Goldman Sachs Gives Hillary Clinton Almost Half A Million Dollars In Less Than A Week

225px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropWhile the public polls show a public disgusted with the two party duopoly on power and demanding change, the same figures are emerging as the choices for the next president. The most obvious is Hillary Clinton who is reportedly positioning herself now as a candidate of change — a curious role for one of the most establishment figures on the political scene. The other leading candidate is Joe Biden who has been a source of continued gaffs as Vice President and viewed as the other leading candidate of establishment interests. However, there is an effort to reinvent Clinton who supported various wars under Bush and Obama and did little to stop torture and surveillance programs. Indeed, the new MSNBC host Ronan Farrow has proclaimed that the “Clintons represent a style of honesty that the public craves.” Farrow does not appear to remember Bill Clinton’s public and sworn denials in the Lewinsky affair or other scandals. Indeed, the new Hillary Clinton is already attracting the type of influence seekers associated with the two parties. Just this last month, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton almost a half of million dollars for just two speeches in one week. The event is made more curious by fact that speech was described as “prepared remarks” followed by limited questions. It is doubtful that Clinton informed Goldman Sachs of anything other than the most predictable remarks from a politician — not some critical re-orientation of their investment strategy. UPDATE: Chuck Schumer has already endorsed Clinton to be the next president.

In speeches on October 24 and October 29, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton $200,000 a speech. Thursday’s speech was a closed door meeting with Goldman and its clients. The prior Tuesday she spoke at a session hosted by Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

From Goldman Sachs to the Carlyle group, business interests are lining up to give huge amounts of cash to the Clintons personally for such speeches.

In the meantime, the two parties are moving to ensure that the same faces and choices will be given to voters despite overwhelming discontent over the two-party monopoly on power. With a system protecting incumbents and control of the two main parties, such public opposition remains largely immaterial and business interests are already putting money down on candidates like Clinton — and the “style of honesty” that they crave.

163 thoughts on “Goldman Sachs Gives Hillary Clinton Almost Half A Million Dollars In Less Than A Week

  1. Candidate of change? Style of honesty? Clearly we have a dumbed down populace. The Benghazi incident alone should disqualify her from the office of President in the minds of the majority of citizens. Unfortunately, mention the word Benghazi and most people don’t even know what your talking about.

  2. Its game on. The global elite are formulating their moves. Clinton vs. Jeb B./Cruz . Oh they will pretend its a honest horse race. But when the media is owned by 5 corporations…. This is article is spot on. They will get everyone huffing and puffing about “their” side. They will redangle their abortion and gays in front of the conservatives and progressive camps. Keep the real issues away. Agenda 21. NSA spying. NDAA. Reissued Patriot act. Shredded Constitution. Wars for Greater Israel. Yup game on.

  3. Roget’s lists only one antonym for “shocking” and that is “comforting”.

    I’m pretty sure that more graft as usual is not comforting.
    Nor surprising.
    Nor beneficial.
    Nor patriotic.
    Nor desirable.
    Nor democratic.
    Neither will it do anything to remove us from the steady dissent into corporatism/fascism.

    I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances and this illustrates part of why.

    There isn’t a principled bone in her body.

  4. “Candidate of change? Style of honesty? Clearly we have a dumbed down populace. The Benghazi incident alone should disqualify her from the office of President in the minds of the majority of citizens. Unfortunately, mention the word Benghazi and most people don’t even know what your talking about”

    ding ding ding winner, get yourself a chicken dinner!

    Im not a big fan of Cruz tbh. But Id take him over Clinton.
    Wonder how much money Lady Rothschild will funnel to her pal Hillary.

    We have a totally corrupt government. Whats sad is the voters. Get 5 democrats together and talk about how corrupt Clinton and Obama are and they all will agree. But mention the Tea Party and they flip a switch and start defending Hillary and say we need to elect her. The hypocrisy is disgusting.

  5. There isn’t a principled bone in Ted Cruz’s body either except for the bad principles.

    There is a difference between amoral and delusional.

  6. From the pen of the “dyspeptic” Chris Hedges.
    … Mike Spindell, thanks for the new (to me) word.

    …(excerpt)
    Our shift to corporate totalitarianism, like the shift to all forms of totalitarianism, is incremental. Totalitarian systems ebb and flow, sometimes taking one step back before taking two steps forward, as they erode democratic liberalism. This process is now complete. The “consent of the governed” is a cruel joke. Barack Obama cannot defy corporate power any more than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton could. Unlike his two immediate predecessors, Bush, who is intellectually and probably emotionally impaired, did not understand the totalitarian process abetted by the presidency. Because Clinton and Obama, and their Democratic Party, understand the destructive roles they played and are playing, they must be seen as far more cynical and far more complicit in the ruination of the country. Democratic politicians speak in the familiar “I-feel-your-pain” language of the liberal class while allowing corporations to strip us of personal wealth and power. They are effective masks for corporate power.

    The corporate state seeks to maintain the fiction of our personal agency in the political and economic process. As long as we believe we are participants, a lie sustained through massive propaganda campaigns, endless and absurd election cycles and the pageantry of empty political theater, our corporate oligarchs rest easy in their private jets, boardrooms, penthouses and mansions. As the bankruptcy of corporate capitalism and globalization is exposed, the ruling elite are increasingly nervous. They know that if the ideas that justify their power die, they are finished. This is why voices of dissent—as well as spontaneous uprisings such as the Occupy movement—are ruthlessly crushed by the corporate state.

    http://www.alternet.org/revolution?page=0%2C2&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

  7. You have your Ted Cruz. He doesn’t need the congressional health care plan. You see, he is on his wife’s plan over at Goldman Sachs. You see there will only be the ILLUSION of choice. beholdapalehorse.tv

  8. “Unfortunately, mention the word Benghazi and most people don’t even know what your talking about.”

    DavidM, Mention the word Benghazi and the 4 Americans that died (tragically) that day, to Fox Viewers, and it was worse than Pearl Harbor.
    Benghazi was indeed a cluster of many BAD decisions. The primary one was the Ambassador choosing to go there undermanned that day (or at all).
    I’m surprised you didn’t parrot Fox news denigration of the ACA.
    How did you miss that trifecta?!! (Hillary, Benghazi, ACA)

  9. Anonymous, the loosely knit collective of hackers and activists, have been warning of this day for several years. Want to be instantly depressed? Go to one of Anonymous’ semi-official YouTube sites and watch. The guy who was the more or less official face of Anonymous for the media, Barrett Brown, has been arrested. The Obama/Holder justice department wants to send him away for a hundred year sentence. No one will disagree that Barrett is a pain in the butt and can be obnoxious, but last time I looked, that was not against the law except in Arizona where they passed a law making it illegal to annoy Sheriff Joe.

  10. How is it some of you can do a dissertation on a door knob, but, get so vile when it comes to other’s points of view? Vent your spleen with your irrational diatribe! No, no! Bye!

  11. So you have your choice, a bobber and weaver who wants to take America forward or a bobber and weaver who wants to take America back(wards). Pick your poison. A politician is a politician is a politician.

    Perhaps under Clinton we will get to a single payer health care insurance system and start cleaning up this mess and saving money. Perhaps we will get some success from someone with a brain that functions well rather than those that wear crazy hats and advocate arming each individual and letting us sort it out ourselves.

    Line up the mistakes of each side and you will see that Clinton and the democrats are the least evil of the two, the least incompetent of the two, and the least dangerous to America.

  12. Patsy’s pissed. She doesn’t understand some folks see that BOTH parties are corrupt. Her Kool-Aid]grape] keeps her numbed into believing only one party is part of the corruption. Red Kool-Aid makes Republicans think the same. We need to blow up those Kool-Aid factories. That’s how we get outta this insane loop.

  13. The article has valid points. It omits other valid points. In 2008 we nominated a candidate in the Democratic Party for President and he won. He did not come from the Hillary wing or big money interests. Hillary was not nominated and elected.

    This time around I will not want Hillary. I certainly will reject any RepubliCon nominated and run for office. I do not like Hillary. I may vote 3rd Party if she gets t nod. Snowden may run. Of course I can not vote because I am a dog. Sometimes I help in the voting booth. One handle on the voting machine is good for the whole day. Or paw. Straight ticket. I can not do a “write in” for my half blind guy. I am just a guide dog.

  14. Isaac, LOVES that grape. He is a Kool-Aidaholic. He uses the mantra taught by both parties, “Yeah, we may suck and we may be corrupt, but we’re better than those other guys.” If you cut off the Kool-Aid then they’ll realize how infantile that argument is. I think both parties have started using pods which ensures compliance throughout a lifetime. That is really scary.

