosphere, in opium wars,...
Another interesting recent read:
Trump will end this Brutish anti-human global empire, that's why they are so hell-bent on destroying him...Kudos for great reporting and comments!
PS Germany lost the last game in World Cup on purpose, they did not want to win, look carefully again - something's up on the global geopolitical stage...
astonishing .. the "liberal" media MSM or the corporate establishment press has always gone along with all the coverups. Babyl-on. on torture.Guerrero , Jun 30, 2018 12:07:37 PM | 82.. a recent poll showing US citizen support for torture that proved the misinformed nature of the public responding to the poll..... karlof, 30.
MSM (W, particularly Anglo, but not only..) is 100% on the side of the most hateful and sadistic parties / entities / orgs. / crowd. Simultaneously, a driver, motivator and a mirror.
This stance has infected and brainwashed USA citizens, who per their history and mind-set -- free market, revanchard immigrants, genocide, slavery, opportunities for incredible exploitation - have lost what one might call an 'integrative' mind set, where 'integrating' ppl in to *join* (as in the original touted melting-pot which wasn't what it was purported to be) is no longer of any value, interest.
Concurrently, collectivism (might be called community solidarity or other friendly terms, not argh communism!) is reduced to local contact on specific issues (protecting a park), p-to-p efforts (food bank, donations to charity) or very weak and useless pol moves.
Individualism and tribalism (the two actually go together) leave no room for any general societal schemes - including anarchism! weird.. -- > empathy becomes limited to close friends and family accompanied by the adoption of purely functionalist reasoning, very reductive, sketchy, as all other view-points are eliminated, scotched.. (A leads to B to C etc.)
Torture is good because it forces confessions that can save other lives. Separating families is necessary, it deters others from coming. Prisons need to be expanded, evil violent robbers, rapists shouldn't freely roam the streets, etc. Yes and even family bonds are subject to exclusion, blame, hate, violence
I upped the traits to make a point. You all get the picture.
Guerrero , Jun 30, 2018 12:18:44 PM | 83"Third world people look to the government hoping
to able to apply for a benefit and, of course, they do receive certain benefits of the government.Really? That's funny, everywhere I've looked throughout my adult life I've seen the rich and big corporations looking to the government for benefits, and hoo boy do they get them.
Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 30, 2018 12:31:30 PM | 84"Third world people look to the government hoping to able to apply for a benefit and, of course, they do receive certain benefits of the government. Really? That's funny, everywhere I've looked throughout my adult life I've seen the rich and big corporations looking to the government for benefits, and hoo boy do they get them.I certainly agree that the richies have increasingly had the inside track on government economic support, however the poor people in Mexico still hope and expect that the government will provide them with benefits, as it has in the past.
"The education policy of President Lázaro Cárdenas's six-year term originated scholarships and opportunities to underprivileged youth, underscoring an implicit belief that the last Indian in the sierra is a Mexican as well, and that a person of humble origens might become President of the Republic, or a great man or woman of letters, or a creator or a collaborator of enormous importance to the Mexican nation.
The rural normal schools were founded to help the poorest among the poor to gradually rise from the miserable pains of marginalization to better living conditions for themselves and their families. The mission of these schools was the instruction of their students in theoretical-practical knowledge of biology, literature, history, mathematics, and pedagogy, to train and prepare the normalists to alphabetize the population; so to speak: to liberate it. In those years, wherever a normal school was opened, it became a modernizing agent, it's mission was to teach future teachers to plant the alphabet and other basic forms of social knowledge in the arable population, with the expectation that their future students might become morally free."...Jackrabbit , Jun 30, 2018 12:47:18 PM | 85
What can be done to redress the problems?
Until the people of the U.S. reclaim their democracy – Nothing!
The U.S. system of government is not the problem. The problem is that the system has been hi-jacked and turned from a democracy into an 'Oligarchic Dictatorship'.
Posted by: dh-mtl | Jun 30, 2018 8:34:19 AM | 74I agree with much of what you wrote to support this conclusion however, it seems that The People in AmeriKKKa would rather whinge about their govt than take action to reform it. The fact that they swallowed the indigestible trope that McCain is a War Hero, without a whimper of protest, suggests that Wimpiness is alive and well in the US of A.
The UK's victims of Oligarchical Dictatorship (and the subject of this thread) on the other hand, don't take kindly to being treated like docile obedient morons. And this latest example of Criminal Executive Malfeasance will be angrily discussed and added to a growing list of similar outrages.
If revolution comes to AmeriKKKa it is more likely to come from without, rather than within. If the Brits kick up a big enough stink about what their govt thinks it can get away with then AmeriKKKans will notice and begin to realise they are in the same boat. When Americans wanted Britain's jackboot removed from their neck, the Revolutionary French were happy to oblige. Funnier things have happened than the looming prospect that AmeriKKKans will be inspired, by Brit efforts to remove a home-grown jack-boot, to do likewise to relieve their own frustration.
Revolution doesn't have to be violent. It can be achieved by citizens uniting behind an effort to 'encourage' the govt to adopt a shortlist of reforms which will grant citizens the right to have grievances considered, acknowledged, and rectified by govt.
Switzerland has such a system. Here's a brief summary...
Switzerland has a tradition of direct democracy. For any change in the constitution, a referendum is mandatory. For any change in a law, a referendum can be requested by the people. In addition, the people may present a constitutional Popular Initiative to introduce amendments to the federal constitution. The people also assume a role similar to the constitutional court, which does not exist, and thus act as the guardian of the rule of law."
Reality check:Jackrabbit , Jun 30, 2018 1:03:32 PM | 86"Defense" becomes a racket as soon as it prompts others to increase THEIR "defense". The only answer to guns is more guns. It is a self-licking I've cream cone that is exploited by neocons, Zionists, MIC, and others to the detriment of everyone else.
Security forces are, by their nature, non transparent and therefore subject to corruption. Proper governance would REMOVE incentives for corruption. Examples: legalize drugs, prostitution, and gambling; create strong, respectful alliances, and deal fairly with other countries.
Absent adequate safeguards, security forces will quickly grow to a size where they serve themselves FIRST. Serving powerful elites is part of that.
We now have the technology to fundamentally change how we are governed. The establishment will fight that change tooth and nail.
PS Even the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is a protect racket. You must believe (as proved by donations and other visible support) or you will go to hell or be accused of being a witch or devil worshipper.
We have to understand and come to grips with the fact that we are now ruled by a corrupt establishment. It is composed of many groups that have gotten cozy with each other: mafia, "cartel", industry groups whose foot soldiers are "lobbyists", CIA, MIC, neocons, oligarchs, etc. each has a grip that is reinforced by the others.Jackrabbit , Jun 30, 2018 1:24:28 PM | 87AFAICT, Direct Democracy offers the only way to break the pervasive, pernicious grip that they collectively hold on society.
Of course, the main political parties, their faux "ground roots" propaganda ops and partisan media "assets" should be added to the list.Jackrabbit , Jun 30, 2018 1:28:10 PM | 88George Carlin was right: It's one big club - and you ain't in it!juliania , Jun 30, 2018 2:46:46 PM | 89I thought the biggest club was the disenfranchised, Jackrabbit@88.juliania , Jun 30, 2018 2:50:06 PM | 90According to some comments above only the very few enlightened atheists rise above the fray, us dumb unwashed peons who believe everything we hear, see, read. Well, good for you, but good for the rest of us as well. We are not so dumb as you make out. We are not as you have characterized us. We actually think! We actually make up our own minds, and lots of what we think and decide for ourselves comports with what you think and decide! And in addition, for goodness sake, some of us have faith. I know it's hard for you to fathom, but I assure you it is so.
