Official 2016 Election Thread
- Thread starter Greed
- Start date
AND then this guy comes along:
Candidate Who Didn't Even Vote
Wins Democratic Nomination
Wins Democratic Nomination
The 46-year-old truck driver who won the Democratic nomination for Mississippi governor says he spent nothing on his campaign and knows nobody in politics. He didn't even vote in the primary because he says he was busy.
Robert Gray can't explain how he defeated the trial lawyer who was the favored candidate of the party establishment in Tuesday's primary.
Gray, who has lived in the Jackson area most of his life, visited the state Capitol on Wednesday for what he said was the first time — and it was at the request of reporters trying to answer the biggest question in this Republican-dominated state: Who the heck is this guy?
Democrats controlled Mississippi politics for decades, but they've been steamrolled in most governor's races for a generation. Now, many longtime Democrats worry that Gray will simply be the next hapless victim of a well-funded Republican machine.
Robert Gray can't explain how he defeated the trial lawyer who was the favored candidate of the party establishment in Tuesday's primary.
Gray, who has lived in the Jackson area most of his life, visited the state Capitol on Wednesday for what he said was the first time — and it was at the request of reporters trying to answer the biggest question in this Republican-dominated state: Who the heck is this guy?
Democrats controlled Mississippi politics for decades, but they've been steamrolled in most governor's races for a generation. Now, many longtime Democrats worry that Gray will simply be the next hapless victim of a well-funded Republican machine.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/candidate-vote-wins-democratic-nomination-32906292
Remember this guy? What is it about the south?
source: Washington Post
Friday, June 11, 2010
In South Carolina, Greene is mystery man despite winning Democratic Senate nod
MANNING, S.C. -- Alvin M. Greene never gave a speech during his campaign to become this state's Democratic nominee for Senate. He didn't start a Web site or hire consultants or plant lawn signs. There's only $114 in his campaign bank account, he says, and the only check he ever wrote from it was to cover his filing fee.
Well, apparently it's 2007 again. And you're, once again, showing there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Typical non-substantive greed response; a response that with its ad hominem attack reveals that the poster didn’t even read and comprehend the post they are responding to.
Yes the current 2015 incarnation of the RepubliKlan party IS THE PROBLEM. They want an ideological dictatorship with a cult leader as the public face of their fascism. Sounds familiar, We've seen this movie before.
The RepubliKlan party has moved from the ‘right-wing’ of the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s to the extreme over-the-cliff religious fascist party that they are today.
Look at the list of things todays 2015 RepubliKlan party is ANTI- and then wrap your mind around the reality that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon all former republiklan presidents would not be ANTI- but would actually SUPPORT at-a-minimum 80% of the items on the list.
The top members of the RepubliKlan carcass on the night that Obama was first inaugurated, had a meeting before the man even slept his first night in the white house and said “we are going to fuck this ****** up”
Obamacare (ACA) was passed via reconciliation, only 51 votes needed. Not one single republiklan in the house voted for the initial Obama $800 Billion stimulus bill, not one; despite the fact that the extreme recession that the country was in was caused by their man BuShits $3,000,000,000 trillion dollar tax cut which was unpaid for, their man BuShits complete lack of enforcement on the banksters subprime scam (his brother Jeb BuShit was working for Lehman Brothers which ultimately collapsed)
The $2 Trillion dollar fiasco called the Iraq war; which created ISIS. Dodd frank had only 3 republiklan senators vote for it, the other republiklans were sucking the banksters dicks despite the almost collapse of American capitalism.
As far as the Billary Clinton democrats are concerned, anyone who actually read what I posted, can without ambiguity, discern how I fell about them; they are total Corporate Fascist.
So in the reality based world it’s not about “half of white people” its about what are the megatrends that will affect the USA in the next 25 years. Imagine if SCOTUS gutted Obamacare, imagine if SCOTUS had ruled that same sex marriage was illegal; what would of happened to the millions of same sex couples who were already married?? For you as a self-acknowledged non voter it’s all irrelevant, you are like a Jew living in Nazi Germany prior to 1939 when Hitler sealed the borders. A jew who kept hoping and believing that somehow what Hitler was saying about Jews would pass and that somehow he would just go away and things would return to “normal”. Albert Einstein, a jew, was a top physics professor in Germany in the 1930’s; as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein moved to the U.S.A., he knew what time it was because he was an informed German citizen who could see what Hitler represented from day one. It wasn’t irrelevant to him.
