Secretive Millionaires Funding Online Primary For 'Independent' White House Run

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   


The basic pitch of Americans Elect goes like this: We’ll go through the expensive and time-consuming process of getting ballot access in all 50 states. Then we’ll hold an online convention in June in which any registered voter can participate. Participants will nominate a presidential ticket including one Democrat and one Republican who will then enter the general election fray.

Here’s what the group is not so upfront about: It’s fueled by millions of dollars of secret money, there is a group of wealthy, well-connected board members who have control over Americans Elect’s nominating process, and the group has myriad links to Wall Street.

-Snip-

Jon Huntsman bundler Lynn Forester de Rothschild hailed the group for offering a “revolutionary new way to nominate a bipartisan ticket to occupy the White House.” Rothschild is also on the group’s board.

Link

So this is an interesting if not disturbing turn of events. The Rothschild angle is certainly a red flag for any conspiracy theorist but the most eye catching aspect of this story is the fact that they already have 22 million in campaign funding with no known candidate.

I have expressed for a long time that politicians run their campaigns off of back scene corporate promise and ideological rhetoric for the masses...this is nothing different save for two important facts.

1 - There is no known candidate; the idealism is running the first part of their campaign.

2 - The group is listed as a social welfare group which exempts it from having to disclose the identities of their contributors.

The second is a duzy, as the article goes on to say, because there is no way to vette the motivations for their contributions and no way to vette their political aspirations should they achieve any form of success in the election process.

Perusing the site, Americans Elect.org shows a very idealistic format with the possibility to select any constitutionally eligible citizen as a candidate but that somehow rings a bit fallse to me and in a format without transparency, the possibility for manipulation is just as ever present if not more so than in the regular venues.

While it seems likely that public habituation will make this endeavour mostly irrelevant for the 2012 election, it is notable to watch in my opinion...precisely because it is already well funded.

What do you guys think...am I over reacting or is this something worthy of concern?




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Bump, star + flag.

Why do people with money spend it? To benefit themselves somehow.

Like on Charlie Wilson's war: CW- "You spent $100 million on this war. You can't spend $1 million to build a school? reply: "Nobody give's a 5#!+ about a school in Afghanistan"

The worst part is, they're appealing to the trendy, "progressive", hipster types with statements like this:


“What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in,” wrote Thomas Friedman in July.


Progressive Rothchilds? Yep, progressive control over the planet...

It's this demographic that has made Apple $100 Billion. They generally see themselves as informed, and the norms they establish quickly become the "politically correct" norms throughout the country. And they have a serious case of herd mentality.

A perfect example of an "informed" NPR hipster from last week:
I was talking to the young lady about politics when she mentioned she generally supports Izreel (intentional misspelling for various reasons) on most issues, which had me showing her on her iPhone just some of the gruesome and inhumane acts perpetrated by their govt. on the native populace (see here:The real Kony , And here). She had no idea about many of these cruelties, but then responded by "but look how Muslims treat their women", to which I informed her there were many Christian Pali's of all denominations and even a secret religion called Druze, many of whom also were hijabs or veils of some type.
She commented that the people were backward, and needed to modernize their society and culture, and we agreed to dis-agree. As she walked to her car guess what she had for a bumper sticker? FREE TIBET!
I could have died laughing!!!!

-In case you wondered why, Tibet is a veeeery "old fashioned" country with a rich and deep religious heritage whose true supreme leader is also the spiritual leader (one of her arguments was religious fundamentalism), who also happens to be colonized by an advanced, militaristic nuclear armed country. The situation is so bad in both places that people have taken to public suicide, though in Tibet it's not bombings intended to strike others it's self immolation by lighting oneself on fire (it's a cultural difference) as a form of protest (see here). The parallels are obvious.

By appealing to this crowd, who genuinely want reform and typically support things like occupy, they are siphoning off some of the anger and using that energy to further consolidate their power over the masses, while letting some of the steam out of genuine progressive movements by having it appear the candidate is "crowd sourced".

These are the same people who put the Pres. in office "hoping" for real change, and they'll be just as easily led this time around too.
edit on 4-4-2012 by twtankhamwn because: added link





new topics
 
3

log in

join