The few are those currently in control, who have wrested power away from the people and do not serve them, the ones who refuse to let the truth be told, such as the PM in the UK, as the report makes Some folk suppose Americans are brain washed, revealing their own shortsightedness. One might say that about the citizens of any country, if all you see is what the media of that country presents to you.clear. It really has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof, or even with the mass media.
Sorry, should have been "as the Report makes clear." And erase the 'clear' at the end of the penultimate sentence. (Hiccup occurred with copy and paste.)ben , Jun 30, 2018 2:57:55 PM | 91b4real @ 79 said:"It was not my intent to hijack this thread."Krollchem , Jun 30, 2018 3:23:47 PM | 92Then don't:)
For Libertarian b4real:
https://www.texasobserver.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-freest-little-city-in-texas/
Hoarsewhisperer@11Hausmeister , Jun 30, 2018 4:50:35 PM | 93You may also appreciate the following article:
Empire's Double Edged Sword: Global Military + NGOs
Tearing down sovereign nations & replacing them with global system administrators.
by Tony Cartalucci
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/02/empires-double-edged-sword-global.htmlInteresting that even Western states are being replaced by "system administrators" The system is now feeding on itself...
@ PeacefulProsperity | Jun 30, 2018 11:45:16 AM | 80b4real , Jun 30, 2018 8:51:56 PM | 94OT:
"PS Germany lost the last game in World Cup on purpose, they did not want to win, look carefully again - something's up on the global geopolitical stage..."
Sounds interesting. I looked carefully again but could not see anything mentionable. could you please be a bit more specific?
@91Daniel , Jun 30, 2018 9:04:43 PM | 95Libertarian?
You've got some reading to do...
Did you even read the article you linked to?
b4realDecades back, the KUBARK Manuael from 1963 a CIA torture training manual, was made public. It includes all the techniques that so "outraged" the US Congress when CIA torture was revealed during the Bush II regime, and are now "outraging" the British Parliament today.psychohistorian , Jun 30, 2018 9:04:46 PM | 96But of course, not only were these torture techniques not new in 2005, they were not knew in 1963 either. The "arts" of torture extend back to prehistory, but can fairly be described as having become a science during the Nazi era.
Which brings me to some news in today's British press.
A woman named Gudrun Burwitz recently died at age 88. If the name doesn't ring a bell, perhaps it would help if we referred to her by her father's family name. For she was the daughter of top Nazi, Heinrich Himmler, Commander of the SS (Schutzstaffel), and claimed to be the author of the entire racial cleansing, "Final Solution," Holocaust program.
We are also told that Himmler somehow took a poison pill while in prison awaiting his execution, thereby "cheating justice." But this is about his daughter and the thread that leads to the Report on British torture.
Ms. Burwitz never disavowed Nazism and defended her father's reputation. She remained prominent in far-right politics throughout her life. She was reported to be a prominent member of Stille Hilfe (Silent Help), a secretive group known to provide legal and financial support to former SS members. She was also known to attend other neo-Nazi events and rallies before her death.
Oh, and she did hold jobs, too. She worked at BND (West German Secret Police/Intelligence) headquarters during the time the organisation was under the control of Reinhard Gehlen. Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, of course, had headed the Russia Desk in the Oberkommando der Wermacht (OKW - Hitler's Supreme Headquarters). Later, he had been recruited by OSS/CIA Director Allen Dulles in the closing days of WW II and brought to service in the US.
This is a "rabbit hole" of considerable depth. I recommend reading "NATO's Nazi Beginnings: How the West implemented Hitler's goals" by Robert S. Rodvik.
@ b4real with his call for some level of anarchismDaniel , Jun 30, 2018 9:22:23 PM | 97Do you agree that humans are community oriented beasts at some level? What do you call that level of organization and how does one scale it...or is that a bad idea to you?
Is it anarchy all the way down?
I am fine to move this to the next open thread and feel some responsibility for my ongoing contextualization of stuff.
Peter AU1 @27.Daniel , Jun 30, 2018 9:58:02 PM | 98I agree that the Internet provided an awesome medium for the spread of information, much of which had only been available to readers of low-circulation alternative sources. We were witness to a "Golden Age" of largely unrestricted information flow.
And that is why the Internet in Europe and the US is being clamped down. Private companies people relied on, like youtube and facebook are deleting accounts and "throttling" traffic. Google is "deranking" sites such that some have seen traffic drop by 75%. "Net neutrality" has been overturned, so all of this and more is about to become much worse in the US.
A reminder for those who sometimes fall into a Pollyanna hopefulness.... as bad as our Western internet censorship is becoming, it's still a beacon of freedom compared to what China already has.
Jen @57. Thanks for interjecting some real world examples into the theoretical "utopian" government/no government ideas being floated.Peter AU 1 , Jun 30, 2018 10:01:09 PM | 99I'd add that internet voting has not shown itself to be trustworthy. Right now Estonia (or e-Estonia as it's now calling itself) is establishing an entirely internet-based life way. Everyone gets a bio-ID card. All financial transactions will go through that card, as is voting, medical records, education, etc. etc. etc.
Is this really "hack-proof?" If/when someone's entire life is hacked, will we even be allowed to know it happened?
China is developing their "social score" system similar to e-Estonia. In their case, they're bragging that whatever black box is keeping score will have the authority to prevent people from purchasing property, or boarding a train, or going to school, or voting or really anything at all.... all based on some algorithms programmed by some faceless bureaucrats.
Back to the "Venus Project" which someone linked earlier, such high-tech autocratic societies may be a big improvement for most people's lives. Maybe I'm some sort of Luddite to prefer things like paper ballots, filled out in ink and hand counted multiple times with observers from any interested parties.
But that still looks like a technology that isn't broken, and so doesn't need to be "fixed."
@ DanielDaniel , Jun 30, 2018 10:13:49 PM | 100
When in China I could not access anything google. Google browser, google search, google blogs. As I mostly used yandex everything else was fine. I could access all western propaganda and alternative news/blogs that were not on a google platform. I take it google was blocked because they were heavily involved in color revolutions and regime change operations.Peter AU 1. I think you're reading too much literalism into the folk tales written down by bronze age nomads as they took up an agrarian lifestyle. You might enjoy the book, "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. He is a bit too "evo/psych"" for my tastes, but overall his description of the current understanding of the archaeological, anthropological, paleographical and historical evidence is quite well presented.
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on November 15, 2017 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .
As readers know, I'm a big fan of paper ballots[1], and the recent Election in Virginia gives me a chance to explain why. (The "recount" phase -- erroneously named, as what's been happening is resolving absentee and provisional ballots -- seems to have culminated with the Republicans keeping control of the Virginia House by a whisker, 49-51 .) First, I'll do that, and set up two requirements that any system for counting votes in a democracy should meet. Then, I'll look at Virginia's "Back to the Future" transition from digital voting to paper ballots.
From Brad Friedman's essay on " Democracy's Gold Standard" (with numbering added), a set of requirements for voting systems suitable for a democracy:
Last March, the country's highest court found that secret, computerized vote counting was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the country was Germany, and the Constitution violated by e-voting systems was the one that the U.S. wrote and insisted Germans ratify as part of their terms of surrender following WWII.