  15. I find hope in comments made above in terms of “dumbing down of the populace”, knowing there are some that see through the political facade.

    Over-and-above the Lewinsky affair, most disturbing to me (and I’ve been a life-long Democrat) is the Clinton’s history prior to entering the White House, found in the Whitewater scandal:
    ==> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

    “June 1993
    Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster files three years of delinquent Whitewater corporate tax returns.”

    “July 1993
    Foster is found dead in a Washington area park. Police rule the death a suicide. Federal investigators are not allowed access to Foster’s office immediately after the discovery, but White House aides enter Foster’s office shortly after his death, giving rise to speculation that files were removed from his office.”

    “Nov. 19, 1998
    During the first day of impeachment hearings, Starr clears Clinton in relation to the firing of White House travel office workers in 1993 and the improper collection of FBI files revealed in 1996. He also says his office drafted an impeachment referral stemming from Whitewater in 1997, but decided not to send it because the evidence was insufficient.”

    I don’t think Foster committed suicide. I believe the Clinton team did remove files from Foster’s office, and this was why in the end, the evidence was “insufficient”.

    To me, the Clinton’s political roots come from one place and one place only: Corruption, fraud and white collar crime. We need to rid government of these processes and not reinforce a political heritage that has been documented to be entrenched in illegal activities. If Hillary is what the Democrats are offering up — you can bet I’ll be changing my political party.

  16. Barkin, Goldman was the #2 contributor to Obama in 2008. Microsoft, Citibank, etc. were in the top 10, as was the mega business law firm, Sidley Austin. So there’s that. Give up this Dem horseshit, PLEEEEASE.

  17. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Two choices is the illusion of choice, not actual choice.

    The only way to start fixing that problem is to remove partisan erected barriers to entering elections as anything other than a D or an R. Neither party is enshrined in the Constitution. The rigging of the electoral systems was done by them for them and has nothing to do with the best interests of the American citizenry. First you break that fictional construct. Second, you make a Constitutional amendment that overturns Buckley v. Valeo and recognizes that no, money is not the equivalent of free speech and yes, that unlimited campaign contributions fetter democracy and inherently limit the marketplace of ideas to those with the money to “graft the loudest” and therefor unbalance policy and law. This would consequently also negate Citizens United v. FEC and whatever substantial damage is likely to be done by Mitch McConnell’s pending push to remove all contribution limits (which effectively kills democracy and makes a corporatist/fascist/plutocracy the officially the actual form of government).

  18. Dem lemmings, please bookmark a great website, opensecrets.org. It gives you where the money comes from. The ones who don’t feed off the trough, like my former senator, Russ Feingold, well they’re voted out.

  19. When Benghazi happened, Hiller hid and sent Susan Rice out to lie to the world about what happened. Now that is true leadership, NOT.

    As was mentioned previously, Not a single incumbent gets my vote. Including people who have served previously as Senator, Congressman, or Secretary of State.

  20. Gene H wrote: “…unlimited campaign contributions fetter democracy and inherently limit the marketplace of ideas to those with the money to “graft the loudest” and therefor unbalance policy and law.”

    Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?

  21. Someone will give her a primary challenge but I think it is more likely to be Howard Dean rather than Elizabeth Warren. She has my vote if the alternatives are Cruz, Christie or Paul. If either one of the dominionists, Paul or Cruz, is nominated, moderate republicans will vote for her. Some can say they are all the same but Hillary is not a religious fanatic like Cruz nor a white supremacist employer like Paul.

  22. If you don’t like it, then pass the laws taking money out of political campaigns. And it is the Repubs who are the very worst offenders here, working tirelessly to further empower the most wealthy and protecting corporations as people.

  23. David,

    Thanks for revealing that you are an anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian pro-oligarch, but we already knew that was your position.

    Government, specifically a democracy, works for all the people, not just the people with money and educations.

    If that presents a problem, then perhaps a Constitutional Presidential representative democratic republic isn’t for you.

    Unfortunately for you, that is the form of government spelled out by the Constitution.

  24. And poor Rand Paul, whose hand is constantly out, gets less and less. It’s just soooo dam unfair.

    (I always find it extremely funny when men find a way to throw Monica Lewinsky’s name into a discussion on Hillary Clinton.)

  25. Smom,

    A choice between the lesser of two evils is never positively impacted by making the choice between four evils. Would be theocrats are just another threat to democracy and the Constitution.

  26. The problem with Bill Clinton wasn’t lying about sex, it was NAFTA, welfare reform, the ending of Glass Steagall and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He was bookended by the Bushes who are a legitimate American Crime Family that would horrify the Cosa Nostra with its wanton brutality. Barack Obama is what we used to call a “Republican moderate” in the good old days where the political spectrum didn’t lean towards fascism. Why would anyone suspect that Hilary would be any different than her husband? The opportunity here for those who cherish the concept of a country where the people have a say in the government is that the opposition to Hilary unites people of diverse political views and perhaps a third force can emerge. The depressing part of her candidacy is that people like Jeb Bush, or Ted Cruz will be supported out of opposition since they represent no alternative and in Cruz case even a bleaker prospect.

    The true lesson of our politics is that there ain’t no heroes in a Corporatist system heading for feudalism. There are but two years available to mount a viable opposition and I don’t mean Ralph Nader. Right now there are only three people I can think of that I would support: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alan Cranston, but I doubt any of them will run. However, far more important than who is running for President is whether there is a possibility for changing anything when they get there. I believe that our Military and our Intelligence Communities are beyond any President’s control at this point. Only the expression of the strongest sentiments of national disgust with this Corporatist system might have an effect for change. That need is what both excites and depresses me. The fact that people are disgusted with their lack of power to effect change is heartening. However, the
    reality is that those in power have used superficial nonsense to divide us and that separation unfortunately is the source of much unseeing rage as we blame the wrong people for this state of affairs.

  27. Gene,
    I think it is the military-industrial complex that has gotten out of control. That old closet queen, J. Edgar Hoover created the blackmail model for controlling his own bosses.

    The M/I complex has now morphed into the intelligence-industrial-military-prison complex. As Will Rogers once asked, “Who’s minding the store?”

    I don’t blame Obama entirely, because the above named entities make sure he is in a hermetically sealed bubble. I seriously doubt he reads any blogs, but only gets the pre-digested summaries fed to him by the minions. He is a registered user at Daily Kos, but only wrote two diaries and has made no comments at all. His most recent blog activity was October 2005. He closed that last diary with this:

    In that spirit, let me end by saying I don’t pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.

    I should note that his candor did not include engaging the blog community with any comments or discussion, despite the fact that particularly diary garnered 843 comments.

    The question becomes, who owns the minions? It is a truism that all kings are at the mercy of their courtiers.

  28. The money quote comes from David Geffen, a former big Clinton supporter. “Everybody in politics lies, but they do it so well it’s alarming.” This thread is a microcosm of just how polarizing she is.

  29. Come on, Hillary used Monica to play victim just like those using Monica against her. Monica swings both ways, as it were.

  30. Bron, She will spend many millions of dollars running away from Obama and Republicans will spend the same attaching your slogan to her. The slogan is more accurate than her spin will be. She is as polarizing as Obama has become, probably more so. This thread is a micro example.

  31. What Mike S. and OS said. I will add that unless we get money out of politics, the MIC will continue to own our politicians.

  32. So she got paid for speeches. I don’t see the problem other then the continued problem made worse by SCOTUS, and potentially even worse still with McCutcheon. All politicians, both sides, get money from whatever sources they can. Giving a speech is usually a paid situation. I imagine Professor Turley gets paid when he makes speeches.
    (And the repubs hands, Nick, are also out, even eating at the public trough, http://ourfuture.org/20130920/the-10-farm-subsidy-recipients-who-voted-to-cut-food-stamps. This is much worse becausethey take taxpayer money that they want to cut from the poor. This is just one batch of example. Samre is true for Medicaid http://gawker.com/tea-party-republican-defends-being-on-medicaid-while-op-1446552792 I’d rather see Clinton, et al getting paid for a speech then repubs saying Let them eat cake to the poor while they continue to chow down on taxpayer dollars)

  33. Anybody that votes for someone that will pass a law without reading it deserves what they get. The same with someone that has been a proven liar.

  34. nick spinelli 1, November 1, 2013 at 10:41 am

    Alan Cranston died a long time ago. However, he still votes in Chicago every election.
    ===================
    Or someone with his name.

  35. lawrence berg wrote: “And it is the Repubs who are the very worst offenders here, working tirelessly to further empower the most wealthy and protecting corporations as people.”

