• 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

The difference between Communism and Socialism is that under Communism, 'everyone wearing glasses gets their heads smashed in with rifle butts' and under Socialism, 'drinks and smokes are on the middle class'. :roll:

Which do you prefer?



A rather parochial assessment of things, since you are defining what is Communism, and not the regimes implied.

The USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.....

Poland was the People's Socialist Republic, was a true democratic republic [with one party like the US in 1776] but you would be "disappeared" for hanging with the wrong crowd or imprisoned for trading in American blue jeans. Over 20,000 political prisoners...that sir, is socialism.

Socialism sooner of later must become all encompassing, totalitarian as each new measure requires deeper and deeper involvement in people's everyday lives. The left in America glorifies socialism while waging war with it 90 miles off its coast; Cuba is no more Communist than Belgium.

The myths and memes live on through ignorance. The US populace spews goo fed to them by propagandists but have never cracked a book on political science, never been to any of the countries on which they pass judgement and sure as hell aren't ever going to listen to a different message. Without ever having set foot in Cuba or any other Socialist country you buy into the lie: Socialism = good. Communism = bad, when they are one in the same.

What you might call socialism are governments like Canada who have a capitalist friendly government which has adopted some socialist practices in an efficient way.
 
41 million people....more than the population of Canada.

How many of them have satellite dishes and 50" screens?

Greetings, F & L. :2wave:

C'mon, most of them just need diversion. :lol: They're not tuning in to anything regarding current events, because seeing what the Kardashians and Paris Hilton are up to is far more interesting than terrorist attacks or the country going bankrupt! Life is good with a 50' screen - no worries!
 
Greetings, JasperL. :2wave:

Since there are 47 million people on food stamps, and countless others on some kind of government assistance, doesn't this indicate there is a big deficiency on the part of our elected leadership in DC? They are the ones steering our ship of state, not the people suffering in this country! We have gone from bad to worse in the past few years - why is this? We are not a third world country, so when does all this bull**** stop? How much are our little incursions in countries in the ME costing us - not only in dollars, but goodwill? They now hate us more than they ever did, and they are also getting more brazen than they ever were before! That sure doesn't look like a winning strategy to me! Meanwhile, too many are suffering here, and that's not right!.

All those are subjects that could be a thread on their own, but IMO the people "steering our ship of state" are the Fortune 500 and the big donor class, Wall Street and the rest.

I've said it different ways in different threads, but I used to have a paper bookmarked from 2001 as I recall. It was published by Council on Foreign Relations, one of those publications by and for the elites. Anyway, the subject was that 1) globalization - "free trade" - would create a predictably large number of losers in the industrialized world - basically blue collar workers then making good wages in some kind of production job. This was treated as a given, a foregone conclusion. The bulk was 2) how to deal with this. The premise was the gains for the global economy far outweighed the harm to some workers, but that the harm had to be mitigated or else the stability of western governments and the 'free trade' they favored would be at risk. So the paper argued for expanded negative income taxes (like EITC) and other direct transfers from the winners of the changing world to the losers. Not because these elites cared about the losers, but to maintain an economic system that worked for the elites.

So when you point out all the growing number on assistance and all that, my response is that's right, and it was a choice "we" (and I mean the elites) made as a global economy, to hollow out large swaths of the middle class in the industrialized world to make way for a better world economy - this was all known in advance.

If the Kochs can, in some way, find a way through legislation to provide decent-paying jobs for people who want to work, their money will be well spent, IMO! On the other hand, it looks like Soros wants to continue our downward trend to third-world status! How many jobs has Soros provided, other than those he created through various agencies for people to work on his agenda of keeping the poor dependent upon government? Why isn't he advocating for a better life for people here and the rest of the world, instead of the one-world-government he appears to favor, where everyone but the elite become serfs? Screw that! :2mad:

Again, I disagree. When we decided on "free trade" we put our workers in direct competition with workers making $1 an hour. The inevitable result of THAT is wages converging, and most of that will be our wages flatlining or declining with slow rises elsewhere. It can't really be any other way in the big picture. And what the Kochs want (and the Chamber of Commerce, Fortune 500 boys) - or at least want in part - is to bring our labor and environmental standards downward - not to the levels in China because that could never work, but towards them. Same with work rules, end of unions, and all the rest. Sure, that will bring some jobs back, because we cut our wages in half, and killed unions, and all the rest. That's great for business, but it will take a long time for those benefits to show up in rising wages as we still compete with $3 (instead of $1) and hour wages....

Anyway, it's those influences moving us to third world status - not people dealing with the fallout of that, declining wages at the bottom, 40 years of flat lined wages in the middle, exploding income at the top, all typical of third world plutocracies.
 
A rather parochial assessment of things, since you are defining what is Communism, and not the regimes implied.

The USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.....