Paul Lehto, a U.S. election attorney and Constitutional rights expert, summarized the German court's unambiguous, landmark finding :
"No 'specialized technical knowledge' can be required of citizens to vote or to monitor vote counts." There is a "constitutional requirement of a publicly observed count." "[T]he government substitution of its own check or what we'd probably call an 'audit' is no substitute at all for public observation." "A paper trail simply does not suffice to meet the above standards. "As a result of these principles, 'all independent observers' conclude that 'electronic voting machines are totally banned in Germany' because no conceivable computerized voting system can cast and count votes that meet the twin requirements of being both 'observable' and also not requiring specialized technical knowledge.If you go through this set of requirements, you'll see that hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted in public, meet every one of them. You will also see that digital voting systems, no matter how designed or implemented, cannot. They cannot, especially, meet requirements #1 ("no specialized technical knowledge to monitor") and #2 ("a publicly observed count"). The first requirement ensures that the voting process is not riggable by insiders with technical expertise (native, or hired); the second ensures that the actual voting is not rigged on election day. These are important requirements for a functioning democracy.
And that is how Germany conducts its voting today, from Deutsche Welle ( "German election: Volunteers organize the voting and count the ballots") .
Public observation:
On September 24, hundreds of thousands of volunteers will be handing out ballots, checking voters' names against lists, and counting votes once the polling station closes. The entire process is open to the public Every citizen is allowed to watch and monitor the entire counting process; and in effect, the volunteers monitor each other.
No specialized technical knowledge
[T]he volunteers open the ballot box, take out the envelopes and remove the ballot slips. They sort the ballots according to a pre-arranged system, decide on whether the votes are valid or invalid, and count the votes – reading out each vote aloud, which is noted in writing in a log.
At the end, the number of ballots is compared with the number of people who voted in that particular polling station.
Does that sound technical to you? The United Kingdom and Canada [3] also use handmarked paper ballots, counted in public, as do most [4] other countries. Many nations have -- I don't want to use the word "reverted" -- come home to paper ballots after experimenting with digital systems and finding them wanting; so have some states in this country.
Now, let's turn to Virginia. It's worth noting that Virginia's move back to paper is being applauded across the political spectrum . From the centrist Daily Banter , a summary of the history:
It wasn't until 2014, when the state experienced a myriad of problems on Election Day, that Governor Terry McAuliffe proposed an overhaul of the state voting system. By 2015, the Virginia Board of Elections decertified the use of WINVote, but they were still stuck with other DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) systems. This past summer, at a DefCon conference in Las Vegas, computer scientists staged a "Voting Machine Hacking Village" to prove the instabilities of DRE, which included a single password for all machines, physical ports to insert malware, and reliance on outdated software that had not been updated since the mid-2000s.
(Kudos, amazingly enough, to McAuliffe, who also managed to restore the franchise to felons .) The Richmond Times-Dispatch explains the Board of Elections' reasoning:
In emergency meeting, Virginia elections board votes to scrap all touch-screen voting machines
The Virginia State Board of Elections voted Friday to discontinue use of all touch-screen voting machines throughout the state because of potential security vulnerabilities, forcing 22 cities and counties to scramble to find new equipment just weeks before voting begins for the November gubernatorial election.
Behind closed doors at an emergency meeting in Richmond on Friday afternoon, the board heard about specific vulnerabilities identified after a cybersecurity conference this summer in Las Vegas, where hackers showed they could break into voting machines with relative ease.
In an interview, Elections Commissioner Edgardo Cortés acknowledged that the short time frame could put localities under the gun. However, 10 of the 22 localities that still use touch screens, either as their primary voting method or for more limited uses, have already begun buying new equipment, Cortés said. That leaves 12 that will have to start from scratch, but Cortés said the rapid swap is "doable" and worth the "hiccups" that may come with new equipment.
(The Banter points to "Russian targeting of last year's presidential election" (whatever that means) as do others , but if the threat of Russia hacking was a necessary cause for the Board's decisionl, it was certainly the DefCon that was the proximate one).[2] In any case, the Board's decision was taken September 8, and by Election Day, November 7, the transition was complete with no reported problems, which shows you the advantages of adopting simple, rugged, and proven systems. Here is how the system works, as described in a press release from Albemarle County :
The Albemarle County Department of Voter Registration and Elections wants to alert voters that a new, digital scan voting system will be used in all County voting precincts in the upcoming November 3, 2015 general election. The previously used "touchscreen" voting machines have been replaced by the new voting systems as a result of the Commonwealth of Virginia's mandate which requires jurisdictions move toward the use of digital scan technology.
With the new system, voters will mark paper ballots at marking booths, and then deposit the marked paper ballots into a digital ballot scanning machine, which will read the ballots, and drop them into a secure ballot storage bin. When the polls close on Election Day, at 7 PM, the election officers at the voting precincts will obtain the tabulated totals of votes from a results report that will be printed by the digital scanning machine. After the election, the paper ballots will be kept in secure storage for a period of one year, to ensure a voter-verified paper trail in the event of a recount.
Recall our two requirements. Can the Virginia System be said to meet them?
1) Public observation. Yes and no. Yes, because the ballot is handmarked, and dropped in the box in public. No, because the ballots are counted in the innards of the optical scanner. (This can be mitigated by storing the ballots for recounts later, if needed.) And no, because the actual running of the count from the scanners does not take place in public, nor (AFAIK) the integration into the totals of provisional and absentee ballots.
2) No specialized technical knowledge. Yes and no. Yes, because clearly paper ballots are an improvement in every way from the horrid touch screens. No, in the same that once again, the innards of the optical scanner must be relied upon. (This could be mitigated, depending on the choice of vendor, by dealing with an actual scanner industry, as opposed to a bunch of tiny, sketchy outfits purveying custom, proprietary software.)
In summary, and IMNSHO, there should be no digital determination or intermediation of voter intent whatever ; why should we trust the scanner software engineers, or those who run them? There's no reason to, any more than there's reason to trust the engineers or operators of mechanical voting machines.) Virginia's ballots are indeed hand-marked, but they are not hand-counted in public.[5]
With these strong caveats, Virginia's hand-marked paper ballots were well-received by the public, and that's progress. WAVY :
At a voting precinct at the Chrysler Museum in Norfolk, voters said they had no issues going back to pen and paper.
"It goes back to the old days, you know, we've been voting a long time, so we remember when they didn't have anything but paper ballots," said voter Winston Whitehurst.
Voter Kevin Rafferty said he enjoyed the switch.
"It works. I understand. At least if we're having to spend some time on it, we're the only ones in control, perhaps is the idea. Nobody else hacking on in I guess is their theory so hopefully it's safe," he said.
And WTVR :
"You can't hack paper," a man training a group of Hopewell poll workers on the new [optical scanning] machines said.
(But you can hack the scanners -- using "specialized technical knowledge" --
and you can social engineer any process where the ballots are not hand-counted in public.)Conclusion
Of the two requirements, the ability to monitor election results without technical expertise is needed to prevent chicanery by those who structure the voting process. And the public count is needed to prevent chicanery on election day by those who inspect and count the ballots. Paper ballots can and do meet these requirements. That's why most Western countries use them, and why many other countries have returned to them, after experimenting with digital systems. Virginia's re-adoption of hand-marked paper ballots is a step forward, not backward.
NOTES
[1] For those who are concerned that paper ballots prevent ranked choice voting, Maine advocates disagree : "Ranked choice voting is designed to work with paper ballots."
[2] The idea that "foreign invaders" (as the Christian Science Monitor puts it) are the main threat for election theft seems very odd to me. Surely domestic operatives are, or at least should be, the main concern?