    This is not true. I am a Republican, and I do not favor empowering the most wealthy. The wealthy already have enough power. We have to work toward empowering the poor, not the wealthy. This is a Republican ideal. The problem is that the left has been demonizing Republicans with so much false information that it has polarized the country and created the kind of brokenness that exists in Congress today.

  36. David you are among the minority since it is the repubs want to cut the safety net,not the dems. It is the repubs and right leaning SCOTUS who like and allow Citizens United and want to not tax corporations but tax the middle class.

  37. The right’s war against the poor: Pope Francis, liberal Democrats against House Republicans, Ayn Rand atheist10/31/13
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/188852-the-rights-war-against-the-poor-pope-francis-liberal

    In my column “Food stamp scandals,” I harshly criticized far-right Republicans and House Republicans as a group for waging war against the hungry with their callous attacks against food stamps.

    Check out the comments under my column, many of which on both sides were thoughtful, but too many of which sounded like they were from angry white males on the very far right who share an abnormal hatred of poor people.

    Pope Francis, who is the pope with a passion for the poor, has spoken as the conscience of the world on the paramount urgency of helping the needy. Virtually all of the great religions share this notion that those who have the most should help those who have the least.

    Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and so many others speak with different faiths on the shared purpose of helping the impoverished.

    Democrats, liberals, progressives and moderates are fighting to translate these faiths of decency into the realities of policy.

    For some unfathomable reason, by contrast, the far right and those Republicans in fear of the far right, who include Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, have declared war against the poor and hungry. The attacks against food stamps from the radical right, and the attempts by House Republicans to cut almost $40 billion from food stamps, and the food stamp cuts that are scheduled to go into effect on Friday represent a new low of callous indifference and cruelty even by standards of the highly unpopular Tea Party movement and Republican leaders in Washington.

    I emphasize, and many Republicans and principled conservatives outside Washington share my view, that this war against the poor is despicable. Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio has warned Republicans about this war against the poor. Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has distanced himself from what some of us call the suicide wing of the GOP.

    There is a school of thought on the right that is rooted in the cruel atheism and pseudo-libertarianism of Ayn Rand, and one champion of that is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

    They wage war against the poor and despise any attempt to help them. They embody the curse of selfishness and greed the plagues the Republican Party today and is a major source of the unpopularity of the Tea Party and the GOP today. Francis is right. Rand is wrong. Liberal Democrats are right. House Republicans are wrong. President Obama is right. The war against the poor must end.

    *****

    Ohio Governor Defies G.O.P. With Defense of Social Safety Net
    10/28/13
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/us/politics/ohio-governor-defies-gop-with-defense-of-social-safety-net.html?hp&_r=0

    Excerpt:
    COLUMBUS, Ohio — In his grand Statehouse office beneath a bust of Lincoln, Gov. John R. Kasich let loose on fellow Republicans in Washington.

    “I’m concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor,” he said, sitting at the head of a burnished table as members of his cabinet lingered after a meeting. “That if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.”

    “You know what?” he said. “The very people who complain ought to ask their grandparents if they worked at the W.P.A.”

    Ever since Republicans in Congress shut down the federal government in an attempt to remove funding for President Obama’s health care law, Republican governors have been trying to distance themselves from Washington.

    Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin schooled lawmakers in a Washington Post opinion column midway through the 16-day shutdown on “What Wisconsin Can Teach Washington.” Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, with a record of bipartisan support at home, remarked after a visit to the nation’s capital, “If I was in the Senate right now, I’d kill myself.”

    But few have gone further than Mr. Kasich in critiquing his party’s views on poverty programs, and last week he circumvented his own Republican legislature and its Tea Party wing by using a little-known state board to expand Medicaid to 275,000 poor Ohioans under President Obama’s health care law.

    Once a leader of the conservative firebrands in Congress under Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, Mr. Kasich has surprised and disarmed some former critics on the left with his championing of Ohio’s disadvantaged, which he frames as a matter of Christian compassion.

    He embodies conventional Republican fiscal priorities — balancing the budget by cutting aid to local governments and education — but he defies many conservatives in believing government should ensure a strong social safety net. In his three years as governor, he has expanded programs for the mentally ill, fought the nursing home lobby to bring down Medicaid costs and backed Cleveland’s Democratic mayor, Frank Jackson, in raising local taxes to improve schools.

  38. DavidM wrote: “Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?”

    Gene H wrote: “Thanks for revealing that you are an anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian pro-oligarch, but we already knew that was your position.”

    I am not anti-democratic. I just think democracy has to be carefully arranged to work well. Democracy weakens government, especially when democracy follows the idea of equal suffrage.

    Every government evolves toward oligarchical and Hierarchical. It is simply the nature of organization. Careful steps must be taken to minimize the effects of that trend.

    You avoided answering my question. I see a problem with thinking that making everybody equal in their ability to change government will fix everything. Some people are wiser than others and have better ideas on what to do. Some people are too dumb to know that voting for someone who is going to take care of them will bankrupt the nation. Some people are too dumb to know when somebody is lying to them. Some people just do not study the issues at all. They would rather smoke marijuana and live life in a stupor. That person’s vote cancels out your vote. I would rather the vote of someone like you count more than their vote.

    Gene H wrote: “Unfortunately for you, that is the form of government spelled out by the Constitution.”

    The Constitution originally did not have equal suffrage built into it. Women did not vote. Blacks did not vote. The construction of representation in the Senate versus the House of Representatives was an effort to weigh votes differently between the property owners and the populace.

    Just look at how corrupt government has become as we have amended the Constitution toward equal suffrage and granting greater taxation rights to the federal government. Based upon our history and the results of our evolving government, I suspect your concept of what is good for government is flawed.

    Can you try to answer my question? Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?

  39. leejcaroll wrote: “David you are among the minority since it is the repubs want to cut the safety net,not the dems.”

    Wrong again. Republicans like me want a safety net. We just don’t want a nanny state. Food stamps already has more people than the entire population of Spain. That is much more than a safety net, which is why it is so abused. Some beneficiaries now even advertise on Craigslist to sell their EBT cards (e.g., $60 for a $100 EBT card) even though it is against Craigslist terms of service to do so.
    http://www.naturalnews.com/042674_food_stamp_fraud_sold_for_cash_craigslist.html

    I want food stamps to go to people who need it, not to drug addicts looking for fast cash. Democrats seem to want to just throw as much money at the problem without caring about how to pay for it.

  40. leejcaroll wrote: ” Repubs… tax the middle class.”

    Wrong again. Remember the Bush tax cuts on the middle class? The middle class even got sent checks in the mail. That’s the direction of Republican policy on taxing the middle class. We want the middle class to pay less taxes. Please stop reading only left wing websites that misrepresent us. Fox News might give you a more balanced understanding of the truth, or at least just look at how Republicans vote and what they say rather than reading what our enemies claim we say.

  41. LOL yes Fox news, that’s “fair and balanced” only if your definitions of those words include opposite world.

    As for “Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?” And who decides who belongs to which group. Someone who thinks Fox is fair and balanced, just as an initial thought of descriptors.

  42. leejcaroll wrote: “… who decides who belongs to which group.”

    The first step is to realize that the concept of equal suffrage will destroy democratic governments. Then we can do the hard work of determining the details of how to construct a good democratic process. Equal suffrage is a lazy approach to the problem of making democracy fair.

    Secondly, we ought to recognize the principle that voting with money is more powerful than a free vote. This is what makes capitalism work so well. People vote for good businesses by buying their products instead of marking a ballot. Try it with your children. Ask them to vote for something for free, then tell them they have to pay for it and see how their vote changes.

  43. leejcaroll wrote: “…Fox news, that’s “fair and balanced” only if your definitions of those words include opposite world.”

    Really? Don’t you see the bigotry and prejudice expressed in your stereotype of Fox News?

  44. “Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. Critics have further stated that the cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality”

    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the “largest benefits, by far on the highest income households.” CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.[4] The underlying policy has been criticized by Democratic Party congressional opponents for giving tax cuts to the rich with capital gains tax breaks while acknowledging some benefit extended to middle and lower income brackets as well.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

    Re Fox no it is proven multiple times xmultiple times that Fox is not fair and balanced.

  45. davidm wrote:

    “The first step is to realize that the concept of equal suffrage will destroy democratic governments. Then we can do the hard work of determining the details of how to construct a good democratic process. Equal suffrage is a lazy approach to the problem of making democracy fair.”

    *****

    Is this what you have in mind?

    Tea Party Nation President Says It ‘Makes A Lot Of Sense’ To Restrict Voting Only To Property Owners
    By Zaid Jilani
    November 30, 2010
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/30/132532/tea-party-voting-property/

    Every week, the Tea Party Nation hosts a weekly radio program, calling itself a “home for conservatives.” Two weeks ago, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put “certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote.” He continued, “One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners”:

    PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.

