election 2020 trump v who

None of them will exactly inspire a generation. American politics is now completely dominated by money and special interest groups. Biden is weak but Trump is deranged so if that is the choice, then Biden it is. But I can't see him being anything but a one term President.....
 
This is an excellent poll tracker from the FT. Biden looks home and hosed based on these polls.
But Betfair do not agree, they have it now 1.84 (54%) Biden, 2.24 (45%) Trump., which is the strongest showing for Trump for many months.
 
Last edited:
There is no alternative. Its four more years of Trump, or four years of a return to the status quo policies that got people voting for Trump in the first place.
Thomas Jefferson said that Capitalists, or more specifically corporations, would undermine democracy. He said that “We must crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” He, along wit those far left lunatics Abraham Lincoln, Adam Smith and Franklin D Roosevelt, was worried about the influence of money and how it undermined democracy. The man who coined the phrase the Military Industrial Complex was a former General, DW Eisenhower. He said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."
The reality is that in the USA democracy lost and money won. It happened in the late 60's when Nixon was elected and it happened because fear is the primary driver within American society. That's why the government isn't really of the people or by the people and it certainly isn't for the people.
 
The reality is that in the USA democracy lost and money won. It happened in the late 60's when Nixon was elected and it happened because fear is the primary driver within American society. That's why the government isn't really of the people or by the people and it certainly isn't for the people.

Agree.
 
The reality is that in the USA democracy lost and money won.
No. The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.
 
No. The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.

Fine if you have lots of your own money, what do those who have very little money do?
 
No. The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.
If the top 1% of the top 1% provide 80% of the money and money talks then who do you think the politicians listen to and can that be called real democracy?
(please don't let anyone say anything stupid like "America's a Republic, not a Democracy")
 
Most US presidential elections back as far as Eisenhower (I like Ike) are won by the most likeable candidate. Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Regean, Clinton, the younger Bush. Nixon is the exception that proves the rule.

Hillary Clinton never really made it in the like-ability stakes. Biden is a pleasant likeable guy.

(obviously I am talking about the appearance of likeability, who knows what their reality was)
 
Most US presidential elections back as far as Eisenhower (I like Ike) are won by the most likeable candidate. Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Regean, Clinton, the younger Bush. Nixon is the exception that proves the rule.

Hillary Clinton never really made it in the like-ability stakes. Biden is a pleasant likeable guy.

(obviously I am talking about the appearance of likeability, who knows what their reality was)
Biden is an RC. The statistics show that 100% of RC presidents get assassinated. A vote for Biden is a vote for Kamela, not saying that is a bad thing.
 
Thomas Jefferson said that Capitalists, or more specifically corporations, would undermine democracy. He said that “We must crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
like everything you must put this quote into its proper context. the late 18th century, America was a new country that had just won its independence from Britain, it was still a weak country and very afraid that Britain would take back the colony, the "aristocracy" and "moneyed corporations" were the British imperialists. Afterall the "boston tea party" was a revolt against the British East india company from selling tea from China in the American colonies. So the "moneyed corporations" he was talking about was really the East India company, he didnt want foreign corporations undermining the new and fledgling American ones. Interesting that the whole thing was sparked by "Chinese tea". history repeating itself
 
like everything you must put this quote into its proper context. the late 18th century, America was a new country that had just won its independence from Britain, it was still a weak country and very afraid that Britain would take back the colony, the "aristocracy" and "moneyed corporations" were the British imperialists. Afterall the "boston tea party" was a revolt against the British East india company from selling tea from China in the American colonies. So the "moneyed corporations" he was talking about was really the East India company, he didnt want foreign corporations undermining the new and fledgling American ones. Interesting that the whole thing was sparked by "Chinese tea". history repeating itself
In 1825 Jefferson wrote to William Branch Giles of "vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76 now look to a single and splendid government of an Aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and monied in corporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry."
America was still the only real democracy and fixed ruling classes were the norm throughout the rest of the world. He saw that governments could easily be controlled by an elite. It was the main reason he was against the formation of the Federal reserve. He was not talking about British corporations or foreign influences, he was talking about what had been the establishment in America under British rule reasserting itself as a controlling establishment under direct American rule. He understood how fragile and corriptable democracy was.
 
He was not talking about British corporations or foreign influences, he was talking about what had been the establishment in America under British rule reasserting itself as a controlling establishment under direct American rule. He understood how fragile and corriptable democracy was.
Well that simply means he was afraid of the British establishment re asserting itself in America whether directly or indirectly, I agree. Obviously he had no foresight that the American corporations 150 years in the future would be the dominant ones and imperialist Britain would be finished. Your original quote was stated as if he was against the subsequent power of American corporations, I doubt that, I'm sure he would have been delighted because that meant that the fledgling American democracy was a stunning success
 
Your original quote was stated as if he was against the subsequent power of American corporations
He was against the influence of money in politics. It saw that money in power means that money is power and therefore the people would not hold the power. It had nothing to do with Britain or British corporations.
America was not founded as a capitalist State with a large Army and imperialist economic policies. Before the outbreak of the First World War America had the 16th biggest Army in the world, just behind Serbia. They always had a big Navy (and Marine Corp though). Their imperialist aspirations grew over time and probably only became fully developed around the time of the American Spanish war of 1898 when they took over Spain's colonies of Cuba, Porto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

Don't get me wrong, the issue isn't capitalism or money, the issue is undue influence within the political process which, in essence, undermines democracy.
I see no difference between financiers or businesses or Unions or Lobby Groups; any body or organisation or corporation which places itself between the politicians and the people they are elected to serve is a threat to democracy. In America they are the "Lobbyists on Capitol Hill", in Ireland they are the "Social Partners". It used to be the guys and gals in the Galway Tent but we replaced them with a different equally damaging establishment with a different but equally self serving agenda.

That's what Jefferson understood, he understood that democracy had to give everyone* an equal voice or else it wasn't democracy.

* "everyone" being white men.
 
if he was against the subsequent power of American corporations, I doubt that, I'm sure he would have been delighted because that meant that the fledgling American democracy was a stunning success

The subsequent 'power of American corporations', if it holds undue influence over American politics, which it does, points to a stunning failure of American democracy.

The distinction must be made between the influence of American innovation and science on commerce and its influence on the political system.
 
The distinction must be made between the influence of American innovation and science on commerce and its influence on the political system.
Absolutely. The overall influence of capitalism, or the ownership of capital by individuals, and the lifting of billions out of poverty is also of note.
 
You guys are disillusioning me. I always thought that America's electoral system was fair and transparent (except for the minor wrinkle of the gerrymandered electoral college). Are you saying that the MIC run the show because they have the money to brainwash the voters to their wishes?
 
You guys are disillusioning me. I always thought that America's electoral system was fair and transparent (except for the minor wrinkle of the gerrymandered electoral college). Are you saying that the MIC run the show because they have the money to brainwash the voters to their wishes?
They get to influence who is selected and they decide who gets the money to run their campaigns.
They get to influence Congress and the Senate and what bills get written and passed.

Other than that their influence is minimal.
 
Jefferson was wrong, as anyone who has watched Hamilton lately would know.
In terms of 1800s politics, I'm a Federalist. Vote John Adams.
 
Back
Top