[3] I vividly recall a Quebec referendum where the Quebec "scrutineers" rejected a seemingly overlarge number of "No" ballots. But because the process was public, and not part of an algorithmic black box, the scrutineers could be called out. Although Canada does use electronic voting at the municipal level, the stakes are lower.
[4] Hilariously, a Google search on "How many countries use paper ballots" directs me to a WikiPedia page on "Electronic voting by country." 26 are listed. There are 195 countries.
[5] The convenience of election officials seems to bulk large in these disucussions; they don't want to be "up all night counting paper." Well, if the Germans (and the Canadians (and the Brits)) can make that investment in democracy, why can't we?
PlutoniumKun , November 15, 2017 at 6:50 am
Anonymized , November 15, 2017 at 12:06 pmJust an added note here to say that in Ireland, which uses Single Transferable Vote, the law states that the election candidates can appoint Counting Agents , known as Tallymen during the vote. They observe the opening of voting boxes and keep a tally during the count. As this allows them to get a good feel for voting patterns, it eliminates another potential source of fraud, box stuffing during or after the vote.
The Tallymen are so skilled they can often provide a very accurate result hours before the final result (vote counting is much more complex for STV). There is no interest at all from political parties for electronic voting because tally information is more fine grained than final totals (as it is box by box rather than district by district) and so provides each party with very valuable statistical information.
Frenchguy , November 15, 2017 at 6:51 amSame in Canada but we call them "scrutineers" or monitors (at least in Ontario). I worked as an election official a while back (I think it was at the last provincial election) and one of the scrutineers raised a big stink because the number of votes were not the same as the number of people who voted. I left around 10 pm and I heard they were there until midnight trying to resolve this. It was pure schadenfreude for me because I wasn't selected as one of the vote-counting electoral officials but was just a lower-paid electoral assistant who barred people from entering the building from the wrong door and gave directions to the correct entrance. "Serves those idiots right for not picking me" was what I was thinking when I left.
Jim A. , November 15, 2017 at 8:12 amIn France, the process is basically the same as in Germany. An interesting note, that I don't see mentionned, is that once the public count is done and the number of votes matches the number of voters, ballots are destroyed (except blank votes). A very sensible step as the whole process is fraud-proof and ballots could be tampered with afterwards.
In this sense, there are no recounts (except the basic maths check). You can only report to the courts irregularities in the process and there will be a new election if enough polling station were affected to swing the election.
And the process is generally not too long. The average seems to be between one and three hours so it's almost always done way before midnight (British seems to take a very long time, if anyone cares to explain to me why ?). Of course, it helps a lot that we don't elect a whole bunch of people on the same night (no lieutnant-governor, judges, sheriffs ), it's always one election at a time with a dozen choices at most (and half the time it's only two because of the two-round system).
lyman alpha blob , November 15, 2017 at 1:35 pmHaving used a number of different systems as I moved around the state of Maryland*, my favorite system was hand marked ballots that were scanned by machine at the voting place. My observations follow.
Old fashioned lever machines: They haven't made them for years, so there was always a shortage of machines which led to long lines. Despite the fact that people are familiar with them, they are an un-auditable black box like electronic voting machines.
Punched card machines. They always seemed physically a little difficult to operate and a slight misalignment could result in a miscast vote. But there is a recountable paper trail and only one or two scanners is required for each polling place.
Electronic voting machines. They're a completey un-auditable black box. They DO have the advantage of being easier to adjust for people with limited vision and other handicaps. Each voting station requires a separate machine, which means either greater expense or longer lines compared to other systems. My guess is that programming the ballots into them probably costs almost as much printing ballots and is more difficult to spot errors or fraud.
Hand counted ballots: The difficulty with hand counting ballots is that it is error-prone and slow.
Paper ballots and digital scanners would seem to be the best system that I have used with several caveats. You have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check for systemic fraud in the setup of the scanning machines. You have to have a good system to deal with errors and complications. How do you void ballots that have been mis-marked by accident? You have to make SURE that they aren't added to the tallys. You have to have a system for contested/contingent voting, a way to segregate and maintain those ballots until the eligibility of the voters is determined.
*It used to be that every county chose the vote system separately
lyman alpha blob , November 15, 2017 at 8:13 amYou have to manually recount a random sampling of polling places to check for systemic fraud in the setup of the scanning machines.
That is an excellent suggestion however getting officials on board is not so easy. Our state got new optical scan machines in all larger precincts a few years ago and since they had never been used I made the same suggestion you did to our city council and asked for a random audit. They refused and told me that by state law the city was not allowed to do an audit just because they felt like it and the only way a recount could be done was if an election was close enough to be within the mandated threshold needed to trigger one. If they were correct about our state law, the state has actually made it illegal for cities to check the accuracy of the machines they use. That would need to be changed in order for your proposal to work.
I do still prefer handcounted paper ballots – I did get to participate in a hand recount eventually and it was a LOT quicker than you might expect.
The other issue is cost – it would be a LOT cheaper to pay people to count by hand than to replace millions of large pieces of aging machinery every decade or so.
Barry Fay , November 15, 2017 at 8:14 am"You can't hack paper"
Maybe, but machines can't determine voter intent on paper ballots nearly as well as humans can. Our city uses these optical scanners and as noted last election season, we had a close race that triggered a recount that I participated in. The human beings actually counted more ballots than the machines did, as the machines didn't count those that were filled out improperly (circles not completely filled out, or checked rather than filled in, etc). Rough estimate, we were able to count approximately 2% more votes then the scanner did.
If we're going to keep pretending we still have a democracy here in the US, everybody's vote deserves to be counted in every election. The only way to do that is count paper ballots by hand.
nonclassical , November 15, 2017 at 11:55 amThe FIRST TIME I heard that they were going to use IT technology for voting I thought they must be kidding. It is so obviously wrong ON THE FACE OF IT that I have always suspected the motives of those making that decision (although I suppose I should´t be too surprised at human laziness being a motivating force!). Anyway, it is to me just another sign of the dumbing down of America that this whole topic needs any discussion at all!!
Tom , November 15, 2017 at 9:15 amVoltaire would have loved political position that the machines were perfect and unable be hacked until Chavez-Venezuela bought voting machine manufacturer
suddenly voting machines were suspect
Vatch , November 15, 2017 at 10:16 amClinton conflates Virginia's switch to paper ballots with her claims that Russia hacked into voter rolls and possibly went even further. This is Clinton speaking about it on Monday at the Atlanta stop on her book tour.
Tom , November 15, 2017 at 12:53 pmSo maybe we're finally getting some benefit from the claims that the Russians were able to manipulate the election results in the United States! In reality, it's Republicans and Democrats who manipulate election results in the U.S., but I'll accept a victory, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
wilroncanada , November 15, 2017 at 7:33 pmExactly! Clinton applauds the reduced risk of paper ballots, but of course has to muddle it all up with the dreaded Russian threat. I swear, Clinton can't help but link almost everything to Russia now -- listening to her is like plaing a constant game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, except it's 3 degrees and its Russia.
EoH , November 15, 2017 at 9:48 amShe'll continue to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon for the rest of her life–with egg on her face the whole time.
PaulHarvey0swald , November 15, 2017 at 11:42 amOne would think that governments would require that any software to be used in a public election must be open source – not proprietary – and that it and its application be open to public audit.
Vendors unwilling to comply can take their sales people elsewhere. If vendors are hard to find, governments could join together in providing seed money for any number of parties to develop and maintain the necessary code.
