The Best Democracy Money Can Buy?

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,098
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Or, perhaps, cannot.

I could start this thread from several stances:
  • remembering my first experience of elective politics was asking my Dear Old Dad why he was so attentive to AFN on crackly medium-wave, as the 1952 US Presidential returns unfolded;
  • my just-post-dolescent recognition that Ireland's PR was addictive because it allowed the spite of awarding a candidate one's nineteenth preference;
  • keeping the adrenaline flowing.
Thus, in the early hours, I was on-and-off the iPad to follow the unravelling of the Pennsylvania 18th, which — as I write — is still in the air with the Democrat 641 votes ahead, with a few uncounted absentees still on the table.

The attraction, of course, is this was a 'Mission Impossible' Democrat target, to the extent it wasn't even a contested District for two previous rounds. Plus it was a grotesquely gerrymandered District for GOP advantage. Plus, not surprisingly from those two previous qualifications, President Trump had a near 20% advantage only sixteen months ago.

A further 'plus' is the GOP, running scared, threw at least $10 million (and some commentators suggest double that) in what is little more than a squabble over 'face'. So, all in, as much as $175 to buy a single vote.

Back in 1960 — another one I sat up all night — neither Presidential candidate spent more than $10 million, nationwide. But then there were finance limits: cue the 'free enterprise' of the US Supreme Court.

In a parallel universe, there are the curious businesses of barely-legal (Saudi?) money being filtered through the DUP in the Brexit campaign. On top of which it appears Russian (and, by implication, other) attempted interference in social media is endemic.

Put simply, we no longer know with any kind of certitude just how much we are being bought and paid for.

Which pains me, because electoral politicking is the finest blood-sport on offer.
 


Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
The democracy that ownership of the media can buy.

And it that ownership is a bad investment, then the democracy's government will stand there as a government owned bank issues massive debt write downs to a media oligopoly.

We also have a system of law and order that does nothing about the findings of the Moriarty Tribunal.

Judges and cops that produce debacles like the Annabels let off.

We see continual compromising, adjustment, regulation, and disinformation of the public.

I created a thread about the irony of the nEU empire appointing a heavy hitter on the "Irish" "Independent" as an advisor on the topic of "fake news".

The same heavy hitter was instrumental in sacking Gemma Doherty, after Doherty told the truth about law-breaking by people in authority in Ireland.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
Or, perhaps, cannot.

I could start this thread from several stances:
  • remembering my first experience of elective politics was asking my Dear Old Dad why he was so attentive to AFN on crackly medium-wave, as the 1952 US Presidential returns unfolded;
  • my just-post-dolescent recognition that Ireland's PR was addictive because it allowed the spite of awarding a candidate one's nineteenth preference;
  • keeping the adrenaline flowing.
Thus, in the early hours, I was on-and-off the iPad to follow the unravelling of the Pennsylvania 18th, which — as I write — is still in the air with the Democrat 641 votes ahead, with a few uncounted absentees still on the table.

The attraction, of course, is this was a 'Mission Impossible' Democrat target, to the extent it wasn't even a contested District for two previous rounds. Plus it was a grotesquely gerrymandered District for GOP advantage. Plus, not surprisingly from those two previous qualifications, President Trump had a near 20% advantage only sixteen months ago.

A further 'plus' is the GOP, running scared, threw at least $10 million (and some commentators suggest double that) in what is little more than a squabble over 'face'. So, all in, as much as $175 to buy a single vote.

Back in 1960 — another one I sat up all night — neither Presidential candidate spent more than $10 million, nationwide. But then there were finance limits: cue the 'free enterprise' of the US Supreme Court.

In a parallel universe, there are the curious businesses of barely-legal (Saudi?) money being filtered through the DUP in the Brexit campaign. On top of which it appears Russian (and, by implication, other) attempted interference in social media is endemic.

Put simply, we no longer know with any kind of certitude just how much we are being bought and paid for.

Which pains me, because electoral politicking is the finest blood-sport on offer.
The miracle is that the US has held together as a country for as long as it has.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
641 in it and the Libertarian got 1,378.

The Dems used run a third in NY in the early part of the 20 th cetnury to good effect, it is described here in fictional form:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/sep/14/featuresreviews.guardianreview2


They would get behind the "Law preservation " candidates to do down the Reps.

This is a major kick in the bollocks for Trump, the conservatives and their fanboi's, excellent.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,292
Or, perhaps, cannot.

