Page 80 of 100 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 999

Thread: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

  1. #791
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    It's my business when I'm being impacted by wealth buying votes.
    Did someone buy your vote or is it the votes of other people that are being "bought"? And how, exactly, does this vote buying work? How does someone sign up to get paid for voting?
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  2. #792
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    But if the money influences outcomes, it's a predictable outcome that those who agree to be bought will tend to 1) run for office (doing the bidding of the big money is a condition of receiving the money) and 2) get elected, because they have the backing of the big money that demands favors.
    And yet, despite much scholarly debate on the subject, it is generally agreed by scholars that campaign contributions generally don't affect the outcome of votes on bills in congress. Go figure, huh?

    Per an actual study based on how politicians vote before they announce retirement vs. how they vote after they've announced retirement and no longer get donations. Of the two theories that PACs donate to the politicians that share their values VS. donations cause candidates to support their donors, this study strongly rejects the latter.

    This article has sought to answer the causality question of whether campaign
    contributions are made to support politicians with the ‘‘right’’ beliefs
    or whether politicians’ support can be bought. Our tests strongly reject the notion that campaign contributions buy politicians’ votes.
    I enlarged the important sentence that summarized the study just so you don't accidentally gloss over it and so that everyone else can see the conclusion, as well.

    But you can educate yourself and read the WHOLE study, if you're so inclined. I suspect you aren't because I don't think you will accept data and conclusions that aren't aligned with what you want to believe. But just in case you actually care about what is true and correct, here's the study for you. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-co...-And-Votes.pdf
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  3. #793
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I focused on the one line that was the "tell".

    If I had actually suggested the "entirety of your argument was class envy", you'd have a legitimate gripe but since I didn't, all you have is another strawman. I made it very clear what I was referring to. Your bitching about "million dollar weddings" being..... how did you say it.... "offensive"? That nailed you down as someone eaten up with good old fashioned class envy.
    It'd be more of a "tell" if it weren't a direct reply to someone else complaining about million dollar weddings.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    If it's not a $billion taxpayer dollars being wasted, I don't care at all, just as I don't care what anyone spends their own money on. I think $million weddings are obscene, but it's not my money so I don't really care.

    As for elections, if ads and political spending are what shapes your vote, that's too bad - mine isn't shaped by anything other than what the candidate says regarding issues I care about and how they present themselves throughout the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    I think million dollar weddings and billion dollar campaign buying are both offensive, which is all the more reason to limit the degree to which individuals acquire such unreasonable amounts of money.
    "The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon

  4. #794
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    It'd be more of a "tell" if it weren't a direct reply to someone else complaining about million dollar weddings.
    OH damn..... yep, it was you bitching about million dollar weddings.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #795
    Undisclosed
    Unrepresented's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    06-12-16 @ 09:05 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,230

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    OH damn..... yep, it was you bitching about million dollar weddings.
    I do think they're a colossal waste, yes. But in the context of the discussion I'm quoting someone who is decidedly un-Marxist making the same complaint.
    "The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten." ~Napoleon

  6. #796
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    I do think they're a colossal waste, yes. But in the context of the discussion I'm quoting someone who is decidedly un-Marxist making the same complaint.
    That "decidedly un-Marxist" individual said he didn't care and acknowledged that it's not his money, so it doesn't sound like he took "offense" at million dollar weddings like you did. One of you recognize that what other people do with their money isn't your business.... one of you don't. You're the one that doesn't.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  7. #797
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    And yet, despite much scholarly debate on the subject, it is generally agreed by scholars that campaign contributions generally don't affect the outcome of votes on bills in congress. Go figure, huh?

    Per an actual study based on how politicians vote before they announce retirement vs. how they vote after they've announced retirement and no longer get donations. Of the two theories that PACs donate to the politicians that share their values VS. donations cause candidates to support their donors, this study strongly rejects the latter.



