One of the major influences on our last election was money - with the
right receiving far more (and in larger payments) than the left; the
shift for some of that money to go to overtly political "lobby groups"
- the biggest here being the NZ Taxpayer Union, which had more
spending power that the least endowed two or three political parties >together; and the increase in the number of large donations which are
now being linked to government policy decisions.
The article below goes through some of these issues for the USA, where
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are using their wealth to buy the government
they believe will best reward them . . .
So read the article below but think about whether we have similar
issues here - and whether Peter Thiel "helped' his friend John Key and
now our new Government, and what changes to our election funding laws
may be needed to ensure that we do not allow our government to be
'purchased' by high bidders from overseas as well as internal wealthy >individuals.
Mary L Trump from The Good in Us <[email protected]>
The Lights Are DimmingThis entire post is nonsense and the first sentence is all that is necessary to show that.
Evening dispatch
Mary L. Trump
Oct 26
Why would anyone put our future in their hands?
I�m still thinking about Jeff Bezos� egregious decision to force his
paper, The Washington Post, to abdicate it�s journalistic
responsibility by not endorsing a candidate for the presidency�only
eleven days before the election in which the choice is between a
fairly centrist Democrat and a full-blown fascist.
The fallout is greater than anyone�especially Bezos�expected. Bezos� >cluelessness is likely the result of his arrogance because, like many
other wealthy men, arrogance made him overstep. Or maybe it�s just
that a lot of wealthy men are members of the Dunning-Kruger club for >oligarchs.
As I pointed out yesterday, I wasn�t debating the importance of
endorsements (in the grand scheme of things, I don�t think they count
for much). I wanted, instead, to look at the potential impact this
glaring omission had specifically in the wake of the Post�s
endorsements in the last two elections.
On October 13, 2016, the editorial board wrote:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is
true � uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we
believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well
urge you to vote for her anyway � that is how strongly we feel about
Mr. Trump,� the editorial board wrote in endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Trump, it � we because I was a member of the board then � said, �has
shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic,
vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, >contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America�s enemies. As
president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.
On September 28, 2020, the Post�s board called Donald �the worst
president of modern times,� claiming that �Democracy is at risk, at
home and around the world. The nation desperately needs a president
who will respect its public servants; stand up for the rule of law; >acknowledge Congress�s constitutional role; and work for the public
good, not his private benefit.�
All of that remains operative. In the very long four years since those
words were written, Donald Trump and the agenda he espouses have
gotten much, much worse�more violent, more bigoted, more openly
fascist. Choosing not to allow the editorial board to endorse Harris
was obscene and the failure, or inability, of the board to do so
leaves a gaping void into which the most awful conclusions can be
drawn.
On the same day the Post announced its decision, Donald met with
executives, including CEO David Limp, of Blue Origin�the space
technologies company owned by Bezos that has a $3.4 billion contract
with NASA. I�m sure Bezos� decision and Donald�s meeting have nothing
to do with the fact that in 2019, when Amazon was the frontrunner to
receive a $10 billion cloud computing defense contract, the Trump >administration awarded it to Microsoft instead, which was generally
seen as a retaliatory move because, in Donald�s view, the Post�s
coverage of him was too negative.
Share
And then there�s Elon Musk, the man whose obscene fortune is valued at >approximately $270 billion. In an attempt to help buy the election for >Donald, Musk has already put $120 million into his America PAC to
which he seems to be the only donor.
It makes sense that Musk would be backing Donald�they�re both deeply
damaged men with serious mommy issues who care about money more than
anything else. But there�s another reason�Musk has several very
valuable government contracts that may be at risk (or under least
under scrutiny) if Kamala Harris is in the White House.
As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo wrote:
As one of the country�s biggest defense contractors, Musk holds
high-level security clearances. The idea that he still holds those
clearances and has direct operational control over critical national
security technologies is simply absurd. But that confluence of power
in the communications and political realms, as I said, appears to make
him beyond reach. He�s now flagrantly violating federal laws against
vote buying, even after a direct Department of Justice warning.
The violation Marshall refers to has to do with Musk�s potential
attempt at election interference, which is likely illegal. He set up a
�1st and 2nd amendment rights survey� for voters in Pennsylvania, and
anybody who is misguided enough to hand their data over to Musk is
entered into a $1 million raffle. Almost daily, Musk has been handing
out these million dollar checks despite that DoJ warning.
