SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Democracy Now! reports via AlterNet
Ken Salazar is a former U.S. Senator from Colorado who now works at WilmerHale, one of the most influential lobbying firms in Washington. Some groups have criticized Salazar's selection due to his vocal support of fracking, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Keystone XL pipeline.
In addition to Ken Salazar, other leaders of the transition team include former Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and Maggie Williams, the director of Harvard's Institute of Politics.
[...] WilmerHale [represents] corporate clients across the board--Cigna, for instance. Cigna is a healthcare giant that is fighting for a merger with Anthem. WilmerHale represents them, Delta Airlines, Verizon, investment firms, a mining company. So, WilmerHale is a major law and lobbying firm.
Ken Salazar is not a registered lobbyist at WilmerHale; he is a partner there. Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton had published a year ago an op-ed deriding the revolving door where lawmakers leave office and become lobbyists or help special interests. And she had specifically said that she was concerned about lawmakers who go into that line of work, public policy work, for corporate clients, but do not register as a lobbyist, which seems to fit the description of Ken Salazar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @04:58AM
The year was 1853. [wikipedia.org]
Democrat Franklin Pierce becomes President and Millard Fillmore becomes the last Whig to have occupied the White House.
(It had been a D or a W since 1841.)
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican President.
Less than 5 years later, slavery in the USA was ended and we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
Don't tell people their votes don't count.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @06:30AM
15 years later, the country celebrated its centennial anniversary. 155 years later, and we still have had nothing but D's and R's in the White House. In the meantime, a central bank has been put into place, sovereignty has eroded, and private interests have more power than ever when it comes to ensuring that their gravy train continues to run on schedule. We have no formal nobility, but in practice, it may as well have been reinstated.
Your vote matters. Unfortunately, the vast majority still refuse to acknowledge just how much more powerful their vote would be if they weren't so paralyzed by the fear of wasting it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19 2016, @04:31PM
Your vote would matter in a plebiscite, or referendum. But when your only choices are representatives Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, not so much. And don't tell me I should vote third party. Unless a party is a real contender to win, you are just throwing your vote away. Third parties will have to do the hard, drawn out work of becoming relevant at the local level first so they can build a strong party. Until that has been accomplished, their running in national elections is just a fantasy catering to their egos and escapism for those who vote for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @12:52AM
Unless a party is a real contender to win, you are just throwing your vote away.
So first you say that your vote would matter if our system weren't garbage, but then you say that voting third party is throwing your vote away. How can you waste something that doesn't matter?
Also. how can you decide for others whether or not they're throwing their votes away? They decide whether or not their vote was wasted, not you. If you feel your vote is better used to promote evil, that's your choice; I won't follow your example - I'll vote third party, and no, it won't be a waste of my vote.
Finally, you're short-sighted, because you have not realized that third parties don't have to win to make a difference. The perception of the spoiler effect, if it is large enough, has the potential to scare the main parties (and the voters who vote for evil in the primaries) into putting forth better candidates.
I don't know why the 'You're throwing your vote away!' argument is so common, given how easily debunked it is. You're less likely to see change by always voting for evil than you are if you use the perception of the spoiler effect to your advantage, even if the latter will take a long time. Do people even think, or do they just repeat propaganda?
Third parties will have to do the hard, drawn out work of becoming relevant at the local level first so they can build a strong party.
This, however, is not a bad idea.