    *****

    Or maybe you think women should be denied the right to vote?

  46. On the contrary, David.

    I answered your question by pointing out the fundamental flaw of a position not based in universal sufferage.

    Namely that if you don’t have universal sufferage, you by definition have an oligarchy and not a truly democratic representative republic, ergo your position is anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian and pro-oligarchy.

  47. David,
    so now you are against universal suffrage?? Is that in the Bible someplace? Only males with property can vote now? Is that males with more than one acre or two acres? If the property is jointly owned with a female, can the male only count 1/2 of the property towards his exclusive right to vote?

  48. This reminds me of the wedding tributes collected in the Godfather movie.
    Nothing will prevent Ms & Mr Clinton from being reelected, unless Bill has a Heart attack in the next year or so. All Dems need to do is point out how much the deficits drop under Dems & rise under Repubs, plus casting doubt on Cruz’s mothers birth certificate, Game over lol

    Its about the hypocrisy stupid

    & from the 08 race, it sure seams like Hillery is a weak, lousy leader- she was constantly battered by her advisers, never able to dominate them, making me fear she will be a poor president

  49. lol Ter ber. You talk about Cruz and goldman sachs but ignore all the money they give Obama and Hillary.

    Hillary Clinton Raked In Around $400,000 Speaking At Goldman Sachs

    Hillary Clinton spoke at two Goldman Sachs events over the past few days, the National Review’s Alec Torres reports.

    Clinton takes home about $200,000 per speech, which apparently is around the going rate for the “formers” of President Obama’s cabinet. From NRO:

    Last Thursday, Clinton spoke for the AIMS Alternative Investment Conference hosted by Goldman Sachs, a closed event exclusively for Goldman clients. AIMS is an annual conference that explores the latest strategies and products available to financial advisers. At the event, Clinton offered what one attendee described to me as “prepared remarks followed by questions.”

  50. whats that abotu crus terd gerber

    Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor
    From Robert Yoon, CNN Political Research Director
    April 20, 2010 5:50 p.m. EDT

  51. how about that cruz terd gerber

    Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head. He was confirmed despite heated congressional grilling over his role, as Reuters described it, “as a high-level Treasury official in a 2000 law that exempted the $58 trillion credit default swap market from oversight. The financial instruments have been blamed for amplifying global financial turmoil.” Gensler said he was sorry — hey, it worked for tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner — and was quickly installed to guard the henhouse.

    Goldman Sachs kept White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on a $3,000 monthly retainer while he worked as Clinton’s chief fundraiser, as first reported by Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney. The financial titans threw in another $50,000 to become the Clinton primary campaign’s top funder. Emanuel received nearly $80,000 in cash from Goldman Sachs during his four terms in Congress — investments that have reaped untold rewards, as Emanuel assumed a leading role championing the trillion-dollar TARP banking-bailout law.

  52. Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson serves under Geithner as his top deputy and overseer of TARP bailout — $10 billion of which went to Goldman Sachs. Left-leaning government watchdog Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington responded: “It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another.” Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation noted that, while at Goldman Sachs, Patterson lobbied against the executive-pay limits that Obama had crusaded for as senator (this was, of course, before his administration carved out exemptions for AIG). While Patterson agreed to recuse himself on any Goldman Sachs–related issues or policy concerns, Blumenthal wrote, it “still creates a serious conflict for Geithner, as Treasury is being partly managed by a former Goldman lobbyist. Geithner is also placed in a tough position considering that his chief of staff is limited in the areas in which he can work (supposedly).”

    Obama’s close hometown crony, campaign-finance chief and senior adviser Penny Pritzker, was head of Superior Bank of Chicago, a subprime specialist that went bust in 2001, leaving more than 1,400 people stripped of their savings after bank officials falsified profit reports. Pritzker’s lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers, Tom Donilon, is now Obama’s deputy national-security adviser. He earned just shy of $4 million representing her and other high-profile meltdown clients including Goldman Sachs.

    White House National Economic Council head Larry Summers reaped nearly $2.8 million in speaking fees from many of the major financial institutions and government-bailout recipients he now polices, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, and Goldman Sachs. A single speech to Goldman Sachs in April 2008 brought in $135,000. Summers had prior experience negotiating government-sponsored bailouts that benefit private concerns. In 1995, he spearheaded a $40 billion bailout of the Mexican peso that bypassed Congress. Summers personally leaned on the International Monetary Fund to provide nearly $18 billion for the package. Summers’s boss, then–secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, was former co-chairman of Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs — the Mexican government’s investment banking firm of choice.

    Rubin continues to mentor another former employee of his with regular visits and chats — Treasury Secretary Geithner, who as head of the New York Federal Reserve pushed bailed-out insurance conglomerate AIG to cover up sweetheart deals for investment banks that benefited, you guessed it, Goldman Sachs.

    As Obama harangues Wall Street to clean up its house, all the president’s Goldman Sachs men have their feet on the coffee table at his.

  53. sorry ter i owe you an apology. Yeah Cruz wife being at Sachs is a problem for me also.

    Both parties are corrupt.

    my name is to merely make a point

  54. SwM,

    This thread is hilarious and it’s only just beginning.

    Tex and all his buds are throwing a “Thank God she’s giving it serious consideration” party tonight. There’s about 30 of them all over the age of 60 and each one is supposed to bring another male between the ages of 21 (legal age to drink) and 50. So far Tex is taking 9 guys. Our neighbor is bringing 12. These men have never wavered in their support for Hillary since she made her first run for Senator.

  55. “The question becomes, who owns the minions? It is a truism that all kings are at the mercy of their courtiers.”

    OS,

    Perfectly put, but too many people like to pretend it isn’t that way and the ego of politicians is such they deny it even to themselves.

  56. Don’t worry, the Republicans won’t be left out. Goldman will hedge its bets by throwing some money at a Republican nominee. Most donors hedge their bets by contributing to both candidates. If the Republicans weren’t in a completely chaotic death spiral and had an actual presumptive nominee he’d be getting big paying speaking gigs by now too.

    The problem is money in politics, it’s dueling millionaires/billionaires out there and SCOTUS has blessed it.

  57. People who hate Ted Cruz are RACIST!,

    Aggravating isn’t it … a whole lot of educated men out there who actually believe Hillary Clinton would make a better President than anyone else putting themselves forward for the job.

    Even worse, these men want a President with enough experience in government, foreign and domestic, to hit the ground running and support her based on those credentials.

    What in the hell is happening to this country?!

  58. Gene H wrote: “I answered your question by pointing out the fundamental flaw of a position not based in universal sufferage [sic].”

    You are confusing universal suffrage with equal suffrage. Allowing people / corporations to vote with their money by supporting candidates financially does not take away the vote from anyone.

    Do you or do you not recognize the imbalance created by giving every person an equal vote?

    If you have a problem with unequal suffrage, you probably want to change the structure of Congress, specifically the Senate, so that representation is based upon the population. You probably also want to do away with the Electoral College and just elect the executive offices based upon popular vote. Is that what you want to do, or have you just not thought very much about these issues?

  59. Ah, yes. Another cowardly fool “Democrat” who stupidly bought into Deputy Dubya’s stud hamster vendetta against the toothless Iraqi tinpot, Saddam “he tried to kill my daddy” Hussein.

    Buffaloed Girl
    (Somewhat after the traditional song of a similar name)

    Buffaloed girl, won’t you come out tonight?
    Bask in your fright; hide in plain sight.
    Buffaloed girl don’t you put up a fight;
    Just dance to the right with the goons!

    Buffaloed girl, don’t you burn any flags;
    Marry some fags; count body bags.
    Buffaloed girl, wrapped in riches not rags,
    Just keep raking in those doubloons!

    Buffaloed girl, send our troops to Iraq!
    Then leave them there! Don’t bring them back!
    Buffaloed girl, cover George Bush’s back,
    And scrape up a few more platoons!

    Buffaloed girl, just stay out of the fray.
    Keep your mouth shut! Keep making hay!
    Buffaloed girl, while the cat is away
    Just keep playing mice with buffoons.

    Buffaloed girl, don’t you hear the troops cry?
    Wounded for wrongs; dead for a lie
    Buffaloed girl, look in everyone’s eye
    And then soil your own pantaloons

    Buffaloed girl, under Lieberman’s wing
    Saving his job, that’s the main thing
    Buffaloed girl, you and Holy Joe sing
    The duet of right-wing spittoons

    Buffaloed girl, rail at video games
    Focus group that; spout the right frames
    Buffaloed girl, don’t you name any names
    Just save children from their cartoons

    Buffaloed girl, take a “listening” tour
    If you don’t know; if you’re not sure
    Buffaloed girl, voters like their fake “pure”
    Like war debt that simply balloons

    Buffaloed girl, when it counted you hid
    Don’t try to lie. That’s what you did
    Buffaloed girl, Dubya made you his kid
    When you bought the crap that he croons

    Buffaloed girl, your irrelevance mounts
    Even in small, measured amounts
    If “it” takes a village, by all your accounts
    Then take “it” to Mars and its moons

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright © 2006

  60. David,

    Quite simply: bullshit.

