Šta je novo?
Od:
Filteri

Svetska politika

Zuma je napisao(la):
Izrazito upečatljiva, jasna, i u novom ruhu ponovo aktuelna ilustracija stare Američke kolonijalne ideje "Manifest Destiny" (slika iz 1872.)

I Tramp je, od svega što je mogao, izabrao da upravo to pomene.

"Columbia, a personification of the United States, is shown leading civilization westward with the American settlers. She is shown bringing light from east to west, stringing telegraph wire, holding a school book, and highlighting different stages of economic activity and evolving forms of transportation. On the left, Indigenous Americans are displaced from their ancestral homeland."

American_Progress_%28John_Gast_painting%29.jpg
Kliknite za proširenje...
Ta slika je sustina Amerike i njihovog nacina razmisljanja.
Neki Amerikanci koje znam su sada presrecni.
Tramp je njima nesto kao Slobodan Milosevic Srbima 1987.
 
Ovo je taj, "Manifest Destiny", takođe prilično upečatljiv trenutak iz njegovog programskog govora:

 
Trampovanje, zaludnima radovanje. :D Pa da pustim i ja nešto, evo od ovog dase čija razmišljanja generalno cenim.

 
Usput, idiom money talks je zapravo definicija "američke političke kulture":

While the role of money in American politics has always been an abject scandal — robber barons like Rockefeller and Carnegie easily ran state governments, and the Constitution was largely written to institutionalize the power of big business and private property — what’s happening now, while an extension of this legacy, is reaching ugly new heights of brazen rule by wealth, with famous billionaires personally promising to strip away popular and essential social programs.

The rising tide of cash swamping U.S. elections has swollen since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which deemed campaign donations a form of speech and removed all political giving limits on corporations and the rich. Indeed, the 2024 campaign was a wall-to-wall billionaires’ election, with Forbes magazine estimating that more than 100 billionaires publicly supported Harris or Trump.
The Billionaires’ Election
 
Poslednja izmena:
Duleja je napisao(la):
Stigle su d'onde dokle su ih domoroci pustili, tada i danas. Budućnost će pokazati mogu li više, dalje, dublje. Te sile, mislim.

Pogledajte prilog 226747
Pogledajte prilog 226748
An American infantry camp in Siberia, Russia, December 1918
Kliknite za proširenje...
Мислио сам на испрекидану линију, отприлике границу Русије са западним суседима (Балтичке ССР, Белорусија, Украјина) докле су стигле армије Немачке и Аустроугарске.
 
Ne treba sè cuditi. Fasizam je integralni deo kapialisticke ekspanzije. Ocekivano. Malo he neobicno da se milijarderi koji upravljaju vise ne kriju. Plebsu je to sada sasvim ok.
 
U vezi teksta The Billionaires’ Election, uvek sam se pitao zašto se više ne govori o uticaju novca na izbore, jer je u pitanju bukvalno "slon u staklarskoj radnji", dakle nešto bolno očigledno i ogromno, što temeljno ruši ceo sistem. Naime u političkoj teoriji čitav legitimimitet vlasti počiva na pravednim izborima, a oni počivaju da principu "jedan čovek - jedan glas". Dakle svi moraju JEDNAKO da utiču na rezultate glasanja. Ceo princip se iz temelja ruši ako jedni imaju više uticaja na izbor vlasti od drugih. Kad je Američki ustavni sud doneo tu čuvenu odluku "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", koja je odlučila da su novčane donacije političarima tobože vrsta "slobode govora" (ali tesnom većinom od 5:4), čitav sistem demokratije u Americi je i formalno srušen. Tačno je da donacije nisu glasovi koji se direktno broje na izborima, ali u tehnološkom svetu današnjice od novca presudno zavisi do koliko će ljudi dopreti poruke pojedinih političara, a od toga zavise njihovi glasovi na izborima. Pa efektivno ispada da veoma mali broj ljudi kroz donacije indirektno kotroliše veoma veliki broj glasova koji se na izborima broje, za razliku od novca. Da li je taj uticaj direktan ili indirektan, zaista nije važno, ako je to uticaj, i ako je on toliko jak kao što jeste.