Aspiring oligarchs like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Musk�s fellow >apartheid-era South African cohorts, David Sacks and Peter Thiel (who
bought JD Vance�s Ohio senate seat and made sure he was Donald�s VP
pick) should not have such an outsize role in our election. And they >certainly shouldn�t be allowed to have positions of power in our
government. But that could well be where we�re headed.
We�re faced with a very stark choice�another Trump administration in
which billionaires like Bezos and Musk help rig the system to our
detriment and even more in their favor (with Donald�s permission), or
a Harris administration in which the billionaires will finally have to
pay their fair share of taxes and in which their extraordinarily
lucrative government contracts are pulled or at least re-evaluated.
That seems like a pretty obvious choice, doesn�t it?
One of the major influences on our last election was money - with the
right receiving far more (and in larger payments) than the left;
the
shift for some of that money to go to overtly political "lobby groups"
- the biggest here being the NZ Taxpayer Union, which had more
spending power that the least endowed two or three political parties >together; and the increase in the number of large donations which are
now being linked to government policy decisions.
The article below goes through some of these issues for the USA, where
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are using their wealth to buy the government
they believe will best reward them . . .
So read the article below but think about whether we have similar
issues here - and whether Peter Thiel "helped' his friend John Key and
now our new Government, and what changes to our election funding laws
may be needed to ensure that we do not allow our government to be
'purchased' by high bidders from overseas as well as internal wealthy >individuals.
Mary L Trump from The Good in Us <[email protected]>
The Lights Are Dimming
Evening dispatch
Mary L. Trump
Oct 26
Why would anyone put our future in their hands?
I�m still thinking about Jeff Bezos� egregious decision to force his
paper, The Washington Post, to abdicate it�s journalistic
responsibility by not endorsing a candidate for the presidency�only
eleven days before the election in which the choice is between a
fairly centrist Democrat and a full-blown fascist.
The fallout is greater than anyone�especially Bezos�expected. Bezos� >cluelessness is likely the result of his arrogance because, like many
other wealthy men, arrogance made him overstep. Or maybe it�s just
that a lot of wealthy men are members of the Dunning-Kruger club for >oligarchs.
As I pointed out yesterday, I wasn�t debating the importance of
endorsements (in the grand scheme of things, I don�t think they count
for much). I wanted, instead, to look at the potential impact this
glaring omission had specifically in the wake of the Post�s
endorsements in the last two elections.
On October 13, 2016, the editorial board wrote:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is
true � uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we
believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well
urge you to vote for her anyway � that is how strongly we feel about
Mr. Trump,� the editorial board wrote in endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Trump, it � we because I was a member of the board then � said, �has
shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic,
vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, >contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America�s enemies. As
president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.
On September 28, 2020, the Post�s board called Donald �the worst
president of modern times,� claiming that �Democracy is at risk, at
home and around the world. The nation desperately needs a president
who will respect its public servants; stand up for the rule of law; >acknowledge Congress�s constitutional role; and work for the public
good, not his private benefit.�
All of that remains operative. In the very long four years since those
words were written, Donald Trump and the agenda he espouses have
gotten much, much worse�more violent, more bigoted, more openly
fascist. Choosing not to allow the editorial board to endorse Harris
was obscene and the failure, or inability, of the board to do so
leaves a gaping void into which the most awful conclusions can be
drawn.
On the same day the Post announced its decision, Donald met with
executives, including CEO David Limp, of Blue Origin�the space
technologies company owned by Bezos that has a $3.4 billion contract
with NASA. I�m sure Bezos� decision and Donald�s meeting have nothing
to do with the fact that in 2019, when Amazon was the frontrunner to
receive a $10 billion cloud computing defense contract, the Trump >administration awarded it to Microsoft instead, which was generally
seen as a retaliatory move because, in Donald�s view, the Post�s
coverage of him was too negative.
Share
And then there�s Elon Musk, the man whose obscene fortune is valued at >approximately $270 billion. In an attempt to help buy the election for >Donald, Musk has already put $120 million into his America PAC to
which he seems to be the only donor.
It makes sense that Musk would be backing Donald�they�re both deeply
damaged men with serious mommy issues who care about money more than
anything else. But there�s another reason�Musk has several very
valuable government contracts that may be at risk (or under least
under scrutiny) if Kamala Harris is in the White House.