Poland was the People's Socialist Republic, was a true democratic republic [with one party like the US in 1776] but you would be "disappeared" for hanging with the wrong crowd or imprisoned for trading in American blue jeans. Over 20,000 political prisoners...that sir, is socialism.

Socialism sooner of later must become all encompassing, totalitarian as each new measure requires deeper and deeper involvement in people's everyday lives. The left in America glorifies socialism while waging war with it 90 miles off its coast; Cuba is no more Communist than Belgium.

The myths and memes live on through ignorance. The US populace spews goo fed to them by propagandists but have never cracked a book on political science, never been to any of the countries on which they pass judgement and sure as hell aren't ever going to listen to a different message. Without ever having set foot in Cuba or any other Socialist country you buy into the lie: Socialism = good. Communism = bad, when they are one in the same.

What you might call socialism are governments like Canada who have a capitalist friendly government which has adopted some socialist practices in an efficient way.



That's what some people on the right call socialism, not me. :roll:
 
And how do you propose that happen? Do you understand what earn means?
The concept of "earning" is a subjective social construct. It means only what those who hold authority determine it means. That authority is not absolute or permanent.
Fantacize much?
Being able to envision improvements is the first step to enacting them.
 
The concept of "earning" is a subjective social construct. It means only what those who hold authority determine it means. That authority is not absolute or permanent.

Being able to envision improvements is the first step to enacting them.

So the term earning means whatever you want it to be to serve your own purpose? Envisioning is like speaking and means nothing, action always speaks louder than words
 
Greetings, F & L. :2wave:

C'mon, most of them just need diversion. :lol: They're not tuning in to anything regarding current events, because seeing what the Kardashians and Paris Hilton are up to is far more interesting than terrorist attacks or the country going bankrupt! Life is good with a 50' screen - no worries!



Yeah that's "poor".

I invite these "poor" to visit a village in Haiti....any village
 
Yeah that's "poor".

I invite these "poor" to visit a village in Haiti....any village

So there can't be poor within a wealthy society? I am going to disagree that just because someone can refrigerate their food and **** in a toilet connect to a pipe, doesn't mean that person can't be classified as poor.
 
There aren't enough millions for everybody to have one. So there IS a limit, and some indeed are prevented from doing so. The majority in fact.

If everybody made a million, that would take seven billion millions.

You really don't understand the difference between "money" and "wealth", do you?
 
That's what some people on the right call socialism, not me. :roll:

What you call "socialism" is a fantasy.

I am not right wing....I am a classic centrist liberal.

Black and white categorizations are the tool of the ignorant......again, your definition is wrong, just crack a political science text book. What US progressives are preaching is identical to Canada's FAR - left NDP.
 
So there can't be poor within a wealthy society? I am going to disagree that just because someone can refrigerate their food and **** in a toilet connect to a pipe, doesn't mean that person can't be classified as poor.

You know, you make less and less sense as time goes on.

What the **** are you on about toilets and ****....?

You don't get the basic premise that "poor" is relative, and defined differently.

You do no service to yourself by dumbing down the debate with typical progressive over-simplification.
 
And everyone doesn't want his/her candidate elected? I do. When i make a political donation, I do it because I expect the candidate will cast a vote that I would approve of.

So you and a hundred thousand people donate $10 each for a million total and a single individual ponies up a hundred million.

In a world where the candidate who spends the most money generally wins, don't you see that as a problem. That a handful of people have the same political "voice" as hundreds of thousands or even millions?
 
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.




Capital Rivals: Koch Brothers vs. George Soros | OpenSecrets Blog



Care at all about Soros? no?
 
It depends on how those "individual voluntary contributions" are obtained. Until recent court rulings, union members had no say. To a degree, they don't know they have a right to chose now. Taxpayers in California have provided $100's of millions to the SEIU in the form of dues over the years through one program alone, In-Home-Support-Services. Would that be any different than one person like George Soros writing a check for $100 million to a super PAC?

I don't think so.

As I've written, I really don't know how one can fairly remove the spending on political agenda that is represented by elections. That marketing effort can take many forms beyond just an election cycle, such as what the very Progressive Annenberg Foundation does.

How do you stop that? I believe you can't so why not go the opposite way, and let them all spend what they want. In the end, it's always only a percentage of a percentage of a percentage who vote anyway, so all that money is a giant stimulus plan that trickles back into the economy.

Do you have a city for the hundreds of millions in dues to Seiu from a single program? That doesn't sound right as dues generally run a few percent.
 
So the term earning means whatever you want it to be to serve your own purpose? Envisioning is like speaking and means nothing, action always speaks louder than words
Earning doesn't have a permanent, objective definition. It's entirely contextual. So, my thoughts on whether someone "earned" 10k/year or "earned" their billions are going to vary from yours.

My view of humanity is that it's impossible to "earn" billionaire status, because none of us are legitimately worth that many more times any other person.