I could start this thread from several stances:
  • remembering my first experience of elective politics was asking my Dear Old Dad why he was so attentive to AFN on crackly medium-wave, as the 1952 US Presidential returns unfolded;
  • my just-post-dolescent recognition that Ireland's PR was addictive because it allowed the spite of awarding a candidate one's nineteenth preference;
  • keeping the adrenaline flowing.
Thus, in the early hours, I was on-and-off the iPad to follow the unravelling of the Pennsylvania 18th, which — as I write — is still in the air with the Democrat 641 votes ahead, with a few uncounted absentees still on the table.

The attraction, of course, is this was a 'Mission Impossible' Democrat target, to the extent it wasn't even a contested District for two previous rounds. Plus it was a grotesquely gerrymandered District for GOP advantage. Plus, not surprisingly from those two previous qualifications, President Trump had a near 20% advantage only sixteen months ago.

A further 'plus' is the GOP, running scared, threw at least $10 million (and some commentators suggest double that) in what is little more than a squabble over 'face'. So, all in, as much as $175 to buy a single vote.

Back in 1960 — another one I sat up all night — neither Presidential candidate spent more than $10 million, nationwide. But then there were finance limits: cue the 'free enterprise' of the US Supreme Court.

In a parallel universe, there are the curious businesses of barely-legal (Saudi?) money being filtered through the DUP in the Brexit campaign. On top of which it appears Russian (and, by implication, other) attempted interference in social media is endemic.

Put simply, we no longer know with any kind of certitude just how much we are being bought and paid for.

Which pains me, because electoral politicking is the finest blood-sport on offer.
Spending the most money doesn't win you the race, just ask Hillary Clinton and btw 1960 was a long time ago, things were cheaper and there were a lost less people to market to.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
The miracle is that the US has held together as a country for as long as it has.
It may not continue, it is a very divided place.


One man's view. :)

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/america-will-split-up-into-6-parts-says-russian-po-26721398/
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,906
Trump's inability to deliver coming home to roost now.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,292
And corporations weren't people...:rolleyes:
Yup, the world does change a lot in 60 years. It keeps on turning and it's not going to stop and let people get off. Best to try and keep up with it.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
F#ck off, moron.
It looks like Volatire has scratched the veneer of statist, and found out the nastiness that lies beneath.

I disagree with Volatile - I actually reckon the topic of money influencing policy making is very important.

I present the Anglo Bondholders as evidence. It is nEU Empire policy that no Seanie-Bonder will pay the price.

Mr. Suds eloquently advocated this in Op-Ed contributions to The ISIS Times. And he got his way.

Serfs, keep up the hard slog for the Ponzified Plutocrats, and retired public sector pension beneficiaries living off you all !!!!
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,562
The miracle is that the US has held together as a country for as long as it has.
It works along the same lines as the GAA works in lreland; from the local to the national.
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
32,380
Don't you have that moron on ignore?
Personally I find it's a bit like with Tommy Cooper - you've seen all the routines, you know how it's going to go, but you stop and watch for a few minutes because there's always the chance of some fresh giggle.

The world isn't so very full of mirth that you can afford to pass up a potential giggle.

Having said which, of course, I suppose it's worth noting the important difference between Tommy Cooper and Volatire, i.e. Tommy Cooper wasn't really a f*ckwitted @rsehole.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Back in 1960 — another one I sat up all night — neither Presidential candidate spent more than $10 million, nationwide. But then there were finance limits: cue the 'free enterprise' of the US Supreme Court.

Put simply, we no longer know with any kind of certitude just how much we are being bought and paid for.
Incorrect. We know. The information is often impossible to hide.

List of the Mass Media entities who donated the the Clinton slush Fund

Even the Wa Po knows that is cannot pretend there is no problem.

Wa Po : More than half the Clinton Foundatins major donors would be barred under new rules

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State Department

Why pretend that we do not know ?
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,098
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
Spending the most money doesn't win you the race, just ask Hillary Clinton and btw 1960 was a long time ago, things were cheaper and there were a lost less people to market to.
In 1960 my world was young, and the Leaving Cert the biggest threat to my quiet life. So, no need to remind me of the passage of time.

That apart, NYCKY happily ignores why spending has increased exponentially. New readers start here.

The key is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Note that originated with an anti-Hillary campaign movie, and ended with a 5-4 (and highly partisan) vote of the Justices.

But, of course, Alexis de Tocqueville had it bang to rights (and wrongs) as far back as the 1830s (and that was before my time):
  • There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.
  • The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
  • There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.
And many more.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top