For those of you who want to know how and why it is the current 21st century RepubliKlan parties fault for our broken congress (Senate & House) which enjoys a 10% approval rating,
READ: It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
Download eBook
Code:http://depositfiles.com/files/qb794gjon
The person you voted for is in his seventh year, the other party is in control of Congress, and per the usual dramatic rhetoric the fate of the world and the country is at stake.
Thank Jesus I broke away from you people. The country is on the same path it's always been on. Play favorites and do what you can get away with.
I hope it makes you feel better that you have some marginal issue that motivates you, but the reality is both parties throw trillions at rich people. Both parties have no problem following through on their values. Because their rank-and-file are so stupid that they can be bought off with a smile and an acknowledgement at campaign time.
Like I said have fun deciding between Bush and Clinton. I've already conceded the victory to you, thoughtone, and Que. Enjoy the America you're so proud of.
Black lawmakers back disruptions of Sanders, Democrats' events
Black lawmakers back disruptions of Sanders, Democrats' events
By Mike Lillis
08/13/15 06:00 AM EDT
Black lawmakers on Capitol Hill are defending the young activists using confrontation to press top Democratic presidential candidates to tackle the nation's protracted problems of racial injustice.
In recent weeks, members of the Black Lives Matter movement have gone after the leading Democratic hopefuls — most notably during a viral weekend encounter with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — urging them to prioritize criminal justice reform and other race-related issues on the campaign trail.
The activists have employed the controversial tactic of interrupting stump speeches and other public forums, which has drawn ire from many Democrats as an uncivil and misguided effort that targets allies, rather than opponents, of such reforms.
But a number of black Democrats disagree, arguing that race-based problems have been neglected for too long, even by liberal policymakers, and the activists have tapped into a vein of frustration that justifies their methods.
“They really are speaking to the issues, and we're really long overdue responding to those issues,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said in a phone interview. “They've been pointed, nonviolent and strong, and I'm not offended.
“They're asking for nothing more than to lift up a system to treat them with justice.”
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) echoed that message, alluding to recent high-profile cases of young unarmed blacks killed by police officers as proof that America's racial problems persist and demand a specific response from the presidential candidates — liberal and conservative alike. The public debate that’s followed the recent protests, he suggested, merits their controversial tactics.
“For Black Lives Matter activists, the issue is literally a matter of life and death as evidenced by the continued killing of unarmed Black men and women by police officers across the nation,” Johnson said in an email. “When presidential candidates fail to acknowledge how the current criminal system detrimentally impacts Black lives, they [the activists] resort to disruptive tactics to force attention to the issue.
“While disruption is uncomfortable, it does result in candidates acknowledging and addressing the issue with policy proposals,” he added. “When that happens, the need to protest is abated.”
Black Lives Matter, a national but largely decentralized movement, arose in response to the rash of recent police killings around the country, including in New York City, Baltimore, Cleveland and Ferguson, Mo. The nonpartisan group bills itself as “an ideological and political intervention” aimed at pressuring lawmakers of all stripes to adopt specific policy prescriptions for advancing “the needs and dreams of black people.” Central to its message is a push to overhaul the criminal justice system and combat the structural racism it says pervades American politics and the culture at large.
The group has done well at attracting attention, largely by targeting the Democratic primary contenders.
Last month, affiliated members stunned a liberal audience gathered in Phoenix for a Netroots Nation conference, shouting down both former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sanders with calls for a greater focus on black empowerment.
Last weekend that scene repeated for Sanders when activists stormed his stage in Seattle, hijacking the microphone and accusing the liberal stalwart of ignoring the issue.
On Tuesday, members of the group threatened a similar demonstration of a Hillary Clinton speech in New Hampshire, where they intended to press the former first lady and New York senator on past positions related to drug enforcement policy and incarcerations, which the activists deem too strict. They were denied access to the event, ushered instead into an overflow room, where Clinton met with them privately after her speech.