Tako da ispada sasvim očigledno da činjenica da izbori presudno zavise od para koje bogati daju svojim izabranicima čitavu logiku takve "demokratije" pretvara u farsu. I niko od uticajnijih glasila u Americi, pa ni na čitavom zapadu, o tome NE SME da priča. Što nažalost ovaj put JESTE logično jer isti ti bogataši poseduju i sve te medije.

Jedno istraživanje tog uticaja. Visoki stepen povezanosti je sasvim očigledan.

Uticaj procenta potrosenih para na uspeh kandidata na izborima.png


Figure 1 Relationship between the proportions of total spending and total vote share, legislative elections in France, 1993-2012

It shows that, for French legislative (Figure 1) elections, there is a strong correlation between a candidate’s percentage of the first-round vote and her share of total election spending in the electoral district (each point represents a candidate). In general, the greater the amount by which a candidate outspends other candidates, the higher that candidate's share of the first-round vote.

How money can turn electoral results upside down

There is growing concern that money has corrupted politics. This column uses data from French elections since 1993 to show that an increase in spending per voter has consistently increased a candidate’s vote share. Caps on spending may increase this impact, as marginal effects are large. The...
cepr.org cepr.org
 
Poslednja izmena:
Zuma je napisao(la):
Tako da ispada sasvim očigledno da činjenica da izbori presudno zavise od para koje bogati daju svojim izabranicima čitavu logiku takve "demokratije" pretvara u farsu. I niko od uticajnijih glasila u Americi, pa ni na čitavom zapadu, o tome NE SME da priča. Što nažalost ovaj put JESTE logično jer isti ti bogataši poseduju i sve te medije.
Kliknite za proširenje...

Pogrešno ti to razumeš. Amerikanci su samo u zakon uveli pojavu koja je inherentna kapitalizmu. Novac uvek i svuda utiče na izbore. Evropljani su licemeri jer se prave blesavi i kod njih to ide nelegalnim tokovima. U Americi se broji svaki cent gde je otišao i to funkcioniše transparentno.
 
sutraw je napisao(la):
Pogrešno ti to razumeš. Amerikanci su samo u zakon uveli pojavu koja je inherentna kapitalizmu. Novac uvek i svuda utiče na izbore. Evropljani su licemeri jer se prave blesavi i kod njih to ide nelegalnim tokovima. U Americi se broji svaki cent gde je otišao i to funkcioniše transparentno.
Kliknite za proširenje...
Kolega, dopusti mogućnost da grešiš, što se tiče transparentnosti. Ovde se može detaljnije proučiti kako stvari (ne)funkcionišu u SAD.
More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United
  • Despite fears that elections would be dominated by corporations, the biggest political players are actually wealthy individual donors. The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade. That tiny group of major donors accounted for 7 percent of total election-related giving in 2018, up from less than 1 percent a decade prior.
  • The balance of political power shifted from political parties to outside groups that can spend unlimited sums to bolster their preferred candidates. Election-related spending from non-party independent groups ballooned to $4.5 billion over the decade. It totaled just $750 million over the two decades prior.
  • Even political candidates found themselves dwarfed by independent groups that in many cases morphed into effective arms of political campaigns and parties. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling. That happened just 15 times in the five election cycles prior.
  • Despite promises from the court that monied interests would be required to reveal their political giving, the ruling gave new powers to dark money organizations. Groups that don't disclose their donors flooded elections with $963 million in outside spending, compared to a paltry $129 million over the previous decade.
  • Major corporations didn't take full advantage of their new political powers. Corporations accounted for no more than one-tenth of independent groups' fundraising in each election cycle since the ruling. But secretly funded nonprofits and trade associations that influence elections take money from major companies in amounts that are mostly unknown.
  • The ruling didn't reverse the ban on foreign money in elections, but it provided opportunities for foreign actors to secretly funnel money to elections through nonprofits and shell companies.
 
Morate se prijaviti ili registrovati da odgovorite ovde.
Vrh