    I’m not confusing anything. Equal sufferage is a crap idea often put forth by corporatists/fascists to justify what is actually an inequitable voting process. Equal sufferage means a system without graded voting where a voter could possess a number (as in multiple) of votes in accordance with income, wealth or social status. Contrast this to universal sufferage where the right to vote is not restricted by sex, race, social status, or wealth and every individual citizen of age (barring the reasonable exceptions of mental incapacity or certain kinds of criminal convictions) has one vote.

    One (wo)man, one vote.

    You are confusing “unfair” and “unbalanced” for “fair” and “balanced”.

    Which isn’t surprising considering you’re a confessed FAUXNews aficionado.

  61. I say that if the Republicans want another Republican president, then they should elect their own Republican candidate president and not expect the Democrats to do it again (Clinton) and again (Obama) for them. How many hapless foreigners — most likely Muslims — will have to needlessly die so that You-Know-Her can prove her “toughness” while ceaselessly mouthing empty animist ritual incantations to the effect that the Great Big Daddy Spook just loves the slaughter. Hence:

    An Ersatz Commander in Knickers

    Before a mirror now she stands
    Saluting with her two left hands
    “Commanding” like some jaded Joan of Arc
    A warfare welfare mother slick
    Another monkey on a stick
    She gladly held the match that lit the spark

    She clearly failed to look and see
    The dwarf dyslexic chimpanzee
    Who made baboons of her and Bubba Bill
    Attacking those upon the left
    Who saw through Dubya’s lack of heft
    She now sounds less a leader than a shill

    In thrall to medals on the chest
    Not nearly brightest nor the best
    She signed off on a jingoistic jaunt
    No judgment did she bring to bear
    Emitting only heated air
    Her bad decisions have returned to haunt

    And now with knickers in a bunch
    She lives to rue the fateful hunch
    She followed on her first blind date with war
    It seemed like such a little thing:
    A rapt submission to a fling
    That’s left her used again like Dubya’s whore

    Yet unrepentant at the ease
    With which war caused her brain to freeze
    Our You-Know-Her wants us to make her queen
    She’s got this urge to have a go,
    She’d like us all to truly know,
    In spite of all that we have heard and seen

    She now says she would like to fight
    And not just pander to the right
    She says the middle finger them she’ll give
    But calculating cons and pros
    She tallies up the “yea”s and “no”s
    And then displays a pinky as her shiv

    It simply doesn’t seem to work
    This “centrist” mush served by a jerk
    Who likes the times that buy men’s souls just fine
    For having sold her own soul cheap
    She now can utter not a peep
    When voters choose someone more genuine

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright © 2007

  62. Gene,

    David can’t even quote Attila the Hun correctly. He meant to say:

    “It is not enough that I succeed. Everyone else must fail.”

    Of course, what David considers “success” — principally the possession of great family wealth that impoverishes others — would apply to George “Deputy Dubya” Bush, as well. So we can consider that theory easily debunked. And anyone who thinks that “Benghazi” ranks as a national issue has no business calling other voters “dumb.”

    It seems clear to me that David really longs for a “Lord” to “come back” and lay down the law from his “throne.” A mythological monarchist, for sure.

  63. Gene H wrote: “I’m not confusing anything. Equal sufferage [sic] is a crap idea often put forth by corporatists/fascists to justify what is actually an inequitable voting process. Equal sufferage [sic] means a system without graded voting where a voter could possess a number (as in multiple) of votes in accordance with income, wealth or social status.”

    You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. At least learn how to spell suffrage. I support the concept of universal suffrage, but not equal suffrage because equal suffrage destroys democracy and leads to poor government. Wise, honest and faithful people make for better leaders in government. Your system will just increase the animosity and polarization we have in govt and society right now.

  64. Michael Murray wrote: “David can’t even quote Attila the Hun correctly.”

    You are associating me with the wrong person. My voting concepts are more aligned with Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence. Unlike Jefferson, I do support the idea of universal suffrage, but I think Jefferson might have supported my system of universal suffrage if I could have explained to him my concept of a weighted voting system.

  65. DavidM,

    “You are confusing universal suffrage with equal suffrage.”

    What the hell does this mean? What is equal suffrage? Is this a linguistic sleight-of-hand that you erect in the hope it reads well?

    Define your terms, DavidM.

    It would be advantageous for you if you could do this without denigrating people that don’t hold your views, or otherwise convince others without resorting to your obvious love of redemption whether it be from earthly powers or spiritual.

  66. “The first step is to realize that the concept of equal suffrage will destroy democratic governments. Then we can do the hard work of determining the details of how to construct a good democratic process.”
    *

    David, If there’s a bottom line regarding the nature of citizenship in the US that’s lower than this one just get to it, stop teasing me. Every time I think you can’t get more fringe you surprise me. Just what else is lurking in the corners? I’m interested, really.

    You’ve probably given the suffrage issue some thought or you wouldn’t have mentioned it so who’s vote is least valuable? Who gets the least share of the democratic process, the next to least, the most and so on? Srsly, I’m interested.

  67. “We came. We saw. He died.” Thus You-Know-Her cackled and smirked as American sponsored Al Qaeda “rebels” repeatedly abused the captured and dying Libyan leader Moammar Gaddhafi. (Youtube has the graphic video which the interested viewer can easily locate). So much for the “dignity” of national office.

    And this soulless war slut wants my vote? Never. Enough with the mindless, corporate militarism. So from my experienced anti-war perspective, I see only:

    A Useless Ewe
    (From The Triumph of Strife: an homage to Dante Alighieri and Percy Shelley)

    How did the Nazi Germans get like that?
    Why did the Japanese do such fell deeds?
    How did America grow dumb and fat?

    Why does our media spout fascist screeds?
    Like ruptured ducks they waddle, limp and quack
    Our chicken hawk a timid twitter bleeds

    A pigeon on her stool she sings for slack
    So she can coo and squawk and glare and cluck
    Her stupid vote for war she won’t take back

    Instead, she stalls and hides and hopes for luck
    Invested in the bars of her own cage
    Her signature refrain: buk! buk! buk! buk!

    She pecks and scratches, fitful, on the stage
    Her part already fading from the page

    She piles up heaps of corporation cash
    To foster the impression of a lead
    Reactionaries throw for her a bash

    To help her buy a job without the need
    To find out whom the people would prefer
    She’d like to have the title and the deed

    But not what she would just as soon defer:
    A stance on issues ravaging the land
    From which ambivalence we can infer

    That we need someone not so blind and bland
    No leadership from her will manifest
    Until we’ve put aside the other hand

    Which makes decision easy to ingest
    And moot the question of her quisling quest

    For who requires an also-ran to run?
    Who follows those advancing to the rear?
    Who offer no new thing beneath the sun

    No lure to them who’ve cast aside her fear
    And have no wish to truck with it again
    Why wait for years if only then to hear

    The call to act like mice and not like men
    Advice to trim the sails and not make waves
    To baldly go where everyone has been

    A road to hell this good intention paves
    Before and after; both sides of the street
    A path that neither life or treasure saves

    Much better left to warm her Senate seat
    This useless ewe continuing to bleat

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2006-2010

  68. GBK, I need details, I’m just stupid that way. Weighted voting says to me that someone’s vote is going to count more, or less than mine. On its face that’s undemocratic. If I’m wrong then DavidM or other weighted voting advocates need to explain it to me, if I’m right then DavidM or some other weighted voting advocate needs to explain how it would work. Otherwise it’s just an undemocratic ejaculation meaning nothing. I am interested in the details.

  69. I read the Virginia guv race has tightened! Maybe the butt boy shouldn’t have had the Clintons campaign for him? They are polarizing.

  70. From Gene H: “I believe that our Military and our Intelligence Communities are beyond any President’s control at this point.”

    That is terrifying Gene. Just as William Binney said, that we are this close (holding his fingers barely apart) to a turnkey totalitarianism. Who will turn the key?

    From Otteray Scribe: “The question becomes, who owns the minions? It is a truism that all kings are at the mercy of their courtiers.”

    If the Military and Intelligence communities are beyond the President’s control and we wonder who owns the minions, does it stand to reason that the M/I communities own the minions? A modern-day Praetorian guard?

