Counter-Currents
In American elections, candidates who outspend their opponents tend to win. Some question whether correlation is the same as causation because donors may want to bet on the stronger horse to ensure access after the election. But when the top spending Congressional candidate usually wins 90% of the time or more, its hard to explain this away as anything other than primarily causation.
Subscribe here to keep reading
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
5 comments
Excellent article. Aside from campaign contributions a new phenomenon is emerging. Have a look at a startup called State Affairs. They are trying to choke of attempts at state level sovereignty by using popular Substackers as statehouse court stenographers to sway and influence politicians. David Robois is behind this.
You are on to something. It is already post-America and Americans are scrambling to dig in and go into redoubts where we can have sovereignty and preserve our people and way of life. The Left knows this and Springfield and others were about bringing settler colonialists to nip this in the bud. This is an attack at the bottom. State Affairs has the appearance to be a new attack vector from the top that brings propaganda and idea influence peddling along with money based influence peddling.
(translation error: “maximalism” -> marxism, of course)
Altogether, Zsutty makes a solid argument for Fascism.
But what to do with the K Street Lobbyists and Zionists who get to run the show now?
Bernie and Pocahontas are puppets for Big Pharma. Not to mention the War Hawk party in bed with war industry. It goes on and on.
But what to do with the K Street Lobbyists and Zionists who get to run the show now? Severe punishments. They and their criminal liege only understand militant application of ruthless force outside the bureaucant labyrinth. Their procedural ‘rules for thee, not for me’ and twisted routine methodology that somehow always enriches their guilty worst and always ruins our innocent best must be destroyed far more absolutely than their ‘denazification’ & ‘anti-racism’ roo court shams.
I say we go one step further and ban corporate contributions. If a compromise had to be made, this could be just for the House of Representatives since it was intended to be the populist chamber. Arguments about corporate personhood are invalid – if a corporation is not allowed to vote, then it shouldn’t be allowed to influence elections.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.