While 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.
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.
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.
DavidM:
what about people who rent? they are the ones paying the property owners taxes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Change you can believe in ….. Or not…… It takes a lot of money to buy your candidate…..
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.
“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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I read the Virginia guv race has tightened! Maybe the butt boy shouldn’t have had the Clintons campaign for him? They are polarizing.
gbk, I wasn’t griping at you, just griping. 🙂
LK,
Facetious point, I should add.
LK,
That was my point.
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.
LK,
As DavidM said, not just on this thread, weighted voting is the key.