• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

Well, the fact that journalists tend to be smarter and more well informed than most people has nothing to do with your ramblings. Journalists just tend to be really sharp people in general, able to quickly understand information and synthesize connections between facts and events. Not all, but I'd guess about three quarters of them.
What journalists? We have very few so called investigative journalists willing to vet a candidate especially to their political leaning. Most just read the prepared copy provided by AP and Reuters. They have become the most lazy ass bunch that ever existed.
 
actually they might be smarter than those who don't attend college but many of them are hired on looks rather than brains. I'd suspect most of the posters on DP are as sharp or sharper than your average TV journalist even if they don't have a 100 Kilowatt smile or look like they could get a job modeling Armani suits or pantyhose

Now you move to TV journalists that are air talent. But your stat refers to ALL journalists- writers-newspaper/magazines/periodicals/wire services, radio, TV, etc. The 5% of pretty ones get on TV. 95% do the real work.
 
Now you move to TV journalists that are air talent. But your stat refers to ALL journalists- writers-newspaper/magazines/periodicals/wire services, radio, TV, etc. The 5% of pretty ones get on TV. 95% do the real work.

My comment still stands. Years ago, real journalists were educated men. Now they are just readers of news

I was talking about the Presidential press corps to start with btw

for the most part, journalism doesn't attract the best and the brightest.
 
What journalists? We have very few so called investigative journalists willing to vet a candidate especially to their political leaning. Most just read the prepared copy provided by AP and Reuters. They have become the most lazy ass bunch that ever existed.

I don't think it has anything to do with lazy - it's because they can't get paid for real investigative journalism anymore. A good story, just one, might take a month or two or six, and newspapers don't fund those jobs anymore.
 
My comment still stands. Years ago, real journalists were educated men. Now they are just readers of news

I was talking about the Presidential press corps to start with btw

for the most part, journalism doesn't attract the best and the brightest.

Your comment doesn't stand. Most news is still done by newspapers and writers. Newsreaders are not most of them, it's just apparently the only ones you notice.

And the majority of the Presidential press corps don't read news on TV. They write for newspapers.
 
Well, the fact that journalists tend to be smarter and more well informed than most people has nothing to do with your ramblings.
Journalists just tend to be really sharp people in general, able to quickly understand information and synthesize connections between facts and events. Not all, but I'd guess about three quarters of them.



How much of a brain does it take to talk about something that has already happened? Anyone's old aunt can do that.

Most of today's 'journalists' can't find their butt with both hands. They couldn't pour urine out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.
 
Your comment doesn't stand. Most news is still done by newspapers and writers. Newsreaders are not most of them, it's just apparently the only ones you notice.

And the majority of the Presidential press corps don't read news on TV. They write for newspapers.

I guess you are more easily impressed as what passes of intellect

and apparently its voting for big government pimps
 
for the most part, journalism doesn't attract the best and the brightest.

For good reason. It's an extremely low paying job where the options for advancement are slim to none. I looked at Journalism for college and then I Googled it and saw so many people with buyers remorse. The standard new hire makes $18K a year. I made $27K a year as a grunt in the military and even then it was hard enough affording life and living space. For $18k a year your mom might let you live in the basement out of pity's sake. Not realyl giving an excuse but I saw this comment and it clicked to me...I wonder how many people really realize how low paying journalism is? Unless you are Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher, or someone with a recognizable name....you get paid pennies.
 
How much of a brain does it take to talk about something that has already happened? Anyone's old aunt can do that.

Most of today's 'journalists' can't find their butt with both hands. They couldn't pour urine out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.

I think you watch too much TV.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with lazy - it's because they can't get paid for real investigative journalism anymore. A good story, just one, might take a month or two or six, and newspapers don't fund those jobs anymore.
They seem to come up with the funds to hire people all over to literally dig through the trash of those who the network is politically opposed to. They seem to have the power to pick and choose which story to run chosen on the basis of those the news agency is in favor and holding stories that are not. They seem to focus on tearing down certain candidates depending whether a D or a R follows their name. Yep they have earn the name, Drive by media.
 
They seem to come up with the funds to hire people all over to literally dig through the trash of those who the network is politically opposed to. They seem to have the power to pick and choose which story to run chosen on the basis of those the news agency is in favor. They seem to focus on tearing down certain candidates depending whether a D or a R follows their name. Yep they have earn the name, Drive by media.

I think you listen to too much Wingnut radio.
 
They seem to come up with the funds to hire people all over to literally dig through the trash of those who the network is politically opposed to. They seem to have the power to pick and choose which story to run chosen on the basis of those the news agency is in favor and holding stories that are not. They seem to focus on tearing down certain candidates depending whether a D or a R follows their name. Yep they have earn the name, Drive by media.

I'm not defending the corporate news - it's IMO a version of reality TV that I find pretty worthless for the most part - couldn't tell you on what channels to find any of the cable variety (CNN, Fox, MSNBC). I find the shows make me dumber after watching them. My inlaws watch them all day - like water torture when they visit....

But I do think the transition from news being loss leaders for the networks to entertainment shows has harmed coverage, and newspapers are just dying and don't have the money to hire someone to work for a month or more to file ONE story. Thankfully some bloggers are taking up some of the slack. Just takes a while to find someone you can trust and that has consistently good information.
 
Here's an idea. Auction the Presidency! Money ahead, put it into general revenue. Hell, it couldn't be a worse system than the crapshoot a federal election is now.

