Thursday, August 30, 2012

Billionaire GOP Donors Don't Want to Be Questioned

They want to run the country, but if questions are asked of them they seem offended. At this link you can see what happened when Democracy Now attempted to ask questions of a man that is prepared to spend $100 million to see his preferred candidate installed at the White House. His daughter boxes out the reported, takes the camera, and drops it on the floor. They want to control what happens in the public sphere. But the public is unable to ask them questions and find out what they are about.

The alphabet networks will cover this convention in a way that portrays it in the manner the RNC prefers. Democracy Now is outside of the convention covering protestors and the intense security presence as well as the puppet masters in the suites. DN is showing you what is really happening, doing real journalism. DN is the preferred news source for people that want to know what is really going on in the world.


Examinator said...

I agree with the principal that if anyone wants to be a donor to either side then he/she/them are fair targets for public interest.
I believe that these people should be forced to face the media to explain them selves in the same way 'the representative does'.
In my view it's simply the flip side to trying to influence democracy.
These 'back room dictator's' should be subject to the same scrutiny, transparency as they are to the Stock Exchange and the SEC etc.
Simply put with every privilege there is a responsibility particularly when it comes to democracy.
Notwithstanding I am implacably opposed to ambush journalism as ***it is more about sensation rather than enlightenment.****
this confrontation told us nothing we didn't know already.
The 'targets' do have privacy rights as does anyone else.
PS in Aust Adelston's daughter and minders would be subject to Assault and battery charges; wilful damages Charges (by the police) and damages in Civil courts.

In one instance a cameraman was charged with assault because he taunted the father of an accused to get "a money shot" and public complaint had him fired. He was filmed by other networks.

In another two bodyguards of an exec were charged and jailed for punching out a reporter.

Chad said...

Hell, it is a great bet really - Spend a $100 mill on getting someone who understands business in the WH. It's a pretty good chance he can have the opportunity to earn that money back with Romney in. On the other hand, if BHO is electd he figures that Obama will either tax that money away or he will lose money because of the business environment - odds are he's making the right choice IMO.

Chad said...

BTW - at least be honest. Guys like you and Democracy Now's intentions are to vilify, hate and demonize that person because he is too wealthy.

Chad said...

What other reason do you need to know? How much did the Unions put in for Obama? How about Soros? Oprah? How about Hollywood?

Like I said, you only want to know only to burn him and his family at the stake (not literally of course).

You have to remember, Obama declared war on the wealthy and it is their turn to fight back. They have been silently protesting during his 4 years, but now they can really voice their disapproval with dollars. I've up'd my weekly contributions and know several others that have also - even though I truly think this will be a wide margin Mitt victory (50-43) we can't let up - it is a must win baby!

Examinator said...

It's a pity you read such narrowly. Adelston's primary reason in his words is to have an Israeli friendly Prez. In his terms it means one who will turn a blind eye to their current regime's obscenities.

The rest is projecting.

Chad said...

Ditto Ex. Protecting Isreal plays a part, but it is not the single driver here. You have a keyhole vision of these people as well.

Jon said...

Sure, you can make the case that this is a wise investment for Adelson. I'm not denying that.

You write:

BTW - at least be honest. Guys like you and Democracy Now's intentions are to vilify, hate and demonize that person because he is too wealthy.

Absolutely not. Why would you say that? Do you see me demonizing and vilifying every rich person? I'm OK with demonizing people that oppose democracy. And those that oppose transparency in government. He wants to run the show. He wants to be the one that decides who your President will be. He doesn't want our preferences to be part of the decision. If this guy put $100 million behind Obama that would pretty much guarantee Obama's victory. It doesn't matter if the majority of people really would prefer someone with different policies. This guy thinks the biggest money should decide. And whatever motivations he has aren't something he's obligated to share with the public. That's why I want to demonize him. I'd similarly want to demonize dictators and other democratic opponents all over the world.

Of course I very much want to know what other rich people are giving.

It's now time for the rich to "fight back." The poor suffering rich. I know it's tough for them in your mind. When do the real poor get a chance to fight back. On this system of unlimited campaign contributions the answer is never. Their voices are never heard.