This is the sort of change that should be part of any elections improvement commissions, not that the likes of Kris Kobach and his commission have in mind anything but voter suppression. The use of proprietary software in a public election is as appropriate as a cordon of watch dogs, lighted torches, or police cars outside a voting center.
XXYY , November 15, 2017 at 12:06 pmThis. And why don't we turn the students at state run universities loose on it?
PaulHarv3y0swald , November 15, 2017 at 4:40 pmLong time software engineer here.
"Making the source code available" for a critical system makes a good sound bite, but in reality has a number of substantial problems:
o There is no guarantee that the compiled code in the box is the same as the purported source code made public. Even technical experts would have a very hard time confirming this, since the code in the box has been compiled down to machine instructions whereas the source code is normally in a high level language.
o The process of building (compiling and linking) the code introduces myriad opportunities for bad actors. E.g., code can include conditional sections or definitions that can be built in various ways. The build process itself invokes other programs that themselves can be hacked. Building also normally brings in third-party libraries of uncertain provenance, and for which the source is typically unavailable.
o Inspecting realistic industrial software for *inadvertent* problems, called a code review, is a big effort (many man weeks) and requires people with the requisite skills (often arcane) and expertise in the problem domain. Inspecting code for *deliberate hacks* would be much harder, and could well miss hacks anyway depending on the skill of the hacker.
Relying on public source code for security is a very weak reed and should be avoided altogether if at all possible.
Synoia , November 15, 2017 at 5:19 pmFair enough. But why would proprietary code be better? I mean what stops a private vendor from doing this, but without public oversight? I mean to say "public code" in what ever form could be a start.
bsg , November 15, 2017 at 10:46 amXXYY was not supporting proprietary code. I believe he was pointing out that "open source" does not have sufficient integrity for e;ections, thus closed source (proprietary code) is worse.
nonclassical , November 15, 2017 at 11:52 amAfter the 2000 election, congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Among the provisions of the bill, money was given to states and counties to upgrade their voting systems. Most of these new systems came online in the mid 00's.
Now that it has been around a decade, the generation of machines purchased with the help of federal money are getting long in the tooth. The average person changes their cell phone every 2-3 years, so a touch screen machine machine over a decade old feels especially ancient to a technophile.
There will be a trend toward paper ballots with this next generation. More states have added tougher paper trail requirements on DRE (touch screen) voting machines. and there is a lack of federal HAVA money available to states and counties to buy top-of-the-line DRE machines with paper trails. Vendors for this generation are pushing hybrid systems that allow a voter to input their choices onto a touch screen, then the machine prints out a paper ballot which (theoretically) removes ambiguous choices and allows disabled people to vote without assistance. But ultimately, if a jurisdiction is going to a paper system anyway, why spend more money on expensive hybrid machines that will break down in another ten years? I anticipate a push to paper ballots with optical scanning tabulation machines in the medium future.
UserFriendly , November 15, 2017 at 12:50 pmand states can – do take away driver licenses – I.D. "legally" determining who gets to vote, by the hundreds of thousands, even over issues having nothing to do with driving, and primarily affecting the poor:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/22/4935/?utm_term=.604ea869bedb
http://www.jwj.org/these-two-states-will-revoke-your-license-if-you-cant-pay-back-your-student-loans
ken , November 15, 2017 at 2:33 pmMinneapolis uses ranked choice with hand marked paper ballots that get scanned just like VA. But as I've said a million times ranked choice voting is bad for 3rd parties . Approval, range, or 3-2-1 are all much better options.
http://electology.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/Joel , November 15, 2017 at 3:26 pmThe convenience of election officials seems to bulk large in these disucussions; they don't want to be "up all night counting paper."
What is the rush? Why not start counting at 8 am the next morning? The all night vote count thing serves no functional purpose. Get some sleep.
Grebo , November 15, 2017 at 3:46 pmWhat is the rush?
In my town, we have big election night parties at the downtown bars while volunteers go to the polling stations and phone back the preliminary results which are posted in the front windows or on the front doors.
A lot of politically connected people would have trouble sleeping the night of the election if they didn't have the results.
Joel , November 15, 2017 at 3:23 pmThat was my initial reaction too. Then I wondered: who will be guarding the ballot boxes overnight?
In my town's municipal election last week, it seems almost a tenth of voters were confused by the design of the ballot and circled their choice rather than filling in the bubble.
Since we're in Massachusetts and all elections use Scantron ballots and tabulating machines, any circled ballot was marked "blank" the same as ballots where no notation was made.
A lot of people, including quite a few first-time and infrequent voters, and voters with eyesight issues, were disillusioned by the fact that their votes would not be counted. Some were shocked the ballots are not in fact counted by hand.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists. It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends. The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates, to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe. The four-part documentary released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom. When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal" to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias" prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented "With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel, he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so. The charges against the two men were, unfortunately, eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Rurik , October 17, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.googlecensors , October 17, 2017 at 5:00 am GMTOne is unable to open the documentary – all 4 parts – on YouTube suggesting that google/YouTube are censoring it and have caved into the Jewish LobbyMalla , October 17, 2017 at 5:03 am GMTWhen the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.Frankie P , October 17, 2017 at 5:42 am GMTBut if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
@Rurikwayfarer , October 17, 2017 at 5:43 am GMTHe has been set free by the truth, proving the old maxim.
Understand a Spoiled Child, and You Will Understand Israel. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_childDan Hayes , October 17, 2017 at 5:48 am GMTDiscipline the Spoiled Child, and Boycott Israel. source: https://bdsmovement.net/
Israel Anti-Boycott Act – An Attack on Free Speech?
Philip,Uebersetzer , October 17, 2017 at 6:14 am GMTMy admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed so far.JackOH , October 17, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).Cloak And Dagger , October 17, 2017 at 7:43 am GMTThat's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.Mark James , October 17, 2017 at 9:32 am GMTI fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles PercyKevin , October 17, 2017 at 9:37 am GMTI'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
Tyrion , October 17, 2017 at 9:53 am GMTAnd the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Randal , October 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMTAnd Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier. Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so that they can further their specious arguments.
geokat62 , October 17, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government, did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
@Rurikanimalogic , October 17, 2017 at 10:54 am GMTPhilip Giraldi is a rare American treasure.
Rare, indeed, Rurik.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran :
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the Zionists have cover the US & west generally.The Alarmist , October 17, 2017 at 11:01 am GMTSo how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is only there to harass little people like you and me.Bardon Kaldian , October 17, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT@googlecensorsjacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:15 am GMTNot true.
@Mallajacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:21 am GMTAbby Martin is amazingly sharp. Many of the things she says can be confirmed by Uri Avnery, both his books and articles.
Here's a link to his weekly columns.
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery
Incredible stuff there; thanks for posting it.
@Mallajacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:32 am GMTOur slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
According to the first vid, those drones will be built by the goyim.
Maybe there's a message there for us.
@Cloak And DaggerISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 11:45 am GMTI fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist" are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans will finally wake up.jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:47 am GMTjacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the 80s and 90s."
Thank you Mr Giraldi. You covered an amazing number of issues in such a well written and compact article.ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMTThanks also to Mr Unz for publishing these sorts of things.
@jacques sheeteAnon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMTWhat she really meant by that was HOLOCAUST ALERT HOLOCAUST ALERT!!
@Mallaiffen , October 17, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMTWhen you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
NPR Morning Edition 10/17/17LondonBob , October 17, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMTRachel Martin talks to Vahil Ali, the communications director for the Kurdish president.