We don't do that for the presidency quite yet, but it happens all the time with governors and house members. Some of them are bought and sold so openly and brazenly that it's a wonder no one goes to jail for it. But there's a big enough portion of this country, as we see in this thread, that is pretty much in favor of letting the wealthiest among us purchase political influence.

And there's insane willful ignorance. Like this.

Nope. There's no evidence that they hold any more power than anyone else in this country when it comes to influencing politicians.

There is ample evidence. There was a century-long ban on corporate spending on elections on Montana because the coal companies were literally buying up elections. Just recently, John Oliver did a segment on a state lawmaker who lead the charge against regulating payday loan companies because of his own stake in several of them. This is the military industrial complex that Eisenhower was warning against. The evidence is everywhere. The only way not to see it is to shut your eyes.

Some people learn to love their chains.

Why does money from the left get a pass but Koch money gets scrutiny?

It doesn't. There's just a lot less of it and it doesn't come from such a small pool of billionaires. We'd gladly give that up in exchange for taking money out of politics.

Indications are that they have't influenced the electorate very much, so far as presidential races go.
Citizens United has not proven to be the boogie man once feared.

As above, in presidential races, no. We have yet to get a bought presidential race (though we got one decided by daddy's friends on bench). But we get bought governorships and house membership all the time.

Spending billions on a political campaign is money wasted. It doesn't create long term jobs in the economy. The money goes largely into advertising and developing political ads that never get aired, hair, make up, political coaching, etc. It's a very pretentious, nearly two year spectacle of turd polishing.

What it does do is make the politicians who get that money and win beholden to their benefactors. In order to get Sheldon Adelson's money, Republican candidates had to promise that they would enact his specific rules around shrimp, so that his casinos could be more profitable. Shrimp! That's what some of our elections are coming down to; one rich guy's not wanting to pay as much for shrimp.

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

I think I've seen enough. This is what an aristocracy looks like. Even if you filter it through an election, the guys with all the money are the ones who really have power. If someone cares anything for real political liberty, you must keep all this wealth out of politics. And anyone who fights to keep it there on the delusion that someday they, too, will have the money to buy up elections like this, stop kidding yourself. You won't.
 
Eventually - if there is no intervention - corporations will have complete control over the system and lawmaking will be tailored to ignore individual rights in favor of industry and a small group of influential people. When that day comes, there will be a lot of people changing their minds too late. Democracy should not be sold to the highest bidder.

Democracy is about throwing peoples interests against each other and seeing who wins. It is expected that the entire population will bribe the government to make their interests made policy of the state.
 
I'm not defending the corporate news - it's IMO a version of reality TV that I find pretty worthless for the most part - couldn't tell you on what channels to find any of the cable variety (CNN, Fox, MSNBC). I find the shows make me dumber after watching them. My inlaws watch them all day - like water torture when they visit....

But I do think the transition from news being loss leaders for the networks to entertainment shows has harmed coverage, and newspapers are just dying and don't have the money to hire someone to work for a month or more to file ONE story. Thankfully some bloggers are taking up some of the slack. Just takes a while to find someone you can trust and that has consistently good information.

Jasper, are you not aware of the numerous voters that come out for a presidential election that can't even tell you what country bombed Peal Harbor in WW11 let alone who is considered to be the "father" of the Constitution? Have you watched the numerous pathetic responses to questions given from people like Leno to many others of people going out into the public targeting the young and dumb college crowd but are old enough to vote and they couldn't pass a 6th grade history exam? These people vote for feel good ideas not what is right for the country. Thanks to our education system too many are too ignorant to make sound judgment. If you promise these folks two free years of community college these folks are on board. If you promise the single moms more entitlements they are on board and so are the dads of all these fatherless "love" children cause that means the daddies are off the hook. If you make a claim that we need public daycare provided by the taxpayers, you got a whole lot of folks ready to vote for you and all are willing to stick it to the one who put his life on hold to achieve an education to land a good job before ever thinking about reproducing. Who was left with a boatload of student loans for his education that will take 15 years to pay off. But yet he becomes successful making good money only to have others willing to tax him/her at a higher rate so they can get the freebies. Says a lot for the condition of our society doesn't it. But lets not blame everything on the young and dumb because there are a lot of senior citizens in our society that think even though they didn't prepare for their retirement that somehow they are special and think the younger generation and the generation after them is suppose to pick up the tab. What's wrong with this picture? But yet most of the media is promoting such an agenda.
 
What the hell is the difference when a select few have the majority influence over government? Wealthy people are diverse, and not all wealthy people politically agree. However, political activists like the Koch's and their philosophical values are reflected in candidates they prop up and the policies their candidates propose.

The Left likes to pick on the Koch Brothers, so about your Soros?
 
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I posted....

But on this new subject, look back in history and find me a time with anything resembling a middle class that doesn't have "big government." I don't think you'll be successful. Wealth always tends to accumulate in the hands of a very, very tiny few.

The middle class aren't wealthy.
 
That shows how little you know about me.

I very seldom watch TV, I get my news from the internet. :roll:

Me too, it's more quick time than CNN and the others.

I do youtube browsing too, this is a good one.

 
Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign
Good fore them.
They should be able to support those they want.
 
And they do this due to their love for their country. Thoughts are?

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalelled effort by outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would effectively allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican parties. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.

Personally, I can't think of a more stupid use of money than to give it to a politician but, it is their money.
 
Back
Top Bottom