|
Edwynn -> RE: Why Nate Silver predicts an Obama win. (11/6/2012 6:54:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwynn
As we can witness here, everybody is concerned with matters of statistical validity, not a single concern about the corporate infiltration of both parties and the thorough infestation of their minions in the administration, the 'regulatory' agencies, and the Congress.
Every administration, every Congress, regardless of party or party majority.
The only thing holding our interest (for some) anymore is the placing of bets, calling in 'scientific measurement,' etc., in the desperate albeit futile attempt to provide any meaning to a de facto meaningless process.
Uhmmmm ... not quite everybody Edywnn. I did raise the matter of the c$2.5 billion spent by the candidates and their backers but I'm afraid it didn't elicit any response either.
No one bothers to deny the corruption the funding requirements impose on all serious candidates. Even more oddly, no one seems to be talking about changing the situation either. Perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.
Of course it isn't just the matter of the amount, but the parties financing it. Financiers of the highest order. Political equity groups, if you will.
The Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee ruling told us that the $2.5 billion was the price tag of free speech. If you got the money, you too can have freedom of speech concerning elections. That's how it works in this country, the current sentiment being that the private sector, in free and unfettered markets, are more efficient than the government in all matters, including "free" speech.
If free speech were forced to be less than market value by the FEC, then of course great inefficiencies would occur. The return on investment in this "free speech" would be greatly reduced. Next thing you know, the regulatory agencies might get the notion that they should actually start regulating, or something; people would get this crazy notion that the people they are talked into electing are actually supposed to have any concern for people who merely elected them, instead of the ones who paid good money for them.
In any case, not anywhere, in any of the 'lists of wrongs' of this president posted by the opposition, have I seen any mention of his less than efficacious measures to reduce corporate favoritism further than the small bit he has, any noticeable reduction in the US Treasury's ongoing financial support of the most profitable corporations, and not a peep about corporate minions in the administration.
Which I can only take as that none of that bothers them at all. It could be because it would be totally hypocritical to do so, also. Who knows, but none of that is ever mentioned in any case.
Hardly anyone has even heard of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), whose scribes literally write much of US law.
If you wonder "how can this happen?", "why don't people do anything about it?", etc. ... Remember that power seeks power, the most powerful country of whatever era invites the most insidious and power-seeking elements of society, within and beyond nominal borders. If you thinks it's all just "the US" or just "the US government," then you're not paying attention. A corporate controlled government is not a government in any honest sense of the term, and that along with a completely misinformed populace means that there is nothing what could honestly be called a democracy, either.
Forty years ago 50 different companies owned most of the US media. Today, six mega-media conglomerates own about 95% of it.
People have NO idea what they've been talked into voting for these last thirty years, none.
|
|
|
|