As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo wrote:
As one of the country�s biggest defense contractors, Musk holds
high-level security clearances. The idea that he still holds those
clearances and has direct operational control over critical national
security technologies is simply absurd. But that confluence of power
in the communications and political realms, as I said, appears to make
him beyond reach. He�s now flagrantly violating federal laws against
vote buying, even after a direct Department of Justice warning.
The violation Marshall refers to has to do with Musk�s potential
attempt at election interference, which is likely illegal. He set up a
�1st and 2nd amendment rights survey� for voters in Pennsylvania, and
anybody who is misguided enough to hand their data over to Musk is
entered into a $1 million raffle. Almost daily, Musk has been handing
out these million dollar checks despite that DoJ warning.
Aspiring oligarchs like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Musk�s fellow >apartheid-era South African cohorts, David Sacks and Peter Thiel (who
bought JD Vance�s Ohio senate seat and made sure he was Donald�s VP
pick) should not have such an outsize role in our election. And they >certainly shouldn�t be allowed to have positions of power in our
government. But that could well be where we�re headed.
We�re faced with a very stark choice�another Trump administration in
which billionaires like Bezos and Musk help rig the system to our
detriment and even more in their favor (with Donald�s permission), or
a Harris administration in which the billionaires will finally have to
pay their fair share of taxes and in which their extraordinarily
lucrative government contracts are pulled or at least re-evaluated.
That seems like a pretty obvious choice, doesn�t it?
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 19:48:21 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Together with some others - the NZ Taxpayer Union is right up there -
wrote:
One of the major influences on our last election was money - with the
right receiving far more (and in larger payments) than the left;
Where have you been Rich? This is not a recent development. I well
recall the TV advertising used prior to the 1975 election. Political
parties raising funds for election campaigns go back at least the 60
years of my political awareness.
theWith our economy now being freed from the shackles of compulsory
shift for some of that money to go to overtly political "lobby groups"
- the biggest here being the NZ Taxpayer Union, which had more
spending power that the least endowed two or three political parties >>together; and the increase in the number of large donations which are
now being linked to government policy decisions.
unionism there is no longer a source of funds for the Labour party
through union membership fees. If Labour is no longer able to raise
funds from alternative sources then that says something about Labour.
The article below goes through some of these issues for the USA, whereThe USA electoral system is one where individuals get elected with a
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are using their wealth to buy the government
they believe will best reward them . . .
party affiliation. Trump and Harris raise their own funds, the
Republican and Democratic parties are just political labels.
So read the article below but think about whether we have similarMary Trumps observations are completely irrelevant - because we re the >opposite of what happens in political fundraising. In NZ it is the
issues here - and whether Peter Thiel "helped' his friend John Key and
now our new Government, and what changes to our election funding laws
may be needed to ensure that we do not allow our government to be >>'purchased' by high bidders from overseas as well as internal wealthy >>individuals.
political parties that raise funds.
With individuals being the fund raisers in the USA the potential forYet we see individual fundraisers - in New Zealand as well - there is
direct corruption is far more serious. If Trump is elected, will Musk
come calling for some favours? If Harris is elected - will her major
funders come calling in the same way?
It is the USA that could learn from us - but they are far too arrogant
to consider they can learn from any other country.
Mary L Trump from The Good in Us <[email protected]>
The Lights Are Dimming
Evening dispatch
Mary L. Trump
Oct 26
Why would anyone put our future in their hands?
I�m still thinking about Jeff Bezos� egregious decision to force his
paper, The Washington Post, to abdicate it�s journalistic
responsibility by not endorsing a candidate for the presidency�only
eleven days before the election in which the choice is between a
fairly centrist Democrat and a full-blown fascist.
The fallout is greater than anyone�especially Bezos�expected. Bezos� >>cluelessness is likely the result of his arrogance because, like many
other wealthy men, arrogance made him overstep. Or maybe it�s just
that a lot of wealthy men are members of the Dunning-Kruger club for >>oligarchs.
As I pointed out yesterday, I wasn�t debating the importance of >>endorsements (in the grand scheme of things, I don�t think they count
for much). I wanted, instead, to look at the potential impact this
glaring omission had specifically in the wake of the Post�s
endorsements in the last two elections.