Some Democrats, who warn it could ultimately undermine efforts to advance black causes, have criticized the confrontational approach.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, condemned the tactic, saying there's “no evidence” it will “result in any improvements for African-Americans.”
“I don't think that it's acceptable, nor do I think that it's beneficial for African-Americans — or anyone else for that matter — to develop as a tactic the acts of verbal incivility that I saw,” Cleaver said by phone, referring to the Sanders incident in Seattle. “Being civil is far more powerful than being right. What we as African-Americans must keep in mind is we did not achieve the progress that's so visible around the world from tactics of disrespect and nastiness.”
Cleaver was quick to praise the underlying message and goals of the Black Lives Matter movement — “Progress always sits on the backs of those who refuse to accept things as they are,” he said — but countered that the more effective strategy would be to follow the less-confrontational examples of Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and Jesus.
“You can get your message out without shouting people down on stage,” he said. “We ought to be civil whenever possible, and frankly it's always possible.”
The leaders of Black Lives Matter have remained unapologetic throughout the debate.
The group did not respond to a request for comment this week. But Marissa Johnson, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter Seattle who was among those who nudged Sanders from the stage last Saturday, defended the strategy, telling MSNBC in an interview on Tuesday that “black people are in a state of emergency” demanding a “concrete” policy response from all lawmakers.
“Especially on the left, candidates have this liberal rhetoric and we really need them to match it with their … actions,” Johnson said.
Asked why the group hasn't targeted Republican candidates in the same way, Johnson said there's “no point to confronting the GOP … during the primaries, because GOP members will pretty much tell you flatly that they don't care about black lives.
“Instead we really need to put pressure on people who claim that they care about black lives,” she said.
If the demonstrations have been controversial, they've also yielded early results.
O'Malley, after the Netroots event, quickly adopted a plan to reform the criminal justice system, including proposals to abolish the death penalty, restore the voting rights of felons and reclassifying marijuana to address overcrowded prisons.
Sanders followed suit after the Seattle protest, posting a new “racial justice” page to his campaign website, including calls to demilitarize police forces, expand sensitivity training for local law enforcers and provide more federal funding for police body cameras.
“The goals of the Black Lives movement are absolutely right,” Sanders said Monday at a campaign stop in Oakland. “We are going to end institutional racism.”
The Democrats supporting the activists are hoping a similar momentum follows on Capitol Hill.
Jackson Lee, for one, is pushing legislation with Rep. John Conyers, Jr., (D-Mich.) to promote national accreditation standards for local law enforcers, bolster investigations into police misconduct and study the best practices surrounding police training.
The Black Lives Matter movement, she said, only lends momentum to the cause.
“They make their voices heard for us to respond,” said Jackson Lee. “They want to see visible, tangible changes.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/2...tand-behind-disruptions-of-sanders-dem-events
Black lawmakers back disruptions of Sanders, Democrats' events
By Mike Lillis
08/13/15 06:00 AM EDT
Black lawmakers on Capitol Hill are defending the young activists using confrontation to press top Democratic presidential candidates to tackle the nation's protracted problems of racial injustice.
In recent weeks, members of the Black Lives Matter movement have gone after the leading Democratic hopefuls — most notably during a viral weekend encounter with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — urging them to prioritize criminal justice reform and other race-related issues on the campaign trail.
The activists have employed the controversial tactic of interrupting stump speeches and other public forums, which has drawn ire from many Democrats as an uncivil and misguided effort that targets allies, rather than opponents, of such reforms.
But a number of black Democrats disagree, arguing that race-based problems have been neglected for too long, even by liberal policymakers, and the activists have tapped into a vein of frustration that justifies their methods.
“They really are speaking to the issues, and we're really long overdue responding to those issues,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said in a phone interview. “They've been pointed, nonviolent and strong, and I'm not offended.
“They're asking for nothing more than to lift up a system to treat them with justice.”