And that's why our government pursues policies that favor the rich. That's why we're fighting overseas wars. Poor people don't want that. They have nothing to gain from that. But the rich do. This is why dictators exist all over the world. They are there because they provide a better investment climate. The poor don't care about that, but the rich do.

If you like that kind of system, where the policies reflect a tiny elite and not the people generally, than what you are saying is you oppose democracy. You should be clear and just say you oppose democracy and prefer plutocracy. The poor shouldn't have influence. Only the rich. And off to war in Iran we will go even though they've done nothing to us and are not a threat to us, as in Iraq. Poor boys and girls in the army will go die for Adelson and others like him. If you like that arrangement I guess you'd be happy with this situation.

But do you have a problem with the fact that these people want to run the show, but they will not allow journalists to inform the public about them? DN covers this because they are not corporate sponsored. Corporate news doesn't even bother. They do what Adelson wants already. Hide him behind their protective shield and cover the RNC like Adelson wants it to be covered. Do you oppose both democracy and transparency?

Chad said...

JC - Not completely following how a $100 million dollars solidifies a victory? There was a couple recent campaigns in Missouri and Texas where the candidate with more money lost. Adelston gets one vote - the same as me and the same as every other legal citizen in this United States. The money may allow Romney the opportunity to run more adds to reach more people with his story, but it does not automatically earn him that vote. If Americans don't want Romney all they have to do is vote. If each dollar represented a vote then certainly your arguement is very valid sir, but that is not how it works. John Q public - regardless if they make $10 million a year or make $10K a year all get to pull that lever one time - well that is what is supposed to happen any how.

Chad said...

In my opinion, policies favor the rich (if you will) because they are the ones making shit happen my friend. They have the resources and know how to get an audience sure, but they are also the ones making things happen so not a shocker there.

You mentioned the poor a bunch of times again - I get what your saying to a degree, but what are the poor contributing that would allow their voice to control the policies or drive the arguement? Are these poor people educated, do they have a highly regarded skill set, are they performing hours of community service, are they taking individual responsibility not to have kids because they are poor?

We are already seeing that in action Jon and we are seeing how that is not working. 1 in 6 Americans now are getting some form of gov't assistance, BHO removed a part of the welfare work act, back door amnesty - all this is being done to expand his and the democrates voting block so please do not think that one guy giving a $100 mill is worse than that.

Being poor is not an incurable disease Jon, but it is a terrible epidemic. If you want to have a real - difficult discussion about how to eliminate poverty then we can do that, but I don't think your prepared to do what it takes to make that happen. Your solutions take money from one class of people - you hand it to another class and you think that magically they will no longer make all the bad choices they made to be poor in the first place.

Examinator said...

Chad, Jonathan
I'm not denying that others may see other motives but I repeat ....they were HIS WORDS not mine!
What's key hole about restating his words?
Should it be assumed he's lying ?
Or is he just myopic ranting emotionally voicing what ever is in the front of his emotions at the time? Either way my context still remains the same.
i.e. If one want to have a larger say in the public debate (which he clearly does) then he should be prepared to be publicly questioned. Not do as he and the Koch brothers do hide in the back room and do everything via clandestine partisan spin means.

You may note my friend, I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to donate money, as under the current system it's legal to do so.

I may not like it but it is the law and as such I differentiate between what is the ideal/ moral and what is the law.

Stopping him/them would be a change in law and nominally that is up to the people in a notional democracy.
These rich people are *morally* obligated to disclose/ explain their greater voice it's inherent in (notional) concept of democracy. Like all “social morals' individuals are entitled to snub them but they must also accept the consequences of their actions, likewise the public is entitled to despise that individual's *actions* and or their lack of *lack of concern for societal morality*.
One might point out that even by Libertarian/ Republican standards a society with out the greater good morality/standards will fall/ degrade into dysfunction and ultimately Malthusian Chaos.

******I restate that this obligation stands for ALL political stances. *******
Perhaps you might like to explain how this is a key hole view...I'd be VERY interested. Like the name of the site "Prove me wrong"

Jon said...