On October 13, 2016, the editorial board wrote:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is
true � uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we
believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well
urge you to vote for her anyway � that is how strongly we feel about
Mr. Trump,� the editorial board wrote in endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Trump, it � we because I was a member of the board then � said, �has
shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic,
vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, >>contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America�s enemies. As
president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.
On September 28, 2020, the Post�s board called Donald �the worst
president of modern times,� claiming that �Democracy is at risk, at
home and around the world. The nation desperately needs a president
who will respect its public servants; stand up for the rule of law; >>acknowledge Congress�s constitutional role; and work for the public
good, not his private benefit.�
All of that remains operative. In the very long four years since those >>words were written, Donald Trump and the agenda he espouses have
gotten much, much worse�more violent, more bigoted, more openly
fascist. Choosing not to allow the editorial board to endorse Harris
was obscene and the failure, or inability, of the board to do so
leaves a gaping void into which the most awful conclusions can be
drawn.
On the same day the Post announced its decision, Donald met with >>executives, including CEO David Limp, of Blue Origin�the space
technologies company owned by Bezos that has a $3.4 billion contract
with NASA. I�m sure Bezos� decision and Donald�s meeting have nothing
to do with the fact that in 2019, when Amazon was the frontrunner to >>receive a $10 billion cloud computing defense contract, the Trump >>administration awarded it to Microsoft instead, which was generally
seen as a retaliatory move because, in Donald�s view, the Post�s
coverage of him was too negative.
Share
And then there�s Elon Musk, the man whose obscene fortune is valued at >>approximately $270 billion. In an attempt to help buy the election for >>Donald, Musk has already put $120 million into his America PAC to
which he seems to be the only donor.
It makes sense that Musk would be backing Donald�they�re both deeply >>damaged men with serious mommy issues who care about money more than >>anything else. But there�s another reason�Musk has several very
valuable government contracts that may be at risk (or under least
under scrutiny) if Kamala Harris is in the White House.
As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo wrote:
As one of the country�s biggest defense contractors, Musk holds >>high-level security clearances. The idea that he still holds those >>clearances and has direct operational control over critical national >>security technologies is simply absurd. But that confluence of power
in the communications and political realms, as I said, appears to make
him beyond reach. He�s now flagrantly violating federal laws against
vote buying, even after a direct Department of Justice warning.
The violation Marshall refers to has to do with Musk�s potential
attempt at election interference, which is likely illegal. He set up a
�1st and 2nd amendment rights survey� for voters in Pennsylvania, and >>anybody who is misguided enough to hand their data over to Musk is
entered into a $1 million raffle. Almost daily, Musk has been handing
out these million dollar checks despite that DoJ warning.
Aspiring oligarchs like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Musk�s fellow >>apartheid-era South African cohorts, David Sacks and Peter Thiel (who >>bought JD Vance�s Ohio senate seat and made sure he was Donald�s VP
pick) should not have such an outsize role in our election. And they >>certainly shouldn�t be allowed to have positions of power in our >>government. But that could well be where we�re headed.
We�re faced with a very stark choice�another Trump administration in
which billionaires like Bezos and Musk help rig the system to our
detriment and even more in their favor (with Donald�s permission), or
a Harris administration in which the billionaires will finally have to
pay their fair share of taxes and in which their extraordinarily
lucrative government contracts are pulled or at least re-evaluated.
That seems like a pretty obvious choice, doesn�t it?
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 08:38:25 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d>Obviously not, they are not linked to the National party and if you actually read what they publish you would see that they are criticising the current government a great deal - exactly as their charter requires.
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 19:48:21 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Together with some others - the NZ Taxpayer Union is right up there -
One of the major influences on our last election was money - with the >>>right receiving far more (and in larger payments) than the left;
Where have you been Rich? This is not a recent development. I well
recall the TV advertising used prior to the 1975 election. Political >>parties raising funds for election campaigns go back at least the 60
years of my political awareness.
theWith our economy now being freed from the shackles of compulsory
shift for some of that money to go to overtly political "lobby groups"
- the biggest here being the NZ Taxpayer Union, which had more
spending power that the least endowed two or three political parties >>>together; and the increase in the number of large donations which are
now being linked to government policy decisions.
unionism there is no longer a source of funds for the Labour party
through union membership fees. If Labour is no longer able to raise
funds from alternative sources then that says something about Labour.