    And, if the M/I communities are beyond the President’s control, does that mean there has been a silent coup?

  71. Prairie Rose,
    I think the best answer to that is “probably.” Not completed yet, but not for lack of trying. The oligarchs have been trying since the 1930s, but were interrupted by a courageous general and a world war. Eisenhower warned the country, but it was a time when everyone was prosperous and happy. The media were focused on the really “important” stuff like who got a vicuna coat as a gift. Nobody listened.

    The only way the country will be taken back is if we get a leader or two who is more concerned with the Constitution than being reelected, and who does not scare easily. Somebody with the general temperament of a Teddy Roosevelt. We only have one or two more election cycles to get it done.

  72. LK

    his voting concepts are aligned with thomas jefferson. you remember him, the guy who thought some people were only worth 3/5ths of a vote. and then only if a responsible (money or property) person voted it for them.

  73. Otteray Scribe,

    “The only way the country will be taken back is if we get a leader or two who is more concerned with the Constitution than being reelected, and who does not scare easily.”

    Ron Paul fit this bill but had way too much baggage from those dang newsletters. You may dislike many of his domestic policies, but he’d at least make a go at eliminating the NDAA, NSA surveillance, and other civil liberties issues discussed here.

    “We only have one or two more election cycles to get it done.”

    Why is that? What do you see playing out? If there has been a silent coup, why wouldn’t “they” just try to turn the key now? What do ‘they’ want to happen in 4-8 years? Does the economy need to completely bottom out or something else that you envision?

  74. Prairie Rose,
    Somebody like Ron Paul is not even close to what is needed. His even nuttier son is even further from what is needed. Frankly, I don’t see anyone on the political horizon who might fit the bill. Everyone I see so far are nothing but players.

    Our security system, TSA and all, is a joke. Theatre in the round. Whatever you do, don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain. As far as what I either know or suspect has gone on so far, the game is still on. The media and politicians are colluding to give us circuses instead of bread. Bloggers are the wild card. They are the modern versions of Thomas Paine.

  75. Ron Paul fit this bill but had way too much baggage from those dang newsletters.
    ======================================================

    the problem isn’t that he’s a racist homophobe, the problem is that he wrote it down.

    those dang newsletters

  76. “Even though many of the newsletters are written in a first person, conversational style, many observers don’t believe that Ron Paul actually wrote them.

    There aren’t any videos on YouTube with Paul speaking in incendiary terms about minorities. The newsletters don’t “sound” like Ron Paul — he doesn’t do wordplay like “Morondon” or use prefixes like “semi-criminal” or “half-educated” in his speech or his recent writings. Further, most newsletter and direct-mail operations in politics employ ghostwriters. ”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/

    He has handled the issue of the newsletters very poorly, and he probably would not have been able to build consensuses as president, making him an ineffective president. He was dubbed Dr. No for a reason.

    But he is the only person I can think of who regularly spoke about following the Constitution. He voted, by and large, according to the Constitution.

    Who else has spoken about following what the Constitution says? Who else seems to actually care about civil liberties? Do you have a suggestion? I’m serious because the potential candidates being floated right now by the establishment are less than inspiring.

  77. No way Jeb Bush is going to be the next president. I don’t think he’s even going to run. Even his mother said “No more Bush presidents” The american people (well enough of them) haven’t forgot.

  78. Texas Attorney General Almost Disenfranchised By His Own Voter ID Law
    By Aviva Shen
    November 1, 2013
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/01/2875901/texas-voter-abbott-affidavit/

    Excerpt:
    As early voting begins in Texas, the state’s new, strict voter ID law has thus far flagged a judge, gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, and another state senator as potentially illegitimate voters. Attorney General Greg Abbott (R), voter ID’s most strident defender, was also flagged as a suspicious voter under his own law’s strict criteria.

    Abbott was flagged because his license lists his name as “Gregory Wayne Abbott” while his voter registration record simply calls him “Greg Abbott.”

    Longtime voters, particularly married women who have taken a spouse’s name, are being stopped at the polls because their names on their drivers’ licenses differ from their voter registration forms. Thanks to an amendment added by Wendy Davis, voters who clearly have “substantially similar” names can still cast a regular ballot by signing an affidavit affirming their identity. If the law had gone through unmodified as Abbott originally supported, he would have disenfranchised himself.

  79. Michael Murry. “A Useless Ewe”

    Great Stuff,

    Makes me think of our many useless Politicians, dragging their accumulated loot behind them in a sackbag, and legislating ONLY for wider slippery future paths, to better accommodate their growing bags of Hubris and Greed.

  80. DavidM wrote to Gene H: “You are confusing universal suffrage with equal suffrage.”

    gbk wrote: “What the hell does this mean? What is equal suffrage? Is this a linguistic sleight-of-hand that you erect in the hope it reads well? Define your terms, DavidM.”

    No sleight-of-hand. The terms have been in use since before this country was founded. Universal suffrage refers to the privilege for everyone to vote. Equal suffrage refers to everyone getting an equal vote. Originally, America did not have either universal or equal suffrage. Voting was restricted to freeholders (those who owned land free and clear). Thomas Jefferson was one founding father who argued in favor of restricting voting only to men who owned land.

  81. lottakatz wrote: “…who’s [sic] vote is least valuable?”

    The person who knows the least about what they are voting on and who owns no property would be the one whose vote has the least value.

    This is not the proper forum for a full discussion on this topic. In brief, let me say that because government oversees everyone in society, I think everyone living here should get a vote. I do not believe voting is an inalienable right like many democrats do. Voting is a privilege that should be extended to those who are affected by the laws created.

    In a weighted system of voting, a person could increase the value of their vote through testing and certain status. For example, because the primary role of government concerns property rights, a person who owns land free and clear would get a bump in the power of their vote. A person who could recognize the pictures of current government leaders (picture of president, vice president, speaker of the house, etc.) would get a higher vote. If the vote concerns a bill or proposed law, the person who has read the proposed law should get a higher vote than someone who has not read it. When voting for candidates in federal government, someone who can demonstrate an understanding of government structure (knows three branches of government and structure of Congress and understands electoral college, etc.) would get a higher vote. Someone in society who is self employed would get a higher vote because that person will have more government laws affecting him. Someone in society who employs others should have their vote increased, but the person who employs one person would have the same increase as the person who employs many. Perhaps this is enough for you to understand the gist of not having equal voting system. In modern times, we have the technology available that can make this kind of voting system possible, if only we can be open minded enough to move that direction.

    I also think we do poorly by having campaigns to get everyone to vote, as if the act of voting in itself was noble. We should extend the privilege of voting but not promote it. People who are not interested in voting should not be left alone not to vote. Let only those who are interested in voting cast a vote.

    Many people today do not understand the fragile nature of a democracy, and how a truly pure democracy (otherwise known as mob rule) does not work. Our country originally had some safeguards built into it, but Constitutional Amendments concerning voting have eroded these safeguards. I will leave you with a quote to ponder, written in 1770 by Alexander Tyler in the book, “Cycle of Democracy.”

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.” Alexander Tyler, 1770.

  82. Just because you own land, instead of rent does not mean you are knowledgeable about the issues. Ask those who have read numerous laws to explain them to you, reading something and having a grasp of the meaning are not one and the same. If you don’t watch say CNN, Cspan etc you may well not see pictures of the speaker, minority majority whip. Some people have visual impairments that do not let them recognize faces.
    If you employ one person vs many the law(s) will effect you differently so already you have screwed the pooch by giving both the same “increase” in votes. And so on.

  83. davidm wrote: “Voting is a privilege that should be extended to those who are affected by the laws created.”

    Only property owners are affected by laws created? How does an individual know when he/she votes for a candidate what laws will be created by Congress/their state legislatures? By your standard, only women/gays would be allowed to vote for candidates who promise to restrict/increase their rights.

  84. david,
    We are all affected by the laws our government passes. Some more than others.
    So, under your logic, if I understand it correctly, if I do not own a house, I don’t know enough about the country to vote? That is not only disturbing, but disgusting. There have already been studies showing that Fox News viewers know less about the facts surrounding our politics, so I guess you and your Fox news fans can just sit out this next election. When is the ACT voting test being given next?

  85. David, your logic (above) is about as strained as is possible. Specifically:

    The person who knows the least about what they are voting on and who owns no property would be the one whose vote has the least value.
    [snip]
    Voting is a privilege that should be extended to those who are affected by the laws created.

    Surely you jest? In a democracy or democratic republic, grandma in the nursing home with Alzheimer’s vote must count with the same value as that of the President. No more, no less.

    As for only those who are “affected” by a law should get to vote on it is one of the most naive statements I ever heard from an allegedly grown man. Who gets to decide?