In which she tries to steer him into calling for armed American intervention in Kurdistan to resist the Iranian sponsored militia.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference. We seem to end up in the same places the US does.Sherman , October 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMTI had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.ChuckOrloski , October 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMTApparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Thanks for update Phil!
@geokat62Jake , October 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMTHey geokat62,
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/congress/defaultZAC .
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.Michael Kenny , October 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMTWASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs. You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish. It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.Fran Macadam , Website October 17, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMTThus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection, could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .)Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT@wayfarerDaphne Caruana Galizia exposed both local thieves and the CIA-Azerbaijan cooperation in supplying ISIS with arms:
https://www.rt.com/news/406963-assange-reward-caruana-galizia-death/ https://www.newsbud.com/2017/10/16/breaking-gladio-b-assassinates-journalist-with-car-bomb/
"Azerbaijan considers Malta to be "one of its provinces": https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2017/09/azerbaijan-considers-malta-one-provinces/
The Middle Eastern wars have repercussion .
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2017 | it.slashdot.org
Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday September 12, 2017 @03:00AM from the nick-of-time dept. Following the DefCon demonstration in July that showed how quickly Direct Recording Electronic voting equipment could be hacked, Virginia's State Board of Elections has decided it wants to replace their electronic voting machines in time for the gubernatorial election due on November 7th, 2017.
According to The Register, "The decision was announced in the minutes of the Board's September 8th meeting: 'The Department of Elections officially recommends that the State Board of Elections decertify all Direct Recording Electronic (DRE or touchscreen) voting equipment."
From the report: With the DefCon bods showing some machines shared a single hard-coded password, Virginia directed the Virginia Information Technology Agency (VITA) to audit the machines in use in the state (the Accuvote TSX, the Patriot, and the AVC Advantage).
None passed the test. VITA told the board "each device analyzed exhibited material risks to the integrity or availability of the election process," and the lack of a paper audit trail posed a significant risk of lost votes.
Local outlet The News Leader notes that many precincts had either replaced their machines already, or are in the process of doing so. The election board's decision will force a change-over on the 140 precincts that haven't replaced their machines, covering 190,000 of Virginia's ~8.4m population.
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2016 | politics.slashdot.org
(facebook.com) 286 Posted by msmash on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:01PM from the stranger-things dept. On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election . Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why still the case for paper ballots is strong . From the article: Halderman also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the Russian government interfered with election results. There is little disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely, by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all results be audited, as they already are in some states including California. Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Pavlo Svolochenko , December 14, 2016 at 2:43 pmGeorgia asks Trump to investigate DHS 'cyberattacks'yalensis , December 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm
If you want to know what Washington is doing at any given time, just look at what they're accusing the competition of.
As the Worm Turns!
For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!
|
|
|
Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
jfl | Dec 3, 2016 5:54:00 PM | 31A Bare-Knuckle Fight Over Recounts
Since recounts that overturn the vote totals seem unlikely, it appears the Clinton campaign's Plan B is to use any evidence of tampering that it can pin on Russia to lobby electors to change their votes to Clinton when the Electoral College meets in state capitals on Dec. 19.Finding evidence of hacking of election computers that can somehow be blamed on Russia could be crucial for the Clinton team in their effort to convince electors to change their vote.
Laurence Tribe, a well-known and connected Democratic lawyer, has offered to defend pro bono any elector who breaks the law by changing their vote to Clinton. And there are plans to mount a constitutional challenge against the 26 states that legally bind the electors' to their state's popular vote.
Jill Stein's willingness to provide cover for 'the Russians hacked the election' recounts is interesting ...
Exhibit A in Stein's petition is an affidavit from Professor J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan, who alleges that Russia hacked the election.Exhibit B from Stein's petition is an article from Wired Magazine about Russia's alleged role in the hack.
Exhibit C is a New York Times article quoting DellSecureWorks, a private security firm, saying Russia was behind the hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Exhibits D through G - meaning all of Stein's exhibits - are on alleged Russian hacking. One article is about an alleged attempted Russian hack of the 2014, post-coup Ukrainian election.
... although I think it unlikely that 'the Russians hacked the election' it does look likely that the authors of that 'meme' managed to get Jill Stein to carry their water for them. Why did she do that? Did she even read the petition - that drew $7 million in funding overnight - before signing it? What does it say about her if she didn't? What does it say about her if she did?What does it say about her that she went for such a lose-lose proposition?
Can an actual run on the electoral college be in the works? Can that be the 'reasoning' behind Jeff Bezos' ProPornoTeam?
|
|
|
Noirette | Nov 30, 2016 12:58:53 PM | 115www.moonofalabama.org
bigmango | Nov 29, 2016 1:52:16 PM | 22Jackrabbit | Nov 29, 2016 6:03:01 PM | 44@Jack Smith | Nov 29, 2016 12:50:24 PM | 10
Correct. Many of the people (me included) who voted Green for obvious anti-Clinton reasons were also very suspicious of Trump. So Green made sense. But all of these people now feel utterly betrayed by Stein's greed or fronting for the Clintons. Why no New Hampshire recount? So good job Stein, you just destroyed the only credible left alternative while the Dems are mortally wounded on the their left flank and the Clinton mob are taking resumes for a new sheepdog to get the wayward Sandernistas back into their stinking little corner of Hillary's big tent where they belong.
@32 follow-up
...This recount is serious business. The Greens don't have the organizational aptitude or money to have accomplished what needed to be done within days. That indicates that Democrats/Clinton cronies are behind this. And the Clinton press corps have been engaged as well.
Now Stein has allowed the dems to buy her ass, one has to wonder - why? Debs is dead at 60.
Because carreerism, because her position was always to get ahead in a major party (not Repub. obviously), to capitalise on her popularity.
Many Greens are like that all over the OECD world. They get 'splinter support', often quite high in votes, using seductive discourse, to then join the Top Brass promoting "renewables" using all kinds of inclusive and enviro-friendly, vague but marginal, leftist discourse, avoiding the 'economy' and 'real numbers' and for that matter deeper politics e.g. "sustainable communities" , "sharing", "grass roots initiatives", "husbanding energy", "respecting traditional ways of life", "integrating people", "developping solar", "promoting electric cars" and forbidding plastic bags, etc. etc.
The powerful party apparatus integrates them as a 'voice' for whatever is the gout-du-jour memes and everyone, including the dominant energy conglomerates are all happy. The person earns potentially well a lot.
Sorry to be so cynical and negative but I have seen Greens do this time and time again.
I don't hate or dislike Jill Stein. Just, that is the general trend and from what I have seen (maybe superficial) she is not different from the mold.
The ways of the world and Nature bats last...
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Regarding recounts, when the total vote difference is in the single digit thousands in large states where hundreds of thousands or more votes were cast, the candidates shouldn't have to ask for a recount, it should be mandatory*.
I've been asking my city to do a recount to verify the accuracy of the machines for several years and was told that the state law would not allow for a recount simply for accuracy's sake (unbelievable!) and the only way for a recount to happen would be after a close election.
Well my significant other stood for election in a city race this year, and how ironic, came within about 50 votes of winning and we got to ask for a recount! This was an odd race where voters chose two out of seven candidates for the two open seats. One candidate won by a clear margin and 2nd and 3rd place were separated by about 50 votes. I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines.
The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots.
- We found quite a few where people 'x'ed or drew a line through the circle rather than filling it in according to instructions and others where people had voted for one candidate, crossed it out, and then voted for someone else. We suspected these were the types of ballots that the machines were not able to count.