The article below goes through some of these issues for the USA, where >>>Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are using their wealth to buy the government >>>they believe will best reward them . . .The USA electoral system is one where individuals get elected with a
party affiliation. Trump and Harris raise their own funds, the
Republican and Democratic parties are just political labels.
So read the article below but think about whether we have similarMary Trumps observations are completely irrelevant - because we re the >>opposite of what happens in political fundraising. In NZ it is the >>political parties that raise funds.
issues here - and whether Peter Thiel "helped' his friend John Key and >>>now our new Government, and what changes to our election funding laws
may be needed to ensure that we do not allow our government to be >>>'purchased' by high bidders from overseas as well as internal wealthy >>>individuals.
did they raise more money than the National Party?
Nonsensical rhetoric.With individuals being the fund raisers in the USA the potential forYet we see individual fundraisers - in New Zealand as well - there is
direct corruption is far more serious. If Trump is elected, will Musk
come calling for some favours? If Harris is elected - will her major >>funders come calling in the same way?
a remarkable correlation between political donations and companies
involved in projects that just happened to get on the fast track list Evidence? I doubt you can find any.
. . .
It is the USA that could learn from us - but they are far too arrogant
to consider they can learn from any other country.
I suspect the NZ Taxpayers union has been, relatively speaking, as
effective as many political action committees in the USA . . .
Mary L Trump from The Good in Us <[email protected]>
The Lights Are Dimming
Evening dispatch
Mary L. Trump
Oct 26
Why would anyone put our future in their hands?
I�m still thinking about Jeff Bezos� egregious decision to force his >>>paper, The Washington Post, to abdicate it�s journalistic
responsibility by not endorsing a candidate for the presidency�only >>>eleven days before the election in which the choice is between a
fairly centrist Democrat and a full-blown fascist.
The fallout is greater than anyone�especially Bezos�expected. Bezos� >>>cluelessness is likely the result of his arrogance because, like many >>>other wealthy men, arrogance made him overstep. Or maybe it�s just
that a lot of wealthy men are members of the Dunning-Kruger club for >>>oligarchs.
As I pointed out yesterday, I wasn�t debating the importance of >>>endorsements (in the grand scheme of things, I don�t think they count
for much). I wanted, instead, to look at the potential impact this >>>glaring omission had specifically in the wake of the Post�s
endorsements in the last two elections.
On October 13, 2016, the editorial board wrote:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is >>>true � uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we
believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well >>>urge you to vote for her anyway � that is how strongly we feel about
Mr. Trump,� the editorial board wrote in endorsing Hillary Clinton. >>>Trump, it � we because I was a member of the board then � said, �has >>>shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic,
vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, >>>contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America�s enemies. As >>>president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.
On September 28, 2020, the Post�s board called Donald �the worst >>>president of modern times,� claiming that �Democracy is at risk, at
home and around the world. The nation desperately needs a president
who will respect its public servants; stand up for the rule of law; >>>acknowledge Congress�s constitutional role; and work for the public
good, not his private benefit.�
All of that remains operative. In the very long four years since those >>>words were written, Donald Trump and the agenda he espouses have
gotten much, much worse�more violent, more bigoted, more openly
fascist. Choosing not to allow the editorial board to endorse Harris
was obscene and the failure, or inability, of the board to do so
leaves a gaping void into which the most awful conclusions can be
drawn.
On the same day the Post announced its decision, Donald met with >>>executives, including CEO David Limp, of Blue Origin�the space >>>technologies company owned by Bezos that has a $3.4 billion contract
with NASA. I�m sure Bezos� decision and Donald�s meeting have nothing
to do with the fact that in 2019, when Amazon was the frontrunner to >>>receive a $10 billion cloud computing defense contract, the Trump >>>administration awarded it to Microsoft instead, which was generally
seen as a retaliatory move because, in Donald�s view, the Post�s
coverage of him was too negative.
Share
And then there�s Elon Musk, the man whose obscene fortune is valued at >>>approximately $270 billion. In an attempt to help buy the election for >>>Donald, Musk has already put $120 million into his America PAC to
which he seems to be the only donor.
It makes sense that Musk would be backing Donald�they�re both deeply >>>damaged men with serious mommy issues who care about money more than >>>anything else. But there�s another reason�Musk has several very
valuable government contracts that may be at risk (or under least
under scrutiny) if Kamala Harris is in the White House.
As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo wrote:
As one of the country�s biggest defense contractors, Musk holds >>>high-level security clearances. The idea that he still holds those >>>clearances and has direct operational control over critical national >>>security technologies is simply absurd. But that confluence of power
in the communications and political realms, as I said, appears to make >>>him beyond reach. He�s now flagrantly violating federal laws against
vote buying, even after a direct Department of Justice warning.
The violation Marshall refers to has to do with Musk�s potential
attempt at election interference, which is likely illegal. He set up a >>>�1st and 2nd amendment rights survey� for voters in Pennsylvania, and >>>anybody who is misguided enough to hand their data over to Musk is >>>entered into a $1 million raffle. Almost daily, Musk has been handing
out these million dollar checks despite that DoJ warning.
Aspiring oligarchs like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Musk�s fellow >>>apartheid-era South African cohorts, David Sacks and Peter Thiel (who >>>bought JD Vance�s Ohio senate seat and made sure he was Donald�s VP
pick) should not have such an outsize role in our election. And they >>>certainly shouldn�t be allowed to have positions of power in our >>>government. But that could well be where we�re headed.
We�re faced with a very stark choice�another Trump administration in >>>which billionaires like Bezos and Musk help rig the system to our >>>detriment and even more in their favor (with Donald�s permission), or
a Harris administration in which the billionaires will finally have to >>>pay their fair share of taxes and in which their extraordinarily >>>lucrative government contracts are pulled or at least re-evaluated.
That seems like a pretty obvious choice, doesn�t it?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 08:38:25 +1300, Crash <[email protected]d> >>wrote:Obviously not, they are not linked to the National party and if you actually read what they publish you would see that they are criticising the current government a great deal - exactly as their charter requires.
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 19:48:21 +1300, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>>wrote:Together with some others - the NZ Taxpayer Union is right up there -
One of the major influences on our last election was money - with the >>>>right receiving far more (and in larger payments) than the left;
Where have you been Rich? This is not a recent development. I well >>>recall the TV advertising used prior to the 1975 election. Political >>>parties raising funds for election campaigns go back at least the 60 >>>years of my political awareness.
theWith our economy now being freed from the shackles of compulsory
shift for some of that money to go to overtly political "lobby groups" >>>>- the biggest here being the NZ Taxpayer Union, which had more
spending power that the least endowed two or three political parties >>>>together; and the increase in the number of large donations which are >>>>now being linked to government policy decisions.
unionism there is no longer a source of funds for the Labour party >>>through union membership fees. If Labour is no longer able to raise >>>funds from alternative sources then that says something about Labour.
The article below goes through some of these issues for the USA, where >>>>Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are using their wealth to buy the government >>>>they believe will best reward them . . .The USA electoral system is one where individuals get elected with a >>>party affiliation. Trump and Harris raise their own funds, the >>>Republican and Democratic parties are just political labels.
So read the article below but think about whether we have similar >>>>issues here - and whether Peter Thiel "helped' his friend John Key and >>>>now our new Government, and what changes to our election funding laws >>>>may be needed to ensure that we do not allow our government to be >>>>'purchased' by high bidders from overseas as well as internal wealthy >>>>individuals.Mary Trumps observations are completely irrelevant - because we re the >>>opposite of what happens in political fundraising. In NZ it is the >>>political parties that raise funds.
did they raise more money than the National Party?
Evidence? I doubt you can find any.
With individuals being the fund raisers in the USA the potential for >>>direct corruption is far more serious. If Trump is elected, will Musk >>>come calling for some favours? If Harris is elected - will her major >>>funders come calling in the same way?Yet we see individual fundraisers - in New Zealand as well - there is
a remarkable correlation between political donations and companies
involved in projects that just happened to get on the fast track list
. . .Nonsensical rhetoric.
It is the USA that could learn from us - but they are far too arrogant
to consider they can learn from any other country.
I suspect the NZ Taxpayers union has been, relatively speaking, as >>effective as many political action committees in the USA . . .
Mary L Trump from The Good in Us <[email protected]>
The Lights Are Dimming
Evening dispatch
Mary L. Trump
Oct 26
Why would anyone put our future in their hands?
Im still thinking about Jeff Bezos egregious decision to force his >>>>paper, The Washington Post, to abdicate its journalistic >>>>responsibility by not endorsing a candidate for the presidencyonly >>>>eleven days before the election in which the choice is between a
fairly centrist Democrat and a full-blown fascist.