    If I had my way, every single person of legal age would vote, and if they cannot get to the polls, election officials should make sure the polls come to them. Additionally, Congressional redistricting should be done by computer rather than by elected politicians who want to make certain they have a sinecure. The computer should be set up so that district boundaries are based on the shortest possible perimeter that can be mathematically and topographically derived. I am willing to make a few allowances for natural barriers such as rivers and mountain ranges.

  86. leejcaroll wrote: “Just because you own land, instead of rent does not mean you are knowledgeable about the issues.”

    Agreed. You are conflating two separate issues. Land ownership is about having more skin in the game, and the arguments have been made already in detail by our founding fathers.

  87. Bron wrote: “… what about people who rent? they are the ones paying the property owners taxes.”

    In my scheme, renters still get a vote, but a landowner would get a more weighted vote. It is not about taxes on his property, but about the primary purpose of government which has been to protect property ownership. A landowner has more responsibility and becomes more intertwined with government than a renter.

    Originally in this country, landowners were the only ones who were allowed to vote. Go read the arguments for this. It included the idea that landowners have a great invested interest in government and in keeping it financially responsible. Also, allowing only landowners the vote provided incentive for people to acquire land. Landowners are seen as people who are responsible and frugal, hard workers and industrious, acquiring the kind of character traits that would benefit society overall.

  88. leejcarroll,

    Stop conflating two different issues will you? Some would like us to return to the days of the landed gentry when women knew their place, people of means could own slaves, and women, blacks, and those who were not land owners could not vote. Can’t let the rabble have the same rights as the aristocracy! We must keep the power in hands of the entitled class, doncha know?

    *****

    davidm2575 1, November 2, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    leejcaroll wrote: “Just because you own land, instead of rent does not mean you are knowledgeable about the issues.”

    Agreed. You are conflating two separate issues. Land ownership is about having more skin in the game, and the arguments have been made already in detail by our founding fathers.

    *****

    Gibberish!

  89. DavidM wrote: “Voting is a privilege that should be extended to those who are affected by the laws created.”

    Elaine M wrote: “Only property owners are affected by laws created?”

    No, this was my reason for supporting universal suffrage, the reason for why everyone should have a vote.

  90. rafflaw wrote: “So, under your logic, if I understand it correctly, if I do not own a house, I don’t know enough about the country to vote? That is not only disturbing, but disgusting.”

    No, you do not understand my logic here. What you describe is what Thomas Jefferson thought about voting — that only landowners should be allowed the vote. I told you that I support universal suffrage but not equal suffrage. I believe a weighted voting system would serve us better, and that the equal suffrage movement is destroying a workable democratic system.

    When an ignorant person who doesn’t even know who the candidates are goes into a voting booth to vote because he has been told that it is his civil duty to vote, and his vote cancels out your vote because he chose a different candidate from you, this results in a tragedy of democracy. It has the same result on our voting system as if somebody forbid you your privilege to vote. Can you not see that the result is the same? The guy has no idea whose box he checked. He could not tell you anything about the person he voted for. His vote is completely random, and it canceled out your vote. Such should never happen in a good democracy.

  91. rafflaw,

    We’re going to have to start requiring voters to take a test before they vote. Some higher being will write the test, administer the test, and then decide who is qualified to vote.

  92. OS wrote: “In a democracy or democratic republic, grandma in the nursing home with Alzheimer’s vote must count with the same value as that of the President. No more, no less.”

    Well, you had better start trying to fix our laws then, because right now, grandma in the nursing home who has been declared incompetent is not allowed to vote at all. You want her to have the same vote as the President? That is foolish.

    Giving everyone in society the same vote is a major reason why our government is so polarized and broken.

  93. david,
    universal sufferage can’t have restrictions on it. As Elaine suggested, who decides what’s on the test? Your comment that everyone being able to cote is the reason why the government is so polarized and broken? I guess the plutocracy in place buying the elections and owning the politicians has nothing to do with it. Who decides who is the ignorant one? Sounds like Universal Jim Crow.

  94. David, I occasionally dream that I’m 5’11”, 25 and dating the hunk du jour but it’s only a dream.

    The other thing that comes to mind is “Lipstick on a pig” and in that regard the revolution you seek, and it is revolution, has been preempted and revealed by your impatient political brethren. There is really no difference in effect between what you want and the radical, democracy hating Governors and Legislators in states that have and are passing new voting laws to disenfranchise the elderly, minorities, the poor, women, and students. You just want to pretty it up.

  95. David,
    Your comment about grandma voting shows your lack of understanding of the law. If there is a law that says somebody with dementia can’t vote, I am unaware of it and I believe I keep up with this stuff way better than the average person. This is a subject that has been debated in legal and geropsychiatric circles for years.

    Here are two articles that address the issue of cognitively impaired people voting.

    http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/c/62/10572/vote-people

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/aging/voting/pdfs/appelbaum.authcheckdam.pdf

  96. Elaine M wrote: “You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.”

    No, you just are trying to stereotype me into some category of something else that you heard. My viewpoint is a synthesis and is unique. As I said before, this forum is not the proper place for me to lay it all out for you.

  97. davidm,

    I’m not trying to stereotype you. You’re making no sense at all.

    “My viewpoint is a synthesis and is unique. As I said before, this forum is not the proper place for me to lay it all out for you.”

    Poor excuse. If you could explain it in “this forum”–you would.

  98. david,
    Your view is not unique. It is the same plutocratic basis with a new label on it. Under your viewpoint, if I am in power in your voting area, I can decide that you cannot vote because you don’t own property, aren’t educated enough or aren’t educated in the areas I want you to be educated in or I can decide what is on the test that determines if you are worthy enough or American enough to get the full voting privileges. By the way, the primary purpose of government is not to protect private property ownership.

  99. OS wrote: “Your comment about grandma voting shows your lack of understanding of the law. If there is a law that says somebody with dementia can’t vote, I am unaware of it and I believe I keep up with this stuff way better than the average person. This is a subject that has been debated in legal and geropsychiatric circles for years.”

    States differ on this subject, just as they do on the rights of felons to vote.

    Here in Florida, when someone has been adjudicated incompetent, they lose their right to vote.

    http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/publications/body/0049.pdf

    Not qualified to vote if adjudicated, in
    this or any other state, to be mentally
    incompetent, until the disability has
    been removed or civil rights have been
    restored. FLA. CONST. Art. 6 § 4(a).

    A resident of a residential facility who
    has reached his eighteenth birthday
    and is otherwise qualified to vote is
    eligible to vote, provided such person
    has not been adjudicated mentally
    incompetent. Op.Atty.Gen., 074-15,
    Jan. 9, 1974.

    Not entitled to vote if adjudicated
    mentally incapacitated with regard to
    voting in this or any other state and
    right not restored.
    FLA. STAT. § 97.041(2)(a).

    Right to vote can be removed if
    a person is determined to be
    incapacitated.
    FLA. STAT. § 744.3215(2)(b).

    Persons under guardianship
    must be evaluated for voting
    disqualification. FLA. STAT. §
    744.331(3)(d)(2).

    Your State of Mississippi has a different standard:

    “Idiots” and “insane” persons are not
    qualified electors. MISS. CONST. art. 12,
    § 241.

    “Idiots” and “insane” persons shall not
    be entitled or permitted to vote. MISS.
    CODE ANN. § 23-15-11.

  100. Elaine M wrote: ” If you could explain it in “this forum”–you would.”

    I did explain it, but you don’t even take the time to read my posts carefully. You completely misrepresent what I said, as do some others here. I tire of trying to explain something you clearly are not interested in, sorry. I have lots of other things to do.

  101. DavidM wrote: “Voting is a privilege that should be extended to those who are affected by the laws created.”

    Taken at face value, that would include illegal immigrants and undocumented workers. I understand you would assign a lesser value to their votes according to their status, but….

    Your point about uneducated voters cancelling out the votes of the informed (like you), actually calls for increasing awareness of the issues among voters. There needs to be more emphasis on the importance of civic participation in our culture and how it affects our lives. Repubs have done everything they can to discourage the average citizen from believing in govt.

    If this isn’t the proper forum, what is? The park where you’ve been arrested? How ’bout the coffee shop? I think the problem with this forum here, is that people are too adept at pointing out the holes in your leaky logic.

  102. rafflaw wrote: “Your view is not unique. It is the same plutocratic basis with a new label on it. Under your viewpoint, if I am in power in your voting area, I can decide that you cannot vote because you don’t own property, aren’t educated enough or aren’t educated in the areas I want you to be educated in or I can decide what is on the test that determines if you are worthy enough or American enough to get the full voting privileges.”

