Who Big Business Wants As President

[uglypeoplefucking]

According to Opensecrets.org the following are the top 5 contributors to the Romney and Obama election campaigns, respectively:

Romney:

1) Goldman Sachs
2) JP Morgan Chase
3) Morgan Stanley
4) Credit Suisse Group (financial group headquartered in Zurich)
5) Citigroup

Obama:

1) Microsoft
2) DLA Piper (legal group specializing in technology)
3) Google
4) University of California
5) Harvard University

Interesting lists for many reasons. Make of them what you will.

[Stoic Guardian]

Ha! Old School Bankers vs. New School Technology minded Corporations.

Interesting indeed if these are accurate. I'm sure most people would favor the later as the formers built up a bad reputation over the past 200 or so years.

Then again it's a group who's negatives we're well aware of, whereas we can only speculate what faults that could come about in the future especially with an incresingly digital technology use in society.

[SIATD v2]

Where are Goldman Sachs (etc) on Obama's list? I'm sure they donate to him too.


But sure, it's Plutocrats vs Technocrats, and therefore we can only hope that a true hero like Lee Harvey Oswald (sic) is just biding his time...

[Stoic Guardian]

Communist?

[SIATD v2]

Communist?

I'm going to need more than just this one word to have any idea what it is you're asking me.

[Tab]

Interesting. The third elite.

[Stoic Guardian]

Communist?

I'm going to need more than just this one word to have any idea what it is you're asking me.

Well you called Lee Harvey Oswald a Hero, that made me think perhaps you're a communist.

[SIATD v2]

Communist?

I'm going to need more than just this one word to have any idea what it is you're asking me.

Well you called Lee Harvey Oswald a Hero, that made me think perhaps you're a communist.

1) Oswald didn't shoot JFK
2) Oswald was not a Communist
3) I wasn't being serious
4) I am not a Communist

I hope that clears things up for you.

[Stoic Guardian]

1) Oswald didn't shoot JFK

Debatable

2) Oswald was not a Communist

I heard that he was, what wa he then?

3) I wasn't being serious
4) I am not a Communist

I hope that clears things up for you.

Yep

[SIATD v2]

Debatable

Nuh uh, FACT!

I heard that he was, what wa he then?

A particularly curious sort of triple agent. Triple agents are in some ways the pinnacle of spycraft.

When he went to Russia he was what they call a 'dangled mole', a fake defector. The Soviets did this to the US, and they did it back. Same with Britain, though we got quite badly burned by all those gay bloke at Cambridge. When he came back, he was recycled as a Communist radical, presumably to infiltrate and provoke the whole post-Bay of Pigs thing. He was then recycled again as a patsy assassin. He had connections with the Pentagon, Naval Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, all of which far outweighed whatever information he gave to the Soviets.

He is in some ways just like Bin Laden, to a large extent a virtual entity. The actual men did exist, but as agents of influence it was their image, their legend, that was important. Funny how they both wound up dead, never facing trial of any kind, never being put on a public stand where at least some questions could be asked. Quite different to, for example, David Headley, who is also a triple agent. They turn up quite a lot, these guys. Not so many female triple agents. Which is a shame.

[Fixed Cross]

They turn up quite a lot, these guys. Not so many female triple agents. Which is a shame.

There you go then.
James Bond is replacing Martini with Heineken, maybe the legend is fading... what would a female triple agent order for a drink?

[SIATD v2]

It would depend entirely on her cover.

You see, this is why women make better spies, and presumably why we know far less about them. They are more socially malleable. If they have to drink Lambrini and Red Bull to maintain their cover, they will. Bond will always drink Martini (or Heineken).

[Fixed Cross]

I suppose.... If I'd see a man drinking Lambrini and Red Bull, in any setting, I'd know that he is not a spy. For women this gets complicated quickly. Her drinks are more intricately motivated, and this would get very tiresome for a spy, it would be a clustermindfuck to choose a drink... wine would be the most elegant solution.

[Gobbo]

Debatable

Meh. Not really.