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) echoed that message, alluding to recent high-profile cases of young unarmed blacks killed by police officers as proof that America's racial problems persist and demand a specific response from the presidential candidates — liberal and conservative alike. The public debate that’s followed the recent protests, he suggested, merits their controversial tactics.
“For Black Lives Matter activists, the issue is literally a matter of life and death as evidenced by the continued killing of unarmed Black men and women by police officers across the nation,” Johnson said in an email. “When presidential candidates fail to acknowledge how the current criminal system detrimentally impacts Black lives, they [the activists] resort to disruptive tactics to force attention to the issue.
“While disruption is uncomfortable, it does result in candidates acknowledging and addressing the issue with policy proposals,” he added. “When that happens, the need to protest is abated.”
Black Lives Matter, a national but largely decentralized movement, arose in response to the rash of recent police killings around the country, including in New York City, Baltimore, Cleveland and Ferguson, Mo. The nonpartisan group bills itself as “an ideological and political intervention” aimed at pressuring lawmakers of all stripes to adopt specific policy prescriptions for advancing “the needs and dreams of black people.” Central to its message is a push to overhaul the criminal justice system and combat the structural racism it says pervades American politics and the culture at large.
The group has done well at attracting attention, largely by targeting the Democratic primary contenders.
Last month, affiliated members stunned a liberal audience gathered in Phoenix for a Netroots Nation conference, shouting down both former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sanders with calls for a greater focus on black empowerment.
Last weekend that scene repeated for Sanders when activists stormed his stage in Seattle, hijacking the microphone and accusing the liberal stalwart of ignoring the issue.
On Tuesday, members of the group threatened a similar demonstration of a Hillary Clinton speech in New Hampshire, where they intended to press the former first lady and New York senator on past positions related to drug enforcement policy and incarcerations, which the activists deem too strict. They were denied access to the event, ushered instead into an overflow room, where Clinton met with them privately after her speech.
Some Democrats, who warn it could ultimately undermine efforts to advance black causes, have criticized the confrontational approach.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, condemned the tactic, saying there's “no evidence” it will “result in any improvements for African-Americans.”
“I don't think that it's acceptable, nor do I think that it's beneficial for African-Americans — or anyone else for that matter — to develop as a tactic the acts of verbal incivility that I saw,” Cleaver said by phone, referring to the Sanders incident in Seattle. “Being civil is far more powerful than being right. What we as African-Americans must keep in mind is we did not achieve the progress that's so visible around the world from tactics of disrespect and nastiness.”
Cleaver was quick to praise the underlying message and goals of the Black Lives Matter movement — “Progress always sits on the backs of those who refuse to accept things as they are,” he said — but countered that the more effective strategy would be to follow the less-confrontational examples of Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and Jesus.
“You can get your message out without shouting people down on stage,” he said. “We ought to be civil whenever possible, and frankly it's always possible.”
The leaders of Black Lives Matter have remained unapologetic throughout the debate.
The group did not respond to a request for comment this week. But Marissa Johnson, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter Seattle who was among those who nudged Sanders from the stage last Saturday, defended the strategy, telling MSNBC in an interview on Tuesday that “black people are in a state of emergency” demanding a “concrete” policy response from all lawmakers.
“Especially on the left, candidates have this liberal rhetoric and we really need them to match it with their … actions,” Johnson said.
Asked why the group hasn't targeted Republican candidates in the same way, Johnson said there's “no point to confronting the GOP … during the primaries, because GOP members will pretty much tell you flatly that they don't care about black lives.
“Instead we really need to put pressure on people who claim that they care about black lives,” she said.
If the demonstrations have been controversial, they've also yielded early results.
O'Malley, after the Netroots event, quickly adopted a plan to reform the criminal justice system, including proposals to abolish the death penalty, restore the voting rights of felons and reclassifying marijuana to address overcrowded prisons.
Sanders followed suit after the Seattle protest, posting a new “racial justice” page to his campaign website, including calls to demilitarize police forces, expand sensitivity training for local law enforcers and provide more federal funding for police body cameras.
“The goals of the Black Lives movement are absolutely right,” Sanders said Monday at a campaign stop in Oakland. “We are going to end institutional racism.”
The Democrats supporting the activists are hoping a similar momentum follows on Capitol Hill.
Jackson Lee, for one, is pushing legislation with Rep. John Conyers, Jr., (D-Mich.) to promote national accreditation standards for local law enforcers, bolster investigations into police misconduct and study the best practices surrounding police training.
The Black Lives Matter movement, she said, only lends momentum to the cause.
“They make their voices heard for us to respond,” said Jackson Lee. “They want to see visible, tangible changes.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/2...tand-behind-disruptions-of-sanders-dem-events
Re: In backing Van Hollen for Senate, Baker fields questions about race
Anchor Babies, or Me
One thing seems to standout in the fuss among the 2015
Republican presidential candidates over the term "Anchor Babies."
It seems no matter who the term is intended to apply to, i.e.,
Donald Trump, the term applies to children born in this country
to undocumented mothers of Mexican or countries nearby descent;
or Jeb Bush, the term is intended to mean children born in this
country to undocumented mothers of Asian descent -- for some
reason, the term seems not to have any application to children
born to undocumented mothers of Caucasian descent
And another thing, why is it so easy for those involved in this
disagreement to come-up with convenient disparaging names, like
anchor babies and _ _ _ _ _ _ to describe those people who don't
look like them
And, while we're at it, why does this discussion, disagreement or
whatever they decide to call it involve discussions over the repeal
of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you know, that
Amendment that was added to the Constitution to protect me
maybe they're still holding on to that 1800's notion of un-anchoring, us . . .
Anchor Babies, or Me
One thing seems to standout in the fuss among the 2015
Republican presidential candidates over the term "Anchor Babies."
It seems no matter who the term is intended to apply to, i.e.,
Donald Trump, the term applies to children born in this country
to undocumented mothers of Mexican or countries nearby descent;
or Jeb Bush, the term is intended to mean children born in this
country to undocumented mothers of Asian descent -- for some
reason, the term seems not to have any application to children
born to undocumented mothers of Caucasian descent
And another thing, why is it so easy for those involved in this
disagreement to come-up with convenient disparaging names, like
anchor babies and _ _ _ _ _ _ to describe those people who don't
look like them
And, while we're at it, why does this discussion, disagreement or
whatever they decide to call it involve discussions over the repeal
of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you know, that
Amendment that was added to the Constitution to protect me
maybe they're still holding on to that 1800's notion of un-anchoring, us . . .
Anchor Babies, or Me
One thing seems to standout in the fuss among the 2015
Republican presidential candidates over the term "Anchor Babies."
It seems no matter who the term is intended to apply to, i.e.,
Donald Trump, the term applies to children born in this country
to undocumented mothers of Mexican or countries nearby descent;
or Jeb Bush, the term is intended to mean children born in this
country to undocumented mothers of Asian descent -- for some
reason, the term seems not to have any application to children
born to undocumented mothers of Caucasian descent
And another thing, why is it so easy for those involved in this
disagreement to come-up with convenient disparaging names, like
anchor babies and _ _ _ _ _ _ to describe those people who don't
look like them
And, while we're at it, why does this discussion, disagreement or
whatever they decide to call it involve discussions over the repeal
of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you know, that
Amendment that was added to the Constitution to protect me
maybe they're still holding on to that 1800's notion of un-anchoring, us . . .
<hr noshade color="#660033" size="6"></hr>
It's all about 'white supremacy' QueEx.
So-called white people want to maintain their 'white skin privilege'. Trump and the other racist RepubliKlans, never talk about Irish, Polish, Russian, or Eastern European whites who are coming to the U.S. on a tourist visa and then illegally staying here and having "anchor babies" just like the hated brown Mexicans, & other brown Hispanic peoples. As Papa George H.W. Bushit said about Jeb BuShit's kids "the little brown ones".
The racist RepubliKlan cacs have no problem with 'white' illegal immigrants coming into the country and having 'white' babies; in fact two of Trumps three wives were "illegal" until German American Trump married them and via marriage they became American Citizens.
Right here in my zipcode 10021 you see that the extremely wealthy people only hire white help (maids, nannies, cooks, chauffeurs, body-guards), this hired help are people mostly from Poland, Ireland & Eastern Europe.