    I enlarged the important sentence that summarized the study just so you don't accidentally gloss over it and so that everyone else can see the conclusion, as well.

    But you can educate yourself and read the WHOLE study, if you're so inclined. I suspect you aren't because I don't think you will accept data and conclusions that aren't aligned with what you want to believe. But just in case you actually care about what is true and correct, here's the study for you. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-co...-And-Votes.pdf

    This article attempts to assess the causal link between campaign contributions and a politicianís voting behavior by focusing on the effect of changes in campaign contributions during a politicianís last term in office.

    The last term is when a politician is (more) free from outside influence.

    Everyone know this.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #798
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    This article attempts to assess the causal link between campaign contributions and a politician’s voting behavior by focusing on the effect of changes in campaign contributions during a politician’s last term in office.

    The last term is when a politician is (more) free from outside influence.

    Everyone know this.
    You're not paying attention. This is a test of "before announcing retirement" vs. "after announcing retirement". Only "after announcing retirement" do we know it's a last term and only after announcing retirement does the money dry up.

    The study measures the only thing that really counts.... do politicians vote differently based on campaign donations or promises of same. All evidence points to the contrary; that people and PACs donate to those politicians that are philosophically best aligned with them, which makes sense any way you look at it.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #799
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    You're not paying attention. This is a test of "before announcing retirement" vs. "after announcing retirement". Only "after announcing retirement" do we know it's a last term and only after announcing retirement does the money dry up.

    The study measures the only thing that really counts.... do politicians vote differently based on campaign donations or promises of same. All evidence points to the contrary; that people and PACs donate to those politicians that are philosophically best aligned with them, which makes sense any way you look at it.
    What voting studies cannot detect are the important, but less observable, pathways where money is more likely to shape legislation. Members have many opportunities, especially in the committee process, to structure the details of legislation to a donor’s advantage. Often subtle changes, even altering the wording of a single sentence, can matter to a contributor. Equally important, studying votes ignores the opportunities lawmakers have to kill a bill quietly and prevent it from coming to a vote. As Tom Loftus, former Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly stated, “The truest thing I can say about special interest money is that it is mainly given to buy the status quo.” Unfortunately, unlike votes on bills, these actions don’t leave a readily observable data trail for us to study.

    In many fields, scholars turn to perceptual survey measures when hard data measures are unobtainable. Surveys are routinely used, for example, in comparative politics to measure the left-right placement of political parties as well as to develop indices of country-level corruption. I took a similar approach to study the influence of donors in American legislatures. In a national survey of 2982 state legislators, I asked each member to rate the extent to which campaign contributions determined the content and passage of bills in his chamber. I used this question to estimate influence in each state legislative chamber, while controlling for respondent bias. I found the 99 chambers varied greatly in the influence of money: there was considerable influence in some and very little in others.

    My book, “The Influence of Campaign Contributions in State Legislatures,” explains these chamber differences in influence. Studying the 99 state chambers rather than Congress allowed me to model how political and institutional features of legislatures, such as term limits, affect the individual choices lawmakers make about how much time to devote to fundraising. (Each lawmaker was asked how much time he spent fundraising for his own campaign and for his caucus.) The model posits, and analysis confirms, that the more time lawmakers spend fundraising, the greater the influence of contributions in their chambers. That is, the more members engage in either type of fundraising, the more they, and consequently their chambers, prioritize the interests of donors.

    How money talks in state legislatures - The Washington Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  10. #800
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    But if the money influences outcomes, it's a predictable outcome that those who agree to be bought will tend to 1) run for office (doing the bidding of the big money is a condition of receiving the money) and 2) get elected, because they have the backing of the big money that demands favors.
    Big money buys ads and if people are stupid enough to buy the message from those ads then they deserve what they get. You would deny an individual the freedom to spend the money where they want while ignoring the results of that spending in getting some politician to cave in to that influence. It is the politicians that vote not the person who spent the money. Hold them responsible

Page 80 of 100 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •