What's the alternative?
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."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.
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.
No. The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.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.
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?No. The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.
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.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)
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 itselfThomas 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.”
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."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
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 successHe 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 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.Your original quote was stated as if he was against the subsequent power of American corporations
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
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.The distinction must be made between the influence of American innovation and science on commerce and its influence on the political system.
They get to influence who is selected and they decide who gets the money to run their campaigns.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?