The merely affluent families hire Hispanic & Black (West Indians) help; they are cheaper. These visual signifiers showing what race your hired help is, delineates the merely affluent from the extremely wealthy; and also for me, identifies who the harder core racist are.
It's the same racist 'white supremacy' attitude that will look at two equally qualified resumes sitting on a desk. One persons name is DeShawn Jackson and the other name is Tanner Dobbelman. DeShawn's resume will be thrown in the garbage because the racist white person evaluating the resumes will 95% correctly assume that DeShawn is a Black American; and they don't want to hire a black, so why bother bringing him in for an interview despite the equal qualifications indicated on his resume vs. the 'white' candidate Tanner.
<img src="http://s6.postimg.org/56tc8hk9t/resume_racism.png" width="700">
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
It's the same 'white supremacy' that for the past 50 years has allowed light skin Cubans, people who look like Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio to get to Southern Florida from Cuba by any-means-necessary and when the get here to the U.S., automatically be given refugee status and quickly a "green card". Meanwhile Haitians coming here desperately fleeing the murderous Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier junta where people are so destitute that many literally eat dirt to survive - what happens to them when they arrive in South Florida?? They are imprisoned and then sent back to Haiti where upon arrival many are imprisoned and tortured to death. NO refugee status for them, NO 'green card' for them. What's the problem?? THEY BLACK! that's the problem, they are real dark skin people of Africa-Haitian descent. "White-Supremacy" doesn't want them in the U.S.
It's all about 'white supremacy' QueEx................
Last edited:
<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>
by M u c k r a c k e r 10021
<font face="verdana, georgia" size="4" color="#000000"><span style="float:left;color:#000000;font-size:48px;line-height:25px;padding-top:3px; padding-right:3px;font-family: Verdana, Georgia;">A</span>s former President of the U.S. Jimmy Carter stated just a few days ago, he said the United States is:
"Just An Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery"
Speaking about the SCOTUS 2010 Citizens United decision and 2014 McCutcheon decision and their impact on the United States of America's, One Man, One Woman = ONE VOTE application of U.S. Democracy, President Carter correctly and unambiguously said:
""It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over...At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.""
In other words the United States of America is a:
PORNOCRACY
Read more HERE
This PORNOCRACY is not hidden, it is operating in public view right before our eyes. You could not say 'Out-Of-Sight-Out-Of-Mind', in fact the Koch brothers have told the world that they will spend $900,000,000 ($900 million) in bribes toward their goal of corporate fascism. Just as in medieval days, like harem concubines auditioning for the sexual attentions and favors of the sultan that owns their bodies, we see RepubliKlan presidential candidates prostrating themselves before the Koch brothers and 450 other $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres, all of them willing and hoping to sell their ass and possibly become the chosen whore who could be POTUS.
Given the irrefutable, unimpeachable truth uttered by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter — How???? should the 99% of eligible American voters who contributed NO money, or less than $200 dollars to political campaigns in a year react to the takeover of the American political & economic system by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ .01 percent consiglieres — 'One hand washes the other, and together they wash the face' ....................................................
</font>
Look at the list below of some of America’s wealthiest 0.001% who as of August 2015 have donated at least a minimum of $1,000,000 in <s>campaign donations</s> political bribes to the U.S. Presidential candidate(s) of their choice.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html
This list is incomplete because it doesn’t include the millions of 501(c)(3) money that’s going to political action committees (PACS) and the completely secret undisclosed millions in <s>campaign donations</s> political bribes that are funding the 501(c)(4) groups.
Most American sheeple, cluelessly watching corporate-media-off-mass-distraction television as their only source of “news” are focused on the ‘horse race’ poll numbers bullshit that is presented to them ad nauseam with clown-car candidates like Piyush Jindal being given air time to talk about exorcisms.
The fact that America’s wealthiest 0.001% due to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision have already allocated more than $1,700,000,000 ($1.7 Billion) in political bribes, with the Koch brothers alone kicking in more than $700,000,000, is never mentioned on the corporate-media-off-mass-distraction television. President Jimmy Carter’s statement that the United States is "Just An Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery" is 1000% true.
Is it too late to stop the United States from lurching eyes-wide-open into obvious corporate fascism where so-called democratic elections are just kabuki theatre shows for the American sheeple as the real shot-callers the 0.001% rule in the shadows? Is everyone asleep?
August 31, 2015
Why Have Elections?
Why Have Elections?
By Thomas Sowell
September 15, 2015
In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one -- Donald Trump. What is even more remarkable is that, after six years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor.
No doubt much of the stampede of Republican voters toward Mr. Trump is based on their disgust with the Republican establishment. The fact that the next two biggest vote-getters in the polls are also complete outsiders -- Dr. Ben Carson and Ms. Carly Fiorina -- reinforces the idea that this is a protest.
It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?
No national leader ever aroused more fervent emotions than Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s. Watch some old newsreels of German crowds delirious with joy at the sight of him. The only things at all comparable in more recent times were the ecstatic crowds that greeted Barack Obama when he burst upon the political scene in 2008.
Elections, however, have far more lasting, and far more serious -- or even grim -- consequences than emotional venting. The actual track record of crowd-pleasers, whether Juan Peron in Argentina, Obama in America or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing.
The media seem to think that participation in elections is a big deal. But turnout often approaches 100 percent in countries so torn by bitter polarization that everyone is scared to death of what will happen if the other side wins. But times and places with low voter turnout are often times and places when there are no such fears aroused by having an opposing party win.
Despite many people who urge us all to vote, as a civic duty, the purpose of elections is not participation. The purpose is to select individuals for offices, including President of the United States. Whoever has that office has our lives, the lives of our loved ones and the fate of the entire nation in his or her hands.
An election is not a popularity contest, or an award for showmanship. If you want to fulfill your duty as a citizen, then you need to become an informed voter. And if you are not informed, then the most patriotic thing you can do on election day is stay home. Otherwise your vote, based on whims or emotions, is playing Russian roulette with the fate of this nation.
All the hoopla over Donald Trump is distracting attention from a large field of other candidates, some of whom have outstanding track records as governors, where they demonstrated courage, character and intelligence. Others have rhetorical skills like Trump or a serious mastery of issues, unlike Trump.
Even if Trump himself does not end up as the Republican nominee for the presidency, he will have done a major disservice to both his party and the country if his grandstanding has cost us a chance to explore in depth others who may include someone far better prepared for the complex challenges of this juncture in history.
After the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, we are entering an era when people alive at this moment may live to see a day when American cities are left in radioactive ruins. We need all the wisdom, courage and dedication in the next president -- and his or her successors -- to save us and our children from such a catastrophe.
Rhetoric and showmanship will certainly not save us.
Donald Trump is not the only obstacle to finding leaders of such character. The ultimate danger lies in the voting public themselves. All too many signs point to an electorate including many people who are grossly uninformed or, worse yet, misinformed.
The very fact that the voting age was lowered to 18 shows the triumph of the vision of elections as participatory rituals, rather than times for fateful choices. If anything, the age might have been raised to 30, since today millions of people in their 20s have never even had the responsibility of being self-supporting, to give them some sense of reality.
We can only hope that the months still remaining before the first primary elections next year will allow voters to get over their emotional responses and concentrate on the life and death implications of choosing the next President of the United States.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/15/why_have_elections_128085.html
Why Have Elections?
By Thomas Sowell
September 15, 2015
In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one -- Donald Trump. What is even more remarkable is that, after six years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor.
No doubt much of the stampede of Republican voters toward Mr. Trump is based on their disgust with the Republican establishment. The fact that the next two biggest vote-getters in the polls are also complete outsiders -- Dr. Ben Carson and Ms. Carly Fiorina -- reinforces the idea that this is a protest.
It is easy to understand why there would be pent-up resentments among Republican voters. But are elections held for the purpose of venting emotions?
No national leader ever aroused more fervent emotions than Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s. Watch some old newsreels of German crowds delirious with joy at the sight of him. The only things at all comparable in more recent times were the ecstatic crowds that greeted Barack Obama when he burst upon the political scene in 2008.
