US POLITICS SPECIAL REPORT HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS IN US
INTRODUCTION
Hugo Adan. Jan 20-2016
Lo mas horrendo del sistema político americano es la
compra de elecciones. Eso es un crimen imperdonable contra la democracia. No está
legislado así en América, pero lo está en varios países de Europa y en la
India. La compra del voto (financiación
privada del candidato) es además un atentado contra los fundamentos de nuestra
democracia –tal como lo formulo R.Dahl, su mentor político- lo que puede
ser resumido en tres principios:
A1- Candidatos: La competencia entre candidatos se basa en el
principio de igualdad política. Todo candidato tiene derecho a formar o subscribir
un Pdo y a formular su opción de Gbno públicamente. El sistema bi-partidario viola ese principio
por ser un sistema privatizado donde se obliga al elector a votar por el mal menor entre dos partidos que
por igual son financiados por empresas privadas. Proponemos en su reemplazo el sistema de 3 mayorias al poder. El sistema bipartidario es una trampa diseñada por quienes invierten en el negocio electoral; es expresión
político-economica de la dictadura de los adinerados contra toda la nación. La democracia es asunto
de interés público y no debiera permitirse que intereses privados lo controlen
y distorsionen. Es el Gbno central quien debe financiar elecciones y debates
electorales (la TV del Estado debe ser puesta a este servicio). El bipartidismo
es además una dinámica que se presta a chantajes y otras bribonadas de
candidatos clandestinamente financiados por Corp
mafiosas del pais (los super-packs, detrás de los cuales están agentes del Wall
Street y nadie sabe si los billonarios Saudis y similares). Del GOP se excluyó
a Rand Paul de los debates públicos del Pdo por que no disponía de la cantidad
de dinero exigida para financiar el evento. Fue en realidad por eso que se le
impidió formular su propuesta de
gobierno. En el Pdo demócrata hubo también intentos de excluir a Bernie
Sanders, lo que no prospero. Con gallo viejo no funcionan las trampas de
polluelos.
A2-Votantes. Los votantes deben formar opinión política a partir
del principio Libertad de prensa. La prensa debe garantizar al ciudadano información
veraz y verificable de forma que este forme opinión correcta y balanceada. Correcta en el sentido que aprecie las diferencias de solución
propuestas por los Pdos a los diferentes problemas sociales, económicos y políticos
que aquejan a la nación, la región o un pueblo en particular. Balanceada en el sentido
de que tanto la propuesta estratégica (los fines) y táctica (los medios) sean
coherentes y sirvan a los intereses del votante. La libertad de prensa debe
garantizar este tipo de información, mas allá de los intereses particulares de los dueños
de la prensa. Este tipo de prensa es casi imposible si la prensa electoral está en
manos privadas. El gobierno central y los
Gbnos de Estado son quienes deben financiar y facilitar el debate electoral a
partir de comités que incluyan a todos los Partidos con el número suficiente de
adherentes. Las encuestadoras de opinión
deberán ser también imparciales en la selección de la muestra y en técnicas de recolección
de data. Toda innovacion tecnica que facilite veraz informacion alternativa debe ser puesta al alcance de
todos los ciudadanos.
A-3 Voto y sistema de representación. Free and fair eleccion significa 1ro que
ningún ciudadano debe ser prohibido de afiliarse a una org político-electoral,
ni prohibido de expresar su opinión política en forma pública y menos aún ser excluido del derecho al voto . 2do, que tampoco se puede obligar a nadie a participar en
eventos electorales ni a votar, si no lo desea. 3ro, en el
nuevo sistema electoral el voto es más por Pdo que por personas. La persona o
candidato es solo viabilizador de una preferencia partidaria. Si delinque una
persona electa de la 1ra mayoría, su Pdo pierde una silla, esta pasa a uno de
la 2da mayoría. Lo mismo si delinque una de la 2da mayoría, su silla pasa a uno
de la 3ra. La votación deberá ser en dia feriado, de forma que nadie –por
razones de trabajo- sea impedido de votar. 4to.Las encuestas de opinión deben ser reguladas y
prohibidas las encuestas a boca de jarro por viabilizar fraude y anti-democracia.
Nadie sino el comité electoral debe emitir resultados una vez terminado el
conteo total de votos. 5to, Todo fraude electoral deberá ser penado con
cárcel. El conteo electrónico de votos debe ser bien chequeado y controlado
tambien. Se deberá respetar el principio one person- one vote: el doble voto es
delito de fraude. 6to. La representación de los Pdos en el nuevo gobierno deberá ser
proporcional al número de votos obtenidos. La propocionalidad tripartita: 3 mayorias al poder, es mucho mas
funcional y democrática que el sistema bi-partidario. El que ingresen al nuevo Gbno
los candidatos mas votados de los 3 primeros partidos, mas un 10% en
representación de las minorías, garantiza representacion no oligarquica de la nación. Si muere un
funcionario electo, es reemplazado por otro del mismo partido, y si es cuestionado por corrupción u otro
delito, es reemplazado por uno de la 2da mayoría o se procede al voto entre
candidatos de la 2da y 3ra mayoria. Este
sistema de tras mayorias al poder puede ayudar a corregir muchos defectos de la anti-democracia del bipartidismo. Ademas, la financiacion, fiscalizacion y servicio de la TV Estatal para los debates electorales ayudaria a eliminar la compra de las elecciones.
----
----
1-
MONEY, LOYALTY TO ESTABLISHMENT
WIN ELECTIONS IN US: Analyst
“This year, the slate of candidates
hoping to win the 2016 presidential are predicted to spend between 5 and 10
billion dollars to buy the election outcome,” Barry Grossman says.
An intentional lawyer and political analyst says in order
to win elections in the United States candidates must compete for money by
proving their loyalty to Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and
Israel.
Barry Grossman, who is based on the Indonesian island of
Bali, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Thursday while
commenting on a report which says American investment bank Goldman Sachs is on track to be one
of biggest contributors in the US presidential race again this year, with
$794,609 chipped in so far.
“Two things win elections in the
United States – 1. money and 2. a track record of commitment to supporting the
establishment’s policy agenda which, in the US, means pledging unqualified
support for Israel, for Wall Street and for what loosely has come to be
known as the ‘military-industrial complex,’” Grossman said.
“To understand the political
climate that exists currently, it is necessary to remember the groundwork laid
by the US Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United decision,” he stated.
“In an obscene display of bad
judgment, obtuse logic, and judicial activism, the decision formally
extended to corporations, the same personal liberties which Americans once
fought and died to win for individuals, and thereby permanently contaminated
the already septic tank through which the massive sums of money spent on
elections and the legislative process flow. The court’s characterization of
corporate campaign contributions as an exercise of their right to free speech
essentially spelled the death knell to what was left of America’s commitment to
representative democracy,” he added.
Candidates to spend $5 to 10 billion
Grossman said that “the slate of candidates hoping to win
the 2016 presidential are predicted to spend between 5 and 10 billion dollars
to buy the election outcome. While Bernie Sanders is setting records raising small
contributions from ordinary Americans, Clinton has assembled a massive
corporate funded war chest and is
most certainly still the darling of both the corporate sector and the
public policy making apparatus funded by it, even if her contrived campaign
theme is intended to appeal to America’s progressive grass roots. For his part,
Trump smugly
says that he is self funding although, like most of his claims, that too is
less than honest and certainly not entirely true.”
“Goldman Sachs has certainly long been one of
the top ten player in campaign funding and is an easy target for criticism.
But focusing too much on that parasitic enterprise misses the point in that it
is but one of many corporate players which tend to cultivate political
influence by covering the field of candidates in all elections with its
financial largess,” he noted.
“For example, during the 2014 Congressional elections,
Goldman Sachs dished out an average of more than $5,000 to each of 219
candidates for the House of Representatives and more than $11,000 to each of 56
candidates for the Senate. Obviously presidential candidates receive
far more. Moreover, the money spent on campaign contributions is only a down
payment on the purchase price of loyalty and does not include the vast sums of
money spent on lobbying,” he pointed out.
“This kind of money means that when
someone decides to telephone any politician on behalf of Goldman Sachs, or for
that matter, on behalf of Microsoft, Google, the Koch brothers controlled
Wal-Mart, or at Sheldon Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands, furniture is knocked over in
the rush to take the call,” he said.
Candidates are just contrived products
now
“It’s not rocket science really,”
Grossman said. “Political
candidates are a now just contrived products which – like mops sold through TV
shopping channels – are sold into American homes through advertising which
costs a lot of money. That money is
readily dished up to candidates who embrace the right policies and to their
parties by America’s corporations and robber barons.”
“The ‘right’ policies, in turn, are carefully
prepared and served up in the kitchens of corporate funded Think Tanks where
under paid academics, lobbyists, analysts, journalists, corporate insiders, and
former politicians are all happy to bend over in order to supplement their
income,” the commentator stated.
“The vast sums paid out by the
corporate sector in direct campaign contributions hardly begins to fill the
vast trough of pig slop made available by America’s owners to buy the machinery
of government and the democratic process itself. Practical impediments to
corporate campaign funding that arise from reporting requirements and corporate concerns
over public opinion have also been circumvented by creating a relatively new
monster – the Super PAC – which is in effect an artificial entity used to
aggregate individual and corporate contributions for dispersal to selected parties,
organizations and political candidates,” he
stated.
“All these campaign contributions,
along with vast sums spent on lobbying, still more money available via a
‘revolving door’ that promises high paying corporate sector sinecures to
compliant legislators, and corporate sector funding of the Think Tanks which
dominate America’s policy making process, should leave ordinary voters in no
doubt that the notion of a government by the people and for the people has long
been nothing more than a charade,” Grossman concluded.
----
----
THE GOP TALKS: THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY
2-
Trump will win GOP nomination
because system is unfair: Ron Paul
Former US congressman Ron Paul
says it is "realistic" that Donald Trump will be the Republican
Party’s nominee for president, because the US election system is not fair.
“If I had a limited sum of money
that I thought was a sure bet, I probably wouldn’t invest a whole lot,"
the father of Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul said in an interview
on Wednesday.
"All
this talk for this last year and a half -- there hasn't even been a vote cast
yet, it's all been done by polling," which Paul said is "generally
rigged."
"They pick people, they
boost them up. It's entertainment," the
former Republican presidential candidate noted. "And
Trump really fit into that quite well."
Last week, seven Republican presidential candidates
participated in a debate hosted by Fox Business Network in North Charleston,
South Carolina. Senator Rand Paul was excluded from the
main event, but was included in the GOP undercard debate, which he
boycotted.
In response, Rand Paul said that
he deserved a spot on the main stage, and that without him the party has
been deprived of a unique perspective.
Commenting on the exclusion of
his son from the GOP debate, Paul said that the system is not fair.
Talking about his Rand's chance
at the presidency, Paul said, “I think he may well
surprise everybody,” adding that "he has good organization and
caucus states are different."
New York billionaire Trump is maintaining his national
lead over the crowded GOP field in the race for the party's nomination,
according to a new poll. The Monmouth University national survey, released on
Wednesday, found that Trump is leading the race with 36 percent national
support.
Trailing behind Trump was Texas Senator Ted Cruz who
stood at a distant second with 17 percent, marking a 3-point gain since the
last poll. Florida Senator Marco Rubio ranked in the third with 11 percent
support, followed by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida
Governor Jeb Bush at 8 and 5 percent support respectively.
The rest of the candidates, including Rand Paul, failed
to score more than three percent support in the poll.
-----
RELATED:
The ultra-conservative Sara Palin endorses Donald Trump
ahead of Iowa caucuses
----
----
----
---
---
====
3-
Critique to Sanders
US Empire will pick ‘socialist’
Sanders to sell its wars: Analyst
EXTRACT:
“Now the powers that be may have to
take a hit, like a modest increase in minimum wage, some sort of readjusting of
the social safety net for Americans in order to keep their game going, and
Sanders can do that. He is the only one talking about Americans’ real pain
without challenging the wars, which he doesn’t,” Welch stated.
“Americans don’t care, they don’t
give a damn about the bodies. It’s so sad, but it’s true. All they want
is a bigger cut of the profit, from Empire and from wars. And it’s a very small
price for the warmongers to pay. If they’re going to make trillions, they can
spend a few hundred billion on keeping Americans from massive social unrest.
And the stage is set for some sort of shift in how the pie is distributed,” he
pointed out.
“Again, it’s sad thing to say but
Americans do not care about the victims of their wars. They do care that they
are working more and making less, and are tired and hungry and angry. And
that’s what motivates this circus we call voting in the United States,” the
analyst concluded.
….
RELATED: 1
Sanders at Democratic debate: US
needs 'political revolution'
..
RELATED 2: Sanders
takes on ‘too big to fail’ banks
Dem candidate Sanders wants
fundamental changes in Wall Street
===
4-
ON FOREIGN POLITICS
---
US Republicans, Democrats need
Israel lobby to get elected: Analyst
Video: interview to Edward
Corrigan
The United States provides Israel with “staggering”
amount of military and economic assistance because politicians from both
dominant political parties are tied to the Israel lobby and need its support to
get elected, says an international lawyer.
“The amount of aid that Israel
gets from the United States is extraordinary. It is possibly as much as $10
billion a year,” Edward Corrigan told Press TV on Wednesday.
“Officially, it’s $3.6 billion,
but there’s much more than that, that comes from other channels,” he continued.
A high-level American delegation is expected to visit
Israel next week to work out the final details of a new 10-year military aid
package. The delegation, composed of members of US National Security Council,
will hold meetings with Israeli security and military staff, Israeli media
reported Tuesday.
On top of the agenda is the technical details of an
approximately $41 billion 10-year military package, the Haaretz newspaper
reported, citing a source involved in the talks.
Washington is currently providing Tel Aviv with $3.1
billion in military assistance annually and the new deal would likely increase
that amount to $4.1 billion. Israeli officials have urged Washington to
increase the aid to $5 billion.
The current aid is separate from the nearly $500 million
in annual US funding for Israel’s missile system programs in recent years. It
is also on top of the US military equipment held in Israel, which is valued at
$1.2 billion.
Corrigan said that “Israel
doesn’t need this aid” as it faces no “existential threat.”
“The issue is that the
Republican Party is very pro-Israel and so is the Democratic Party because they
are very much tied to the pro-Israel lobby… and the money that comes from
pro-Israel groups,” he noted.
“Most of the elected politicians
are in fact dependent upon money donated by pro-Israel groups and that
means that the Congress and the Senate are very strong supporters of Israel,”
the analyst said.
As to why Israeli officials are
demanding an even larger military aid package, Corrigan said that “they want to
be by far the strongest and dominant military power in the area so they can do
what they want.”
He called it “ironic” that Israel continues to enjoy
the unequivocal backing of Washington while it tries to “manipulate”
American foreign policy in the Middle East.
---
Photo: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
addresses a joint meeting of the United States Congress in the House chamber on
March 3, 2015, warning the American lawmakers of the danger of a nuclear
agreement with Iran. (AFP photo)
---
RELATED
----
----
Israel controls US politicians,
media: Journalist
The Jewish-Zionist control of the
US media makes it possible for American voters to “vote for the candidate that
is most loyal, not to the United States, but to Israel,” said David
Christie. .. “It’s not a surprise that Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton was desperately searching for
some way, to deal with the racist-supremacist, warmongering psychopaths running
Israel,” Christie told Press TV.
----
===
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario