Ron Paul fingers Obama as the 'corporate elite' candidate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

financeguy

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
10,122
Location
Ireland
Alex Jones' Prison Planet: The truth will set you free!

Speaking on the stage management of the election, and calling it a “huge distraction” from real issues, the Congressman outlined how both candidates were pre-positioned by the elite interests with the knowledge that either would satisfactorily serve their agenda:

“I think McCain was obviously a back up candidate in case something happened where Obama didn’t win, they’d have been satisfied with McCain, but they have been positioning Obama for a long long time.”

“This started even before he announced he was running. Anybody who would have gotten that much favorable coverage for so long, you know that the plans are laid for him to be the individual that’s going to be taking care of the corporate elite.” the Congressman continued.

Paul also warned that Democrats gains within the House and the Senate make for a particularly worrying situation of absolute power, similar to that held by the Republican party eight years ago.

“Just as a Republican Congress wouldn’t say boo to a Republican Congress, you know that the Democratic Congress is NEVER going to stand up.”

“I think it is very dangerous and the first year is going to be the most dangerous year.” Paul stated. “Just think of Bush’s first year, he also had the 9/11 thing that he could use to scare everybody to death. And Obama will use the financial crisis, which will get worse, and there will be more military skirmishes around the world.” Paul asserted.
 
Right. The next thing Paul is going to tell me is that the Illuminati and the Priory of Sion are involved too. Those who evoke the "New World Order" are about as unstable as those who thought global civilization was going to collapse, because computer clocks just wouldn't handle going from 99 to 00/100, instead of 2000.

I respect that Paul has a sharp ideological opposition to how the financial crisis has been handled, but he just sounds like an unhinged conspiracy nut when he talks like this.
 
So basically, it doesn't matter who we vote for, there's no hope. Except for Ron Paul, of course.

He was enough of a party man to make an effort at running for the Republican nomination. He would have been, in theory, prepared to be the nominee for the party of torture, Bush, Tom De Lay and the permanent majority (even if, as seems likely, he disagreed with these aspects of the party).

Forgive me if I am not wholly sold. Without even needing to mention Obama.
 
Explain to me how a guy from nowhere gets elected US President without at least the tacit support of the corporate elite, because I don't see how it's possible. Look at the massive amounts of money he raised, where was that coming from? Jesse DuBois from Louisiana? Leroy Brown from the Bronx? I don't think so.

He has a Harvard degree, granted, but so do a lot of people.

But, if you guys prefer, I can present similar articles from a leftist perspective, arguing pretty much as Paul does, and I bet you won't call them unhinged conspiracy nuts.
 
I respect that Paul has a sharp ideological opposition to how the financial crisis has been handled, but he just sounds like an unhinged conspiracy nut when he talks like this.

I'm glad you acknowledge this, and he also deals with this matter in the interview:

“We have to look for sources of optimism… ultimately though all that happens to us is a result of philosophy and beliefs and convictions and that is where I think we have made some inroads. We have drawn attention to the importance of monetary policy, the importance of the central bank, the importance of how government causes so much problems, it’s just that we’re in the minority.” Paul said.
 
perhaps of interest:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Obama:
University of California $909,283
Goldman Sachs $874,207
Harvard University $717,230
Microsoft Corp $714,108
Google Inc $701,099
JPMorgan Chase & Co $581,460
Citigroup Inc $581,216
National Amusements Inc $543,859
Time Warner $508,148
Sidley Austin LLP $492,445
Stanford University $481,199
Skadden, Arps et al $473,424
Wilmerhale Llp $466,679
UBS AG $454,795
Latham & Watkins $426,924
Columbia University $426,516
Morgan Stanley $425,102
IBM Corp $415,196
University of Chicago $414,555
US Government $400,819

McCain:
Merrill Lynch $359,070
Citigroup Inc $296,151
Morgan Stanley $262,777
Goldman Sachs $228,695
JPMorgan Chase & Co $215,042
US Government $195,505
AT&T Inc $185,063
Credit Suisse Group $178,053
PricewaterhouseCoopers $166,470
Blank Rome LLP $161,826
Wachovia Corp $159,107
US Army $158,170
UBS AG $147,465
Bank of America $143,026
Greenberg Traurig LLP $142,137
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $141,446
US Dept of Defense $129,725
FedEx Corp $125,654
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $113,050
opensecrets.org

it's somewhat interesting that 5 of obama's top donor groups were from higher ed institutions. none of mccain's were.

to address the op - i don't think it's any secret that the u.s. electoral system reproduces the status quo.
 
Half of Obama's donations were below $200 with more than 3.5 million individual donors, according to Der Spiegel.
 
I don't mind politicians accepting money from corporations - it's what they give back to the corporations that bothers me.

One thing that is interesting: Several companies gave to both candidates - but look at how much more they gave to Obama - Goldman Sachs 3x more to Obama, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan more than twice as much to Obama. I wonder what that's all about.
 
One thing that is interesting: Several companies gave to both candidates - but look at how much more they gave to Obama - Goldman Sachs 3x more to Obama, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan more than twice as much to Obama. I wonder what that's all about.

Aha. You are asking the right questions.
 
One thing that is interesting: Several companies gave to both candidates - but look at how much more they gave to Obama - Goldman Sachs 3x more to Obama, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan more than twice as much to Obama. I wonder what that's all about.

there is no way to tell from those numbers was proportion of the donations came from the PACs (which employees donate to voluntarily) or from INDIVIDUAL donors themselves.
 
Oh, I see. I didn't know it worked like that. And that kinda doesn't make sense to donate that way.....why give $20 to my boss to give to Obama instead of just giving it to Obama? Why do companies even have such things? I don't like that.
 
Oh, I see. I didn't know it worked like that. And that kinda doesn't make sense to donate that way.....why give $20 to my boss to give to Obama instead of just giving it to Obama? Why do companies even have such things? I don't like that.

a very small amount of my very small paycheck goes to a PAC that uses the money to further the political goals of the parent organization, which i support. i imagine employees give money to their company PACs for similar reasons.
 
The message often seems to get lost on the (lack of) credibility of the messenger.

Is it really news that the powers that be exert significant influence on the choice of candidates and the outcome of elections? Hardly.

As always, the president-elect owes a big debt to those who got him elected - which seems to be a balancing act between special interest money and voters.

For decades, middle class voter apathy has typically allowed special interest to win government and legislative support.

The tide has most definitely turned so it will be interesting to watch Obama in action.

When political parties switch, nothing really changes - when the middle class is mobilized with a momentum to change - we get what we want.

What we want is pretty simple - security and a comfortable lifestyle. How we go about getting that in the current climate will put our deepest values and beliefs to the test. Individually and collectively.
 
The political system is bigger than single candidates, entrenched self-interested groups enable particular types of politicians to succeed, a form of non-random selection.
 
Back
Top Bottom