Envisioning precedes actions. Actions without a vision are meaningless.
 
Earning doesn't have a permanent, objective definition. It's entirely contextual. So, my thoughts on whether someone "earned" 10k/year or "earned" their billions are going to vary from yours.

My view of humanity is that it's impossible to "earn" billionaire status, because none of us are legitimately worth that many more times any other person.

Envisioning precedes actions. Actions without a vision are meaningless.

Exactly.

Great minds think alike.
 
Socialism sooner of later must become all encompassing, totalitarian as each new measure requires deeper and deeper involvement in people's everyday lives. The left in America glorifies socialism while waging war with it 90 miles off its coast; Cuba is no more Communist than Belgium.

The myths and memes live on through ignorance. The US populace spews goo fed to them by propagandists but have never cracked a book on political science, never been to any of the countries on which they pass judgement and sure as hell aren't ever going to listen to a different message. Without ever having set foot in Cuba or any other Socialist country you buy into the lie: Socialism = good. Communism = bad, when they are one in the same.

What you might call socialism are governments like Canada who have a capitalist friendly government which has adopted some socialist practices in an efficient way.

You're contradicting yourself in the same post. The "socialism" that the left in America "glorifies" is roughly "governments like Canada." It's certainly nothing like the former Soviet bloc countries (or Cuba) that you're calling examples of "socialism" (and, yes, I've been there..). I'm sure some on the "left" favor that, but some on the right are fascists and outright white supremacists, and it would be just as illegitimate to define the conservative MOVEMENT by its most radical fringe elements.

It's part of the problem - "socialism" in America means roughly, positions "ideologically left of me."
 
Last edited:
Of course there is proof. Why would you ask for it? Are you suggesting Soros and Company are different than Koch groups? Why would they operated any differently? Do you have proof they operate differently?

Well, in the whole IRS hoopla it was primarily an Increase in conservative applicants for the status that confers anonymity. So it would follow that more conservatives were seeking to make anonymous donations.

Some people are proud of their support, some fear some kind of backlash.
 
You're contradicting yourself in the same post. The "socialism" that the left in America "glorifies" is roughly "governments like Canada." It's certainly nothing like the former Soviet bloc countries (or Cuba) that you're calling examples of "socialism" (and, yes, I've been there..). I'm sure some on the "left" favor that, but some on the right are fascists and outright white supremacists, and it would be illegitimate to describe the define the conservative MOVEMENT by its most radical fringe elements.

It's part of the problem - "socialism" in America means roughly, positions "ideologically left of me."



Please read the post again, then stop translating with your own propaganda.

I said NOTHING about the Canadian GOVERNMENT vis-a-vis socialism, I clearly stated that American progressives who call themselves "liberal" have almost exactly the same platform as Canada's socialist, self described "social democratic" New Democratic Party, who have thier organizers train with your Democrats.

The Liberal Party of Canada, to which I belong, is the centrist party and liberal, while the Conservative Party of Canada is the "conservative" party.

You see, we are at least honest about about who is what.
 
You know, you make less and less sense as time goes on.

What the **** are you on about toilets and ****....?

You don't get the basic premise that "poor" is relative, and defined differently.

You do no service to yourself by dumbing down the debate with typical progressive over-simplification.

You're the one claiming these people aren't poor because they may or may not have an item that can be bought for a few hundred dollars.
 
Please read the post again, then stop translating with your own propaganda.

When you say this:

"Poland was the People's Socialist Republic, was a true democratic republic [with one party like the US in 1776] but you would be "disappeared" for hanging with the wrong crowd or imprisoned for trading in American blue jeans. Over 20,000 political prisoners...that sir, is socialism."

And then follow with this:

"The left in America glorifies socialism"

You're either being dishonest or just hopelessly confusing, and I'm not sure which. No one but the whack job fringe elements on the "left" glorifies anything like the regime in Poland. It's BS. Or you meant something else....

I said NOTHING about the Canadian GOVERNMENT vis-a-vis socialism,

Uh, quoting you, "What you might call socialism are governments like Canada" :confused:

I clearly stated that American progressives who call themselves "liberal" have almost exactly the same platform as Canada's socialist, self described "social democratic" New Democratic Party, who have thier organizers train with your Democrats.

Could be but that's not an easily defined group. I'm part of the "left" and if you asked 10 liberals about the platform of "liberal" progressives, you'd get 10 different answers. And I briefly looked up the NDP's platform and I don't see that it looks anything like the political systems in the former Soviet bloc, which you called "socialism." If it does, then I and most on the left that I read and listen to would object their views out of hand.
 
I thought you were going to show they made hundreds of times what the average worker does, like ceo's.

You're talking like ten times or less.

CEO's have major job responsibilities and are the job creators, what do Union bosses create? You think union members have any idea what their leadership makes?
 
Back
Top Bottom