VULT CULT: November 2017

2017-11-30

"lotteryism" and Scamazon.

Chicago has said Amazon could keep local income taxes levied on the company's employees, a total estimated at $1.32 billion, according to the Seattle publication The Stranger. New Jersey has offered a staggering $7 billion in tax breaks. Boston has offered to have city employees be privatized workers when doing work under the auspices of Jeff Bezos' empire: his own army of the underclass. Southern California is offering $100 million in free land. Fresno is offering to "place 85 percent of every tax dollar generated by Amazon into a so-called 'Amazon Community Fund.'"

What is this really?

THIS IS little more than corporate theft, in collusion with often Democratic Party-led governments. And publicly funded sports stadium scams and Olympic bidding wars laid the groundwork for it. They have normalized the idea that our tax dollars exist to fund the projects of the wealthy, with benefits trickling down in ways that only produce more thirst.

More here - https://www.thenation.com/article/sports-tax-scams-laid-groundwork-for-amazon-bidding-madness/

Interesting ... I have been wondering about this for a time.

https://caucus99percent.com/content/what-does-mat-lauers-firing-sexual-misconduct-have-do-hillary

Innocent until proven guilty - that's a given.

I don't think it's a small coincidence though. Sounds to me like the Clintons have been in charge of the Democratic Party since the 1990's, and are still in charge to this very day.

In 2000 - Al Gore had to submit likely to having Joe Lieberman has his running mate, likely by the Clintons.

In 2004, John Kerry had to adhere to party rules created by the Clintons and accept Defense Contract donations.

In 2008/2012 - Hillary was poised to become the nominee, but ran a terrible campaign and then Barack Obama came around and get everyone support. Thus an impasse was seen - Clinton controlled the nomination mechanism but lacked the support; Obama had the support but lacked nomination mechanism control. Obama was so popular and had won so many primaries, that there was no way Hillary could fix things in her favor.

I think a compromise was reached in that Clinton worked the mechanism to favor Obama, in return for two things - 1) a position as Secretary of State where she can build her own political experience further, and 2) Obama's support for her as the nominee in 2016.

So what happened in 2016? I think the Clintons learned to fix things early so that the primaries and corruption (i.e. super delegates) would favor her before anyone else declared themselves nominees. What went wrong? Well like in 2008, someone came along and was decidedly more popular and had far more support than her - namely Bernie Sanders. But because her party mechanisms were already in place - the fix was already in. We know this now.

What does that have to do this? It's revenge - nothing more.

"In his questioning at that infotainment event (one can hardly call it anything else without being deservedly mocked), Lauer was doing his job as only the host of a morning infotainment show could do when forced to interview two despicable and unlikable candidates. I assume both Clinton and Trump could have demanded someone else to handle his duties, someone with more foreign policy experience, but they did not. Instead they agreed to Lauer. And it is not like the controversy over Clinton's private email server while Secretary of State would have been considered by Clinton to be off the table, even if it obviously was not a topic she wanted to discuss. Indeed, despite the excuses Hillary and her surrogates have continued to make, the use of a private server to shield her official business while holding the highest position in our government that deals with foreign relations was fair game"