Chad, is it your opinion that there is no difference in the level of influence between say a homeless person and Sheldon Adleson? They both get one vote so obviously Romney must equally cater to both. Is that your view?

My new hobby horse is to point out how the rich are NOT the ones that make things happen. Mitt Romney DOESN'T WORK. But the poor people at the factories he owns do.

Take Mitt Romney's acquisition of Kaybee Toys. He walks in with $18 million of his own money and $300 million he borrowed from banks with Kaybee Toys as collateral. He saddles Kaybee with that debt. They now have to pay interest on it. He then demands that they take out $60 million in loans and pay him some consulting fees. They do. He tells them to cut compensation to the staff, make them work faster, etc. Of course they go out of business. You call this "making stuff happen."

Romney makes things happen the same way an army makes things happen. They leave a trail of wreckage. What Perry called "vulture capitalism". The founder of Kaybee Toys and the workers that created the business made good things happen. Romney made bad things happen.

And this is not an aberration. The bulk of the people that have gotten into the top 1% over the last 30 years did it in exactly this way. They don't create businesses. They use financial instruments to extract value produced by others. Yes, some people do actually work creating business with real value, but MOST of the people becoming super rich aren't doing it that way. They do it in finance.

Jon said...

Politicians don't favor the rich simply because they do this sort of thing. They favor the rich because the rich have money, and to win you need money. Venture capital firms like Goldman Sachs and others are overwhelmingly supporting Romney because they want to continue to use these kinds of instruments that destroy companies and yet make them rich.

You're right. The poor aren't doing the kinds of things that would give them a voice. They are busy working and sending the revenue they generate to Mitt Romney. They are busy building businesses that Romney will destroy so he can extract the wealth for himself. When you can barely get food on the table what do you expect?

Not sure what you are referring to regarding Obama and welfare, but Mitt's claims are very misleading.

I'd love to have a discussion about why people are poor. But I want you to argue your case based on real evidence. Not just theories that make sense in your head, like if you just work harder you get richer, or if the rich get to pay less in taxes this spurs the overall economy. I know you believe that stuff, but what I want you to try and do is look at the historical record and show me that these things work.

That's how science is done. Anybody can just say "If there were less government regulation holding business back the economy would improve." What about the flip side? When the EPA tells a company they can't dump toxic waste in the river this prevents illness and allows other businesses to use a cleaner resource. What's the net effect?

To find out you need to look at what has actually happened in the real world, not just spin ideas out of your head that sound plausible but actually fail the real world test because the world is more complicated than the simple formulas you contrive in your mind.

Examinator said...

I couldn't agree more with with your distaste for the unnecessary parasites of the the *ilk* of Bain (and Romney's activities). This is pretty much what I was saying in the past. As an ex corporate exec I've had personal experience with these types and frankly it reinforces what I originally (way back). You may recall I spoke of tests have shown that many top execs (particularly) in the finance manipulation industries like Bain show a high proportion of sociopathic tendencies.

It has been argued that this is because they operate in non- human centric activities they become less aware of the the human factor. They learn to justify their activities by referencing to theories/ rigid philosophies and inanimate goals (profits, efficiencies, power, possessions ). Consequently, self justification , egocentricity, intollerance and wants, tend to dominate . Typically it manifests it's self in terms of lack of empathy bolstered by rigid views that use extremes of perspectives and a readiness to resort to dehumanising the holders of different circumstances/ opinions.

It's probably already clear to you but for clarification. We all have those traits the defining emphasis is on the notion of the *DEGREE of dominance of those traits* that make a person Saciopathically inclined.

It is for this reason I try to differentiate between the person and what they do or say. i.e. I detest the antisocial/ socially immorality, lack of empathy for US citizenry (undemocratic notion), that he is entitled (at least without being held to answer/explain) to a bigger say that the homeless (perhaps less equipped) person. And the rights (sic) etc of him(Mr A) as a person .

In my view, confusing the two it desensitises one to the person and therefore makes it that much easier to dehumanise others who may not see the world etc as you.

At the base of this is is the proven fact that repartition reinforces traits good or bad. It has BUGGER all to issues like the BS of PC.