Elections, however, have far more lasting, and far more serious -- or even grim -- consequences than emotional venting. The actual track record of crowd-pleasers, whether Juan Peron in Argentina, Obama in America or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing.
The media seem to think that participation in elections is a big deal. But turnout often approaches 100 percent in countries so torn by bitter polarization that everyone is scared to death of what will happen if the other side wins. But times and places with low voter turnout are often times and places when there are no such fears aroused by having an opposing party win.
Despite many people who urge us all to vote, as a civic duty, the purpose of elections is not participation. The purpose is to select individuals for offices, including President of the United States. Whoever has that office has our lives, the lives of our loved ones and the fate of the entire nation in his or her hands.
An election is not a popularity contest, or an award for showmanship. If you want to fulfill your duty as a citizen, then you need to become an informed voter. And if you are not informed, then the most patriotic thing you can do on election day is stay home. Otherwise your vote, based on whims or emotions, is playing Russian roulette with the fate of this nation.
All the hoopla over Donald Trump is distracting attention from a large field of other candidates, some of whom have outstanding track records as governors, where they demonstrated courage, character and intelligence. Others have rhetorical skills like Trump or a serious mastery of issues, unlike Trump.
Even if Trump himself does not end up as the Republican nominee for the presidency, he will have done a major disservice to both his party and the country if his grandstanding has cost us a chance to explore in depth others who may include someone far better prepared for the complex challenges of this juncture in history.
After the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, we are entering an era when people alive at this moment may live to see a day when American cities are left in radioactive ruins. We need all the wisdom, courage and dedication in the next president -- and his or her successors -- to save us and our children from such a catastrophe.
Rhetoric and showmanship will certainly not save us.
Donald Trump is not the only obstacle to finding leaders of such character. The ultimate danger lies in the voting public themselves. All too many signs point to an electorate including many people who are grossly uninformed or, worse yet, misinformed.
The very fact that the voting age was lowered to 18 shows the triumph of the vision of elections as participatory rituals, rather than times for fateful choices. If anything, the age might have been raised to 30, since today millions of people in their 20s have never even had the responsibility of being self-supporting, to give them some sense of reality.
We can only hope that the months still remaining before the first primary elections next year will allow voters to get over their emotional responses and concentrate on the life and death implications of choosing the next President of the United States.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/15/why_have_elections_128085.html
Common supports Hillary Clinton for president:
‘That’s where I would put my vote’
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=868957
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr. (Common) is the typical successful affluent "celebrity" who hasn't taken a lousy 10 days out-of-their life to learn how the United States Political-Economic System really works; "deep politics" - not the superficial bullshit that is force-feed to the American sheeple who have willfully decided that their sole source of information will be corporate television media (CBS, NBC/MSNBC, <s>FOX</s> FAKE, CNN, ABC).
Billary Clinton has NEVER been a politician that represents the interest of 99% of regular working class Americans; she works for America's multi-national corporations and global banksters. She doesn't give a shit about the average American who works a 9-5 to earn a living. Her campaign rhetoric is just bullshit that she hopes will get her elected.
You want to know who Billary represents?? - just follow the $$$$$$$$ money
Look at the OpenSecrets.org career money profile for Hillary Clinton below. Look at who her TOP lifetime $$$$$$$$$$$ political funders are!!
Check out BERNIE SANDERS
Hillary Clinton also has the endorsement of war criminal former U.S. Secretary of State HENRY KISSINGER
“I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I would say yes, she’d be a good president,” Kissinger said.
The Nixon Tapes Remind Us What A Vile Creature Henry Kissinger Is
Kissinger said:
"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...0/12/how_can_anyone_defend_kissinger_now.html"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."
Kissinger said:
"Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy"
"Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy"
Henry Kissinger WAR CRIMINAL: The Case Against Henry Kissinger
http://depositfiles.com/files/x9otjasr2
Last edited:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Y1jdsopdpE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
ALL politicians, Democrats not excluded, especially those who have never served in the military and who bluster about sending other people's kids to battle, should be closely scrutinized.
Similar threads