    No, that is not my viewpoint.

    rafflaw wrote: “By the way, the primary purpose of government is not to protect private property ownership.”

    I realize that many people today have a completely different vision for government. Perhaps I could better phrase it as the idea that a foundational purpose of government is to protect private property ownership. This stems from John Locke’s concept that property ownership is connected to freedom and liberty of the individual, and that property ownership predates government.

  103. David,
    There are a lot of laws on the books. Did you know that in Florida it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine?

    Here is a suggestion. Go to all the nursing home facilities in Florida and file the paperwork necessary to keep the elderly from voting. And don’t forget to include those who are cared for at home. Just because there is a law on the books does not mean it is enforced. Or for that matter, enforceable.

    As far as Mississippi goes, I never heard of a single instance of a person being denied the right to vote because they had a dementia. Of course, most people with middle and end-stage dementia are not interested in voting, but that is another issue altogether.

    In Oxford MS, home town of William Faulkner and the University of Mississippi, it is illegal to drive around the town square more than one hundred times in a single session. Speaking of Oxford, I don’t think the local authorities ever arrested Faulkner for his habit of relieving himself on a lamppost on the square. They never kept him from voting either.

  104. RTC wrote: “If this isn’t the proper forum, what is?”

    Providing you a book to read, with the relevant background information.

    RTC wrote: “I think the problem with this forum here, is that people are too adept at pointing out the holes in your leaky logic.”

    Actually, the forum here provides an excellent place to read objections from liberals so that I may address them in my books. The problem is that I am not writing a book on this subject of voting right now and I have too many other things to do. I extended my comment about it for one primary reason: a pleasant lady said she was seriously interested in my thoughts and I hoped to oblige her somewhat. What can I say? Sometimes the gentleman side of me comes out. :-)

    My lawyer daughter actually loves my views about voting, but she obviously is biased by being my daughter and also being conservative in her values.

  105. If we have a different view of govt today, it’s because we’ve evolved in as our understanding of the society has become more sophisticated.

    John Locke was arguing for rights of the individual against those of a supreme monarch. I’m no expert, but I think property ownership was a justification for extending certain rights in opposition to the arbitrary dictates of the crown.

  106. OS wrote: “Go to all the nursing home facilities in Florida and file the paperwork necessary to keep the elderly from voting. And don’t forget to include those who are cared for at home. Just because there is a law on the books does not mean it is enforced. Or for that matter, enforceable.”

    Chuck, this is not an obscure law in Florida that is not enforced. We have a lot of elderly here in Florida because it is a popular retirement state. I became aware of the laws regarding incapacity and incompetence when my father-in-law was adjudicated incompetent while living in a nursing home.

    I have in my hand right now the Petition to Determine Incapacity which was filed by his wife’s attorney. It specifically says that the incapacitated person is incapable of exercising the following rights:

    – to personally apply for government benefits
    – to contract
    – to sue and defend lawsuits
    – to manage property or to make any gift ro disposition of property
    – to determine his residence
    – to consent to medical treatment
    – to make decisions about his social environment or other social aspects of his life.
    – to marry
    – to vote
    – to travel
    – to have a driver’s license
    – to seek or retain employment

  107. What books do you recommend? I’ve read Milton Friedman’s work and I find him intellectually dishonest. Maybe something else would be more convincing

  108. davidm wrote: “My viewpoint is a synthesis and is unique. As I said before, this forum is not the proper place for me to lay it all out for you.”

    I responded: “If you could explain it in “this forum”–you would.”

    davidm then wrote: “I did explain it, but you don’t even take the time to read my posts carefully. You completely misrepresent what I said, as do some others here. I tire of trying to explain something you clearly are not interested in, sorry. I have lots of other things to do.”

    *****

    So…david says this blog is not the forum the proper place for him to “lay it all out…” I claim that’s a poor excuse for not explaining himself. Then he claims he already explained it.

    If davidm has “explained” it, he has not done so clearly, concisely, and in a manner that is intelligible.

  109. David, someone started the follow up to my comment regarding what if you rent (among other examples that refute your position of who should and should no be allowed to vote)
    I lived in NYC, I rented. so I should not have a vote despite the state, city deciding what kinds of renting there is, what compromises acceptable renting facilities, etc?(lHeck here is a link for country, laws and statutes for renters http://www.thelpa.com/lpa/lllaw.html)

    All these are a result of for whom and which party you vote.
    Fair Housing Accessibility First
    – Federal Fair Housing Laws
    – Americans with Disabilities Act
    – National Consumer Law Center

    You remind me of the people who think concealed weapons are fine everywhere etc because they apparently think we are still in the days when there was a miniscule population scattered throughout the country and people needed to protect themselves.
    There is a how mnay millions of folks and the government deals with renting, social issues etc that were not in play in the Jeffersonian era.

  110. Tea Party anyone?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

    Right-wing authoritarians want society and social interactions structured in ways that increase uniformity and minimize diversity. In order to achieve that, they tend to be in favour of social control, coercion, and the use of group authority to place constraints on the behaviours of people such as gays and lesbians, political dissidents, ethnic minorities, immigrants, feminists and atheists. These constraints might include restrictions on immigration, limits on free speech and association and laws regulating moral behaviour. It is the willingness to support or take action that leads to increased social uniformity that makes right-wing authoritarianism more than just a personal distaste for difference. Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice, and intolerance and punitiveness towards dissidents and deviants. In parenting, right-wing authoritarians value children’s obedience, neatness, and good manners.[1]
    Right-wing authoritarianism is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which correlate together:[12][13]
    Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
    Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.
    Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one’s society should also be required to adhere to these norms.[14]

  111. leejcaroll wrote: “I lived in NYC, I rented. so I should not have a vote despite the state, city deciding what kinds of renting there is, what compromises acceptable renting facilities, etc?”

    No, remember this is a weighted voting system that I was talking about. You would get a vote just like you always have, but the vote of the owner of your apartment would be counted like two votes because he owned the property. However, if the owner of the apartment did not own it free and clear, for example, if he had a mortgage on the apartment, then his vote would be the same as yours. Furthermore, you could increase your voting power by demonstrating knowledge of government, the candidates running for office, and current events.

  112. “No, remember this is a weighted voting system that I was talking about. You would get a vote just like you always have, but the vote of the owner of your apartment would be counted like two votes because he owned the property.”

    DavidM,

    What’s beyond sad is I don’t think you even realize what a totalitarian feudalist you are. So if this apartment owner inherited his real estate from his father with no mortgage. He could have quit high school at 16 and still gets twice the votes of a tenant who is a word famous brain surgeon.

  113. The thing I like about David is the same thing I like about Bron: they never let a bad idea slow them down, let alone an unconstitutional one.

    Nice to see the beatings continued in my absence.

    Keep up the good work.

  114. Lordy look at those eyes!
    The eyes of a neo-Bolshevik.
    (they have murder in their blood)

    The title of “Wicked Witch of the West,” currently held by Mad Maddie Albright and her half million dead Iraqi children are “worth it” body count, will certainly be threatened, if not obliterated..

    Warning: Hellary also has The Carny Prince Bill in her corner. (or else)

  115. I guess this is a mountain-sized clue that the warmongering dyke will be running for Criminal-in-Chief in 2016, and GS wants to make sure that it gets to the front of the line and starts paying up front for what they want. Of course, I expect them to hedge their bets and pay off whoever she runs against. Why not? It’s not as if they had to do any work for the money.

  116. The public has never seen a couple in politics as well educated, as well experienced, and as well schooled in the demands of politics and elections as this couple, and that has always been true.

    It was a problem in his 1992-1998 term, in her 2008 election, and could crop up in any 2016 election she may endure…..but the public is finally coming around to understand that this is not an ordinary Presidential couple, President and First Lady, or former President and former First Lady.

    American is not yet fully equipped to deal with First Ladies as fully competent as her mate, due not to the Clintons, but due to prior expectations and traditions in America’s political traditions, and styles.

    As a couple, they are an anomoly, unique in a manner that may never occur again for a very long time, if ever. Styled after the Dole’s perhaps, but more effective, and more popular!

  117. […] el precio del recibo de la luz. Goldman Sucks pagó a Hitlary Clintonta en los últimos meses casi medio millón de $ por 2 charlas “no sé sabe de qué” en sus centros. ¿Con quién se caso la hija de Clintonta? […]

  118. […] want to. But she and Bill have turned monetizing her 'presumptive nominee' status into an art form. Goldman Sachs Gives Hillary Clinton Almost Half A Million Dollars In Less Than A Week | JONATHAN TUR… If Hillary ultimately decides not to run, there is a dearth of alternatives, and Biden becomes the […]

Comments are closed.