• 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

Free political speech is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Slave holders forfeited their property rights in slaves when they attempted to overturn the democratic result of the 1860 election by rebelling against the federal government. Their slaves thereby became contraband of war.

I do not believe our elected officials should be able to ration our political speech.

....ok. My point was that the need to give freedom to all men (of all races) in this country was obvious, and the other side's argument was that they had the right to own slaves and it wasn't the government's place to decide what and who they could and couldn't own. The need to protect the right of a man to own a slave was nowhere near as important as the need to protect a man's right to be free and you can't have it both ways. Today, we are steadily losing our system of freely electing officials because of the efforts of men with enormous wealth. It is obvious that we need to protect our democracy. You can repeat yourself all you want. But, unless you believe that we can allow both individuals and corporations to donate as much as they want to individual candidates, parties and PACs, AND that this will not result in the loss of the free democratic election as we have always known it, then I don't know why you're even bothering to comment.
 
In your world you get to decide what's acceptable. Best thing for you is not to live in a capitalist country. Why do you insist on trying to change the US, when there are plenty of countries out there that like to dictate people lives that would satisfy you? I don't understand you people, you always want to fundamentally change this country. And it's never the government's fault either. It's always some big business.....big oil, big whatever....the 1%.
Luckily, I'm as equally entitled to this country and its shaping as you are.

I'm okay with progress.
 
Luckily, I'm as equally entitled to this country and its shaping as you are.

I'm okay with progress.

Trying to get rid of rich people in not progress.
 
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.

It is not true that union members have no say in campaign donations. Unions are democratic organizations that represent 14.6 millions workers in America. Union members vote to elect their officers, can run for office and attend meetings.
 
Free political speech is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Slave holders forfeited their property rights in slaves when they attempted to overturn the democratic result of the 1860 election by rebelling against the federal government. Their slaves thereby became contraband of war.

I do not believe our elected officials should be able to ration our political speech.

". . . The war powers act of the Constitution gives the president broad powers for waging war. The president could make certain proclamations and decrees and issue executive orders within the context of fighting a war. The Civil War was fought on American soil. Captured rebel territory under the occupation of union troops was under federal jurisdiction. As long as the war continued, the president could issue decrees concerning the administration of occupied territories — provided that those decrees were necessary to the war effort.

Lincoln's lawyers argued that an Emancipation Proclamation could be constitutionally legal provided that, 1) It was a time of war, 2) the emancipation was limited to slave states under union occupation and administration, and 3) emancipation would be helpful in winning the war. Lincoln pronounced to his cabinet, "...it was a military necessity to the salvation of the Union, that we must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued.". . . "

Can you tell me how all these rich Pacs- unions - help democracy - they all get paid off. if you want to cover it with the 1st - go right ahead. The 1ts is what SCOTUS determines it to be. My opinion- with all that cash- it undermines democracy - it buys influence - when you have an individual, sending 50 million of their own money for a Senate election- what else can you call it.
The Koch Bros are not doing this for love of country.
 
Can I name a CEO who set out to put people to work as opposed to having to hire people to generate profit? What kind of question is that? They are one in the same.

Unless a CEO is hired to wrap up business of a failing company, every CEO I know of sets out to grow their business. In almost every case that results in more people being hired.

Your meme about the origin of "job creators" is humorous to read, but I prefer reality over fiction.

Fell right into that trap!

"Job Creators": Luntz Strikes Again | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

As to the rest, y'all's manufactured memes are starting to collide.

First there was no income inequality. Then it was all the increases in productivity were from investments in technology, but non-ownership-class people have nothing to fear from automation. Then, in the face of this, ya try to ram this "job creator" nonsense down our throats, when they've been doing the exact opposite of "job creation for almost forty years now (and no, exploiting a desperate person's desperation overseas isn't "job creation" either. Its "job reduction" because they took a job that paid "x" and turned into a job that pays a tiny fraction of "x".
 
....ok. My point was that the need to give freedom to all men (of all races) in this country was obvious, and the other side's argument was that they had the right to own slaves and it wasn't the government's place to decide what and who they could and couldn't own. The need to protect the right of a man to own a slave was nowhere near as important as the need to protect a man's right to be free and you can't have it both ways. Today, we are steadily losing our system of freely electing officials because of the efforts of men with enormous wealth. It is obvious that we need to protect our democracy. You can repeat yourself all you want. But, unless you believe that we can allow both individuals and corporations to donate as much as they want to individual candidates, parties and PACs, AND that this will not result in the loss of the free democratic election as we have always known it, then I don't know why you're even bothering to comment.