The fallout is greater than anyoneespecially Bezosexpected. Bezos >>>>cluelessness is likely the result of his arrogance because, like many >>>>other wealthy men, arrogance made him overstep. Or maybe its just >>>>that a lot of wealthy men are members of the Dunning-Kruger club for >>>>oligarchs.
As I pointed out yesterday, I wasnt debating the importance of >>>>endorsements (in the grand scheme of things, I dont think they count >>>>for much). I wanted, instead, to look at the potential impact this >>>>glaring omission had specifically in the wake of the Posts >>>>endorsements in the last two elections.
On October 13, 2016, the editorial board wrote:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is >>>>true uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we >>>>believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well >>>>urge you to vote for her anyway that is how strongly we feel about >>>>Mr. Trump, the editorial board wrote in endorsing Hillary Clinton. >>>>Trump, it we because I was a member of the board then said, has >>>>shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, >>>>vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, >>>>contemptuous of democracy and enamored of Americas enemies. As >>>>president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.
On September 28, 2020, the Posts board called Donald the worst >>>>president of modern times, claiming that Democracy is at risk, at >>>>home and around the world. The nation desperately needs a president
who will respect its public servants; stand up for the rule of law; >>>>acknowledge Congresss constitutional role; and work for the public >>>>good, not his private benefit.
All of that remains operative. In the very long four years since those >>>>words were written, Donald Trump and the agenda he espouses have
gotten much, much worsemore violent, more bigoted, more openly >>>>fascist. Choosing not to allow the editorial board to endorse Harris >>>>was obscene and the failure, or inability, of the board to do so
leaves a gaping void into which the most awful conclusions can be >>>>drawn.
On the same day the Post announced its decision, Donald met with >>>>executives, including CEO David Limp, of Blue Originthe space >>>>technologies company owned by Bezos that has a $3.4 billion contract >>>>with NASA. Im sure Bezos decision and Donalds meeting have nothing >>>>to do with the fact that in 2019, when Amazon was the frontrunner to >>>>receive a $10 billion cloud computing defense contract, the Trump >>>>administration awarded it to Microsoft instead, which was generally >>>>seen as a retaliatory move because, in Donalds view, the Posts >>>>coverage of him was too negative.
Share
And then theres Elon Musk, the man whose obscene fortune is valued at >>>>approximately $270 billion. In an attempt to help buy the election for >>>>Donald, Musk has already put $120 million into his America PAC to
which he seems to be the only donor.
It makes sense that Musk would be backing Donaldtheyre both deeply >>>>damaged men with serious mommy issues who care about money more than >>>>anything else. But theres another reasonMusk has several very >>>>valuable government contracts that may be at risk (or under least >>>>under scrutiny) if Kamala Harris is in the White House.
As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo wrote:
As one of the countrys biggest defense contractors, Musk holds >>>>high-level security clearances. The idea that he still holds those >>>>clearances and has direct operational control over critical national >>>>security technologies is simply absurd. But that confluence of power
in the communications and political realms, as I said, appears to make >>>>him beyond reach. Hes now flagrantly violating federal laws against >>>>vote buying, even after a direct Department of Justice warning.
The violation Marshall refers to has to do with Musks potential >>>>attempt at election interference, which is likely illegal. He set up a >>>>1st and 2nd amendment rights survey for voters in Pennsylvania, and >>>>anybody who is misguided enough to hand their data over to Musk is >>>>entered into a $1 million raffle. Almost daily, Musk has been handing >>>>out these million dollar checks despite that DoJ warning.
Aspiring oligarchs like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Musks fellow >>>>apartheid-era South African cohorts, David Sacks and Peter Thiel (who >>>>bought JD Vances Ohio senate seat and made sure he was Donalds VP >>>>pick) should not have such an outsize role in our election. And they >>>>certainly shouldnt be allowed to have positions of power in our >>>>government. But that could well be where were headed.
Were faced with a very stark choiceanother Trump administration in >>>>which billionaires like Bezos and Musk help rig the system to our >>>>detriment and even more in their favor (with Donalds permission), or >>>>a Harris administration in which the billionaires will finally have to >>>>pay their fair share of taxes and in which their extraordinarily >>>>lucrative government contracts are pulled or at least re-evaluated.
That seems like a pretty obvious choice, doesnt it?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:15:05 |
| Calls: | 12,103 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,069 |