- Also when I had served as an election clerk several years ago I noticed that the ticker on the machine that is supposed to count the number of ballots fed into it would not count a ballot if it was fed into the machine too quickly after the previous one so this may have been another reason some ballots didn't get counted the first time.
- There were also reports on election day that some machines temporarily malfunctioned (one had been accidentally unplugged) which may have caused other votes not to be counted.
After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size.
What we found is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count, they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are.
We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through around 12K ballots in about 5 hours.
The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure that everyone's vote is actually counted.
* Lest anyone accuse me of trying to get Clinton in, I say all of this as someone who would rather be shot in the face by Dick Cheney than cast a ballot for any of the Clinton's or their spawn, legitimate or otherwise.
|
|
|
www.nakedcapitalism.com
TheCatSaid November 20, 2016 at 9:59 am
[Response to Ulysses' comment] This begs the question of whether those votes were cast or counted accurately. In my early days of learning about election fraud (particularly at the Black Box Voting.org website and discussion threads), a topic that came up time and again was that there was extensive history of election fraud associated with union elections. IIRC, as electronic voting machines were being actively promoted, one of the avid supporters of using these methods was trade unions.
A couple articles that touch on some of the history (though not specifically in relation to unions) are this one by Victoria Collier written in 2012 but with some important history, and chapter 4, "A Brief History of Vote-Rigging" from Bev Harris' book (available free online).
Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. Richard Hayes Phillips in his lectures and book about the theft of the OH 2004 election (and thus the presidency) describes with detail how one of the methods used was altering the punch cards or sending voters to the wrong precinct machine, so their ballot would end up with undervotes or overvotes and not be counted.
It would be interesting to know about the election procedures for that union election, particularly the Canadian vote. Was it on machines? Paper? How secure was the chain of custody of the ballots?
|
|
|
Nov 08, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Pinto Currency Vatican_cameo Nov 8, 2016 12:35 PMmanofthenorth Pinto Currency Nov 8, 2016 12:51 PMCheck out Call for America.
Their automated polling system tells a completely different story:
It seems to me that early voting should be abolished, voter photo ID SHOULD BE required by law in all states.
Also to keep things as clean as possible there should be a media "NO FLY ZONE" on polling outcomes until ALL POLLS are closed in all states.
So much wag the dog it is just disgusting.
Praying for justice.
roddcarlson -> Scuba Steve •Nov 8, 2016 1:16 PM
The early vote (aka the mail in ballots) were compromised. Right the FBI kept sacking the Dems with mail in ballot forms, it must've been like a drug bust all those voting confetti sitting there like paper dollars. Dems crying you are hindering our right to vote! Hopefully the later day voting goes in our favor, but considering Soros electioneering electronics machines with no way to track it may not.
If we lose the vote then America is cooked literally. But the vote was cooked books if it does happen, so we won't be judged for that. What we as a nation may be judged for is severe apathy and embracement of things for our personal gain years earlier where it was obviously wrong. We should have never let these politicians get away with things like Iraq after learning there were no WMD. Or free trade that was exporting our manufacturing base to every totalitarian government abroad. Or our keeping up with the Jones by bigger and bigger mortgages we could barely afford the old one. Or uncontrolled immigration. We should have put our foot down a long time ago and made these uppers fear like Vietnam the whole thing was unstable and going to capsize on their butts.
But I can pretty much tell you that Americans (true ones) aren't guilty of this electioneering. The invader Mexicans and other parasites think they are somehow going to get on top of this thing. You know I still love them to this day. I remember falling down some stairs carrying a heavy desk, while some legal Mexican American citizens came and picked me up and then helped carry the desk too. So I'm not judging people individually based on their skin or ethnic background, I however am not foolish to say there is a problem of means here either. Hope all the invader Mexicans like Mexico II where they get to live out of cardboard boxes and railroad cars, because they killed the American host and now get their very own Mexican culture that is wholly immoral here too. Well don't worry because you get a taste of this Hillary invasion as well, with your nemesis the Muslims she is going to import in here. You see parasite never stop loving bigger problems for the host.
If we lose this election white people need to start taking care of their own. I've had many races that were my best of friends, and I'm not at all going to say I hate those people I will never hate them. But the white people are under attack by a systematic attempt to dispossess them from people like Soros. We still hold the reigns of economic power, even in our weakened state. We can still peacefully (hopefully) use that power to say no to the 3rd world takeover of our country.
Again early vote may mean nothing given the found stuffed cheated ballots at Dem headquarters. But do not think that we accept this NWO takeover, we've overlooked many previous incursion that has let it get this bad but no more even with a Hillary win.
jcaz -> Ghost of PartysOver •Nov 8, 2016 12:02 PM
Bullshit.
The line I stood in this am was Trump up and down- everyone unhappy with the prospect of more of the same corrupt shit.
Not buying this story.
Ghost of PartysOver d jcaz •Nov 8, 2016 12:14 PM
It is really pretty easy to understand. Wall Street, including all the Hedge Funds, Banks .... have bought and paid for HRC. They control her. Wall Street will get what it wants which is more of the same; market manipulation, inside dealings, payoffs, lack of perp walks. You name it. This is a very good scenario for those bastards. Hence markets will rally.
Trump on the other hand will lock those bastards up. Markets will fall.
Pres HRC means outstanding next QTR reports and of course bonuses. Any illegal activity will be met with a slap on the wrist (Corzine ring a bell)
Pres Trump means reigning in the the crap and the next QTR report will not be so rosy. And bonuses will be much, much lower. Any illegal activity will be met with a perp walk.
I am a Trump fan and I am a realist.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
A Washington Post analysis of Pollfish data shows that 84 percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents believe that a "meaningful amount" of voter fraud occurs during elections.
Sixty percent of Republicans believe that illegal immigrants are voting, much higher than Democrats and independents.
Democrats focus more on voter ID laws, with 32 percent suggesting that it contributes to voter suppression. (Only 26 percent of Republicans feel the same way.)
But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
A U.K. based company that has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground states like Florida and Arizona, has direct ties with billionaire leftist and Clinton crusader George Soros.With recent WikiLeaks emails showing that Hillary Clinton received foreign policy directives and coordinated on domestic policy with Soros , along with receiving tens of millions of dollars in presidential campaign support from the billionaire, concerns are growing that these shadowy players may pull the strings behind the curtains of the upcoming presidential election.
As Lifezette reports , the fact that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist causes will surely leave a bad taste in the mouth of many a voter.
The balloting equipment tied to Soros is coming from the U.K. based Smartmatic company, whose chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former UN official and sits on the board of Soros' Open Society Foundation.
According to Lifezette , Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia and also is a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he co-founded in the 1990s and built with funds from George Soros' personal fortune.
In 2007 Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice-president of his Quantum Funds, vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management, and vice-chairman of the Open Society Institute (former name of OSF).
Browns ties also intertwine with the Clintons as he was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald worked. Brown also was also a senior advisor to FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons, is a senior managing director.
When taking that into account, along with the poor track record Smartmatic has of providing free and fair elections, this all becomes quite terrifying.
An astonishing 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election under a section titled "A Shadow of Fraud." The memo stated that "Smartmatic Corporation is a riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters."
"The Smartmatic machines used in Venezuela are widely suspected of, though never proven conclusively to be, susceptible to fraud," the memo continued. "The Venezuelan opposition is convinced that the Smartmatic machines robbed them of victory in the August 2004 referendum. Since then, there have been at least eight statistical analyses performed on the referendum results."
"One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic machines were bi-directional and in fact showed irregularities in how they reported their results to the CNE central server during the referendum," it read.
With such suspicion and a study which claims to prove that the U.K. firm's equipment tampered with the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, should be enough for states to reject these machines if they desire a fair election.
Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, which means these Soros and Clinton linked machines are going to take the votes of thousands of Americans.
While GOP nominee Donald Trump has been voicing his opinion that the elections are indeed rigged due to media bias, and the proof that mainstream polls are heavily weighted to favor Clinton , it is needless to say that if the results show Hillary as a winner in November, there is going to a mess to shuffle through to find signs of honesty.
MillionDollarBonus_ Ghost of PartysOver Oct 24, 2016 10:57 AM ,
Cliff Claven Cheers BaBaBouy Oct 24, 2016 11:02 AMMSNBC are reporting that Hillary is absolutely surging and now leading by double digits! America is going absolutely wild for Hillary!! This is very exciting – I can sense victory, and I see that bitter right-wingers can sense defeat as they pre-emptively blame their loss on vote rigging. There is no such thing as election rigging, unless we're talking about Al Gore losing to Bush – there was clear evidence of rigging during this election. But Republicans are known for rigging elections. Democrats have never, and will never rig an election.
HOW TO FACT CHECK THE LIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF THE ALT RIGHT
We the people ask congress to meet in emergency session about removing George Soros owned voting machines from 16 statesBeam Me Up Scotty Cliff Claven Cheers Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/we-people-ask-congress-meet-e...
Signed the Deplorably Dicked
DD
Two words: PAPER BALLOTS!!! How anyone with 3 brain cells or more can't see that paper ballots are the way to go when voting is beyond me. There is a paper trail, and they cannot be hacked. They can be recounted. Machines are easily manipulated and there is NO PAPER trail to recount. Use paper ballots and tell Gerge Soros to go fuck himself.Notveryamused Manthong Oct 24, 2016 12:11 PM ,The Soros voting machine issue is one of the largest problems with this election. Trump has mentioned him by name twice during the debates and has also talked openly about a 'rigged' election. I hope he will address this directly.Mroex Beam Me Up Scotty Oct 24, 2016 11:54 AM ,We're already seeing the polls skew in Clinton's direction in unusual states like Arizona so even that is on the cards to be stolen.
Yes you are Damn right. Paper ballots were used in the Brexit vote and surprise surprise the people wonfx MillionDollarBonus_ Oct 24, 2016 11:18 AM ,I can wait a day or two for results, I do not need instant results
Paper ballots would be kept under lock and quarded by representives of both parties
then when the time has come they would be counted and verified by both party reps
FUCK any form of voting machine, be it electronic or be it mechanical
LOL, not even your big hero Barry would claim that. To wit: Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."AViewFromDublin fx Oct 24, 2016 11:26 AM ,And this time, it seems to be more than some monkeying on part of Hitlery and Barry. Rather "we rigged some votes and screwed some folks." Go figure.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-22/obama-warned-rigged-elections-b...
War Machine crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Million Dollar Bonus said: "To say you won't respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.
"The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.
And look, some people are sore losers, and we just got to keep going" It was actually Hillary Clinton who said that, same difference lol,You make a good point, and to distill the matter to its essence, apart from a controlled media and well established and entrenched special, foreign and banking interests in DC... The CIA is a CRIMINAL MAFIA acting under color of law, currently taking Saudi money to pay jihadi and 'blackwater' type mercs in Syria, and by the way Yemen, and elsewhere, to include the slow ramp up in E Ukraine.Mroex crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:39 AM ,hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable.
No they can and will steal this election if, in fact, Trump were to get a majority of votes (which by the way is unlikely - study the demographics... trump can not beat hillary when she has 70/80% of women, the latinos, blacks, leftists, and so on) - but the underlying issue remains:
An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how?
Considering that US military personnel may quite literally be killed by CIA provided weapons, one might posit that one scenario is CIA personnel being hunted down and arrested (or not) by elements of the US special forces although this doesn't happen without either strong and secure leadership or some paradigm-shifting revelation.
For example- if more knew how exceedingly likely it is that 9/11 was an inside/Israeli job... Knew it... Things might change.
but I'm not optimistic.
hillary means ww3, and we are not the good guys. If we ever were..
Things were way different back when JFK was killed, I know I was around then.For one thing there was no internet, and people trusted and respected the media (TV and Newspapers) This trust made it very easy to coverup and / or bury details.
People overwhelmingly trusted government officials, Very few people questioned what government and media told them, again this makes it super easy to lie and coverup
I repect your question, and I hope you consider what I said. I am trying to make the case that assasination is no longer an option, not unless they want to truly start a real civil war. Which I would not rule out. But if they wish to keep the status quo and the sheep silent, assasination is way way to risky for the reasons I mentioned above
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com
Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016
Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.
It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.
The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."
What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.
So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?
The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.
I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.
The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.
Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.
Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump, so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania, and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.
I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip. But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven "poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're off by 15%.
Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.
I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible. At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.
Is it gin o'clock yet?
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
dcblogger October 21, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Pat October 21, 2016 at 2:29 pm""Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign" [Politico]. "The new group, called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group - which will coordinate campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges to state redistricting maps "
I have a very bad feeling about this.
jrs October 21, 2016 at 2:36 pmIt made my blood run cold.
I notice that they have the resources for that, but not for registering people to vote. Funny about that
Katharine October 21, 2016 at 3:16 pmwhy isn't it just what Republicans have already done? They are a push back against obvious Republican gerrymandering.
jash October 21, 2016 at 3:24 pmGerrymandering is not always Republican in origin. Maryland is a disgrace produced by Democrats.
Lambert Strether Post author October 22, 2016 at 2:23 amWhy are districts needed at this time?
Do they stilll need to travel by horse back to hob-knob?It seems clear that only about 5%(too high) are really setting the rules in the state/district.
Given the ease of communications , let each state be wide open – elect from a list state wide.
hunkerdown October 21, 2016 at 4:09 pmRepresentatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Pavel October 21, 2016 at 2:54 pmThat the parties are even allowed anywhere near district-drawing processes is a sign that the system is a sham designed to preserve them against us. How much more evidence do people need to be hit over the head with that they're complicit in enforcing frauds and that's not okay?
Obama and Holder, fresh off their various triumphs - closing Gitmo, prosecuting the Bush-era torturers, and sending top-level banksters to jail - just the team to sort this out. Not.
Google matched content |
[Oct 28, 2020] Wall Street Banks, And Their Employees, Now Officially Lean Democrat Published on Oct 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
[Aug 19, 2020] Some Shocking Facts on the Concentration of Ownership of the US Economy Published on May 19, 2019 | russia-insider.com
[Feb 26, 2020] What brokered convention would mean for candidates and the Dem party Published on Feb 26, 2020 | www.unz.com
[Jan 23, 2020] An incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy? Published on Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
[Nov 07, 2018] America's Vote of No Confidence in Trump by Daniel Larison Published on Nov 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
[Sep 16, 2017] Virginia Scraps Electronic Voting Machines Hackers Destroyed At DefCon Published on Sep 16, 2017 | it.slashdot.org
...
Voter Fraud Map- Election Fraud Database - The Heritage Foundation
History of Voter Fraud - The Other Half of History
The craziest cases of election fraud in U.S. history
The Roots of Voter Fraud in America
Most Rigged, Fraudulent, And Corrupt U.S. Elections In History - WorldAtlas
A Brief History of Disputed Elections
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: January, 20, 2021