I'm commenting because I disagree with you completely. It is a bulwark of democracy and freedom that individuals can fund political speech outside government control.
 
Can you tell me how all these rich Pacs- unions - help democracy - they all get paid off. if you want to cover it with the 1st - go right ahead. The 1ts is what SCOTUS determines it to be. My opinion- with all that cash- it undermines democracy - it buys influence - when you have an individual, sending 50 million of their own money for a Senate election- what else can you call it.
The Koch Bros are not doing this for love of country.

The reason it works is because multiple donors representing multiple points of view compete and prevent any single one from achieving untrammeled influence.
 
The reason it works is because multiple donors representing multiple points of view compete and prevent any single one from achieving untrammeled influence.

Belive that if you wish. Believe they are doing what is best for the country. I differ. As they all buy access, and they all buy influence.
To think otherwise is well...........................fiction
 
Belive that if you wish. Believe they are doing what is best for the country. I differ. As they all buy access, and they all buy influence.
To think otherwise is well...........................fiction

They are doing what they think is best for themselves, and in competing that way they do something good for the country.
 
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.
.....

Good point. "Earning" millions from investments that you inherited is pretty different from earning a couple hundred dollars for picking grapes for two weeks.
 
Which has nothing to do with what I posted.

Have you read Citizens United and understand corporate personhood? The law says corporations can donate directly to political campaigns. Corporations are people.
 
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."

Most people in the USA have no problem with socialized schools, emergency medical services, police, fire fighting, road building and repair, public transportation etc. but if you advocate for socialized medical care you are labeled a socialist. (even though we already have socialized medicine which is provided in public health clinics, public hospital emergency rooms and veterans hospitals and clinics.)
 
The Left likes to pick on the Koch Brothers, so about your Soros?

I have addressed this three times already in this thread. I am against being ruled by select group of people. The people we vote into office should listen to all of us, instead they only listening to their donors. When I listen to right wing radio, they even complain about the "donor class."

Now to get back to your statement that government creates inequality, not the 1%. I don't understand the difference if it's largely the 1% influencing government policy.
 
Most people in the USA have no problem with socialized schools, emergency medical services, police, fire fighting, road building and repair, public transportation etc. but if you advocate for socialized medical care you are labeled a socialist. (even though we already have socialized medicine which is provided in public health clinics, public hospital emergency rooms and veterans hospitals and clinics.)

Most people in this country realize that schools, EMS, police, fire fighting, road building and repairs, public transportation are State and local expenses not a Federal Expense. Seems you don't understand what your taxes fund or even what taxes you pay. Why is that?
 
No you don't.
You have a right to petition the Government for redress of your grievance, but as of yet there is nothing enunciated anywhere within the Constitution that says you have a "right" to breathe unpolluted air.

If that were the case, automobiles and chimneys would have been outlawed long ago.

The constitution is not the only authority regarding our rights. It only limits which rights can not be taken away by the government in the USA.
 
Most people in this country realize that schools, EMS, police, fire fighting, road building and repairs, public transportation are State and local expenses not a Federal Expense. Seems you don't understand what your taxes fund or even what taxes you pay. Why is that?

So what? I am well aware of which programs are funded by which level of government. (By the way, many of those services are subsidized with federal grants) Those are all government funded programs, usually with the work done by government workers. Which level of government funds the program is irrelevant to the fact that they are socialized services that are not controversial.
 
So what? I am well aware of which programs are funded by which level of government. (By the way, many of those services are subsidized with federal grants) Those are all government funded programs, usually with the work done by government workers. Which level of government funds the program is irrelevant to the fact that they are socialized services that are not controversial.

Where in the hell did you get that information? I doubt seriously that you have any clue as to what your taxes fund and where the money comes from for the services in your state and community. You don't seem to understand state and local rights and responsibilities. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who ignores the Federal Results and failures? Name for me one, just one Federal Social program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost and did what it was supposed to do, actually solved a problem? If state programs are socialized then the state can revoke them through the electorate, try to do that on a national scale?
 
Where in the hell did you get that information? I doubt seriously that you have any clue as to what your taxes fund and where the money comes from for the services in your state and community. You don't seem to understand state and local rights and responsibilities. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who ignores the Federal Results and failures? Name for me one, just one Federal Social program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost and did what it was supposed to do, actually solved a problem? If state programs are socialized then the state can revoke them through the electorate, try to do that on a national scale?

What information? Are you claiming that the federal government never subsidizes local and state government with grants?*

I expressed no opinion as to whether particular programs should be funded at the local, state or federal level, so you are attacking a straw man. I understand that you don't like federal programs, but that has nothing to do with whether the programs are socialized (government provided) or privatized (provided by a non-governmental entity such as a business or non-profit group).



*Here's just the first example that came to my mind: The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program works with cities, states, and local community-based organizations to provide services to an estimated 536,000 people each year who do not have sufficient health care coverage or financial resources to cope with HIV disease...Part A provides emergency assistance to Eligible Metropolitan Areas and Transitional Grant Areas that are most severely affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Part B provides grants to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 5 U.S. Pacific Territories or Associated Jurisdictions...." http://hab.hrsa.gov/abouthab/aboutprogram.html
 
Last edited:
I expressed no opinion as to whether particular programs should be funded at the local, state or federal level so you are attacking a straw man. I understand that you don't like federal programs, but that has nothing to do with whether the programs are socialized (government provided) or privatized (provided by a non-governmental entity such as a business or non-profit group).

What bothers me is that you don't seem to understand states' rights as well as responsibilities and how the govt. closer to the people is what our Founders created. Whether or not it is socialized is up to the people of the state and if you don't like state operations it is easy to move. Why you put so much faith in a federal bureaucrat vs someone local is beyond comprehension and seems to me nothing more than basically shirking your responsibility as a citizen of the state. It is easier to change policies in the state than the Federal govt. but far too many don't seem to like that reality. What is it about Federal programs and control that excites you?
 
....ok. My point was that the need to give freedom to all men (of all races) in this country was obvious, and the other side's argument was that they had the right to own slaves and it wasn't the government's place to decide what and who they could and couldn't own. The need to protect the right of a man to own a slave was nowhere near as important as the need to protect a man's right to be free and you can't have it both ways. Today, we are steadily losing our system of freely electing officials because of the efforts of men with enormous wealth. It is obvious that we need to protect our democracy. You can repeat yourself all you want. But, unless you believe that we can allow both individuals and corporations to donate as much as they want to individual candidates, parties and PACs, AND that this will not result in the loss of the free democratic election as we have always known it, then I don't know why you're even bothering to comment.

Greetings, Mustachio. :2wave:

All the various donors don't bother me, but I remember when the Democrats yelled foul after the Supreme Court leveled the playing field by allowing businesses, as well as unions, to also contribute monies to an election effort, and they are now accepting money from them, from the very top on down. Obama stated he would stop the practice, but it's still in place and both sides take advantage of it. Do they influence how a person votes by using advertising to sway a voter's opinion one way or another, which is really the most important thing? Maybe not, as Soros learned in the midterms after giving millions to Democrat candidates.

What I think needs to be changed is the electoral college, which over-rules the individual voter, since it's winner-take-all by State. It could be 51-49 statistically, but it disenfranchises millions of voters, and I don't think that's fair. State elections are a matter of how many votes a candidate gets, which determines who won. Period. If there's a question, vote counting can be redone. The electoral college is outdated, IMO, since the reason for it has changed since it was put in place hundreds of years ago, due to TV and the internet being used to keep people updated on what's going on - things they did not have available to them back then.
 
CEO's are rewarded for performance of their companies and no company is in business to employ people but rather to make a profit. No question about it you have idea where the funds come from to pay employees and the CEO's. Hope that money tree in your parent's backyard never runs out of leaves.

So you agree with me that the rich shouldn't be called "job creators".

Thank you.
 
So you agree with me that the rich shouldn't be called "job creators".

Thank you.

I sure wish you and others would understand why businesses are in business as well as the fact that businesses are run by people
 
I sure wish you and others would understand why businesses are in business as well as the fact that businesses are run by people

Do you think campaign contributions or other political spending should be subject to a yea/nea vote by the shareholders?
 
Back
Top Bottom