[Fixed Cross]

Plutocracy vs technocracy is a good way of framing this. We can have influence in the measure in which we are technology, in as far as we benefit from the technological universe and are of benefit to it. The Plutocracy wants nothing other than to have control of its own position, and not be overruled. Whatever technology, be it intellectual, electronic, or physical, tries to challenge it, is drawn into the asymptotic curve towards its infinite sustenance. Whatever produces its own effect, draws the eyes of power to itself, and so "curves it's environment", to become more included in the cosmos of power, to attain to more "free will".

The Plutocracy has no free will, just drive. Within technology, such things as consciousness, choice, culture, meaning (love), can and do occur, and produce acts that warrant the term 'free' [(the definition not attained at by asking free from what (history, impossible) but free for what ( future, possible)].

That is why I found The Avengers, despite its flawed plot, a frighteningly real experience. These superhero films are signals of something, of the untenability of human prudence and traditional morality, now that it is obvious that reality is integral to the production of illusion.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Interesting. The third elite.

how do you mean?

[brevel_monkey]

According to Opensecrets.org the following are the top 5 contributors to the Romney and Obama election campaigns, respectively:

Romney:

1) Goldman Sachs
2) JP Morgan Chase
3) Morgan Stanley
4) Credit Suisse Group (financial group headquartered in Zurich)
5) Citigroup

Obama:

1) Microsoft
2) DLA Piper (legal group specializing in technology)
3) Google
4) University of California
5) Harvard University

Interesting lists for many reasons. Make of them what you will.

Where are Goldman Sachs (etc) on Obama's list? I'm sure they donate to him too.

After examining info on http://www.opensecrets.org , I could summarize that Goldman Sachs 'people' were big Obama supporters in 2008. They have since 'switched' to funding mainly the republican party so far, but also their total contributions are so far considerably lower than 2008 rates, which shows they probably have more to give yet. JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley people seem to follow the same pattern.

However, these figures aren't as telling as they should be, because its not the companies who are giving the money, but their employees, and their employee's families. As Romney is a businessman, its natural that he will attract large personal donors from people involved in the finance sector. There therefore might be some bias in the industry totals statistics, because not all of the money grouped under the label of 'Goldman Sachs' will actually have been donated specifically to lobby for the financial sector's interests. The two types of funders who really get influence for their buck are the bundlers, and the PACS (including the supers). Some of what is generally listed as 'donations from Goldman Sachs' etc comes from these, but some of it just comes from personal donors who've been forced to list their employer by law. Sorting out which is which and where the money/influence is coming from is tricky.

The bundlers are especially cryptic, because there is so little track kept of them. There are clear patterns, however:

Together, 532 elites are directing at least $106,400,000 for Obama's re-election efforts -- money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee..

- - - - - - - - - - - -

25 registered lobbyists have bundled a total of $3,088,151 for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Seeing as most of these bundlers are regular campaign financiers - this tells us that they feel that they have been getting whatever it is they want from Obama and the White House and feel their relationship is working. Of course, the bundlers aren't really coming through for Romney partly because they know he isn't going to get elected, and there's no point having lobbying power with someone who hasn't been elected. But if they really felt Obama wasn't listening, they wouldn't still be pumping in the cash. Put simply, the monetary influences are still strongly behind the incumbent, as they always are.

This list shows who Obama's bundlers actually are :

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundl ... =N00009638

I noticed that a fair number of Obama's bundlers are working for financial institutions of one sort or another.

As S-PACs, its Restore our Future which is the big worry, or actually - the people backing it, because that's where a handful of billionaires have managed to have a heavily disproportionate influence over results. They were probably the ones who made damned sure that Romney was the chosen candidate for the republicans. Whether these financial backers will really step into the general election remains to be seen, but personally I don't think they will spend too much on a lost cause. They've probably achieved their aim already in getting Romney to be the contestant.

So, whilst a handful of Wallstreet billionaires are backing Romney, Obama continues to receive considerable support from pretty much every sector, especially in the form of bundlers whose friends on K street undoubtedly have some sort of influence on him. And whilst people who are associated with financial institutions heavily favor Romney, money coming in from influential people or groups with specific links to K street seems to continue to flow mainly towards Obama.

[jonquil]

Either way we're 'screwn'... just less screwn with one than another.

[brevel_monkey]

Either way we're 'screwn'...

That would be the sensible interpretation of the data available.