• 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

Yeah, you just seem to have a real challenge with honest discussion. You don't receive honesty very well and you certainly don't give any in return.

Am I a Marxist? What makes unrepresented a Marxist? What makes Bill and Melinda Gates, Matt Damon, or George Soros not Marxists in comparison?

We've already established that, since I am left of center, I am a liar. So now let's get into whether or not I am a Marxist.
 
I have read your arguments, and they consist of you saying something over and over as if that's proving a point.

Explain why property rights do NOT include the air we breath. If I have no right to clean air, do you have a right to pollute as you wish? If not, why not?
All you are doing is showing you fail to understand.



This is the original argument and reply.
We all have a right to breathe unpolluted air.
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 argument is; We all have a right to breathe unpolluted air.
That simply isn't true,

No such right exists, not in the Constitution and no such right has been recognized by the Courts. Nor could it.
Do you really not understand that?

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.





....among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

"among these" means that these don't constitute a definitive list.

Where does anyone get the right to take clean air away from the rest of us?
:doh
No such right exists.
No such right has even been recognized by the courts. Nor could it.

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

You have failed refute that which is reality.





There is no right to damage a vital resource shared by everyone by contaminating it.
You still have failed to refute the point that no such right exists.

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.
 
Am I a Marxist? What makes unrepresented a Marxist? What makes Bill and Melinda Gates, Matt Damon, or George Soros not Marxists in comparison?

We've already established that, since I am left of center, I am a liar. So now let's get into whether or not I am a Marxist.

You still running with your dishonest strawman shtick, I see. By the way, I don't know if you're a liar because you are left of center or if you are left of center because you are a liar. I just know that you argue dishonestly and that you are a liberal and that I have come to expect liberals to argue dishonestly. It's a good rule with few exceptions and you aren't one of them.
 
Speaking of strawmen, there is a difference between being concerned about the largely unchecked power that wealth accumulation provides individuals in our society and "class envy."

You seem very concerned about the power you believe exists with a very few vs. the power that exists with those in Congress that run a 4 trillion dollar budget. Your outrage is misguided. Unchecked power, you mean like a President changing law through executive order? You mean career politicians who enact entitlement programs to buy votes?
 
You still running with your dishonest strawman shtick, I see. By the way, I don't know if you're a liar because you are left of center or if you are left of center because you are a liar. I just know that you argue dishonestly and that you are a liberal and that I have come to expect liberals to argue dishonestly. It's a good rule with few exceptions and you aren't one of them.

Answer the question. What makes unrepresented a Marxist? Am I one? And why aren't Bill and Melinda Gates, Matt Damon, or George Soros Marxist?

It's your hole - you dug it via hackery.
 
All you are doing is showing you fail to understand.

No such right exists, not in the Constitution and no such right has been recognized by the Courts. Nor could it.
Do you really not understand that?

OK, we're just engaged in an exercise of splitting hairs - what the definition of 'is' is debate. The bottom line is our property rights extend to the air we breathe, and for lots of practical reasons, that right is not absolute. Same as the rest of our rights - exceptions and infringements are allowed by law for all kinds of reasons.
 
Answer the question. What makes unrepresented a Marxist? Am I one? And why aren't Bill and Melinda Gates, Matt Damon, or George Soros Marxist?

It's your hole - you dug it via hackery.

I didn't say you were one. I said the stench of class envy, however, makes it quite easy to identify Marxists and the stupid remark about million dollar weddings being offensive points directly to Marxist philosophy. If someone wants to spend a million dollars on a wedding, it wouldn't be anyone else's business... unless you are a Marxist and think all money should belong to "the people".

Now why don't you take your silly little dishonest strawman arguments and go play with someone else for awhile?
 
All you are doing is showing you fail to understand.



This is the original argument and reply.

The argument is; We all have a right to breathe unpolluted air.
That simply isn't true,

No such right exists, not in the Constitution and no such right has been recognized by the Courts. Nor could it.
Do you really not understand that?

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.





:doh
No such right exists.
No such right has even been recognized by the courts. Nor could it.

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

You have failed refute that which is reality.






You still have failed to refute the point that no such right exists.

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

If nonsense is repeated often enough......





.....it's still nonsense.
 
Oh, well, heaven forbid we make a comment on something said here unless what was said includes some of the words in the subject of the thread, huh? It's like, gee, I can't remark on that remark because that remark isn't one you want me commenting on. You're funny.
You can remark, it's just dishonest to suggest the entirety of the argument is class envy when you're focusing on one line (that's not particularly class envy IMO).
 
You seem very concerned about the power you believe exists with a very few vs. the power that exists with those in Congress that run a 4 trillion dollar budget. Your outrage is misguided. Unchecked power, you mean like a President changing law through executive order? You mean career politicians who enact entitlement programs to buy votes?

Authoritarian government being bad doesn't mean that excessive wealth, and the excessive influence it buys, isn't bad as well.
 
You can remark, it's just dishonest to suggest the entirety of the argument is class envy when you're focusing on one line (that's not particularly class envy IMO).

Anytime someone complains about what someone else makes, spends, or pays in taxes, I consider that first none of anyone else's business AND class envy. Why do you care and how does that affect you? You live in the most bankrupt state in the nation but rather than handle your own problems you focus on class warfare at the national level. Why is that? The entitlement mentality in California is a disease, please don't promote that nationwide.

Californians have moved to TX and are trying to change this state into the one they left. How did that work out during the last election?
 
Authoritarian government being bad doesn't mean that excessive wealth, and the excessive influence it buys, isn't bad as well.

You consider buying influence worse than the people who allowed their vote to be bought and that to me is a problem with your thought process.
 
You consider buying influence worse than the people who allowed their vote to be bought and that to me is a problem with your thought process.

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.
 
Anytime someone complains about what someone else makes, spends, or pays in taxes, I consider that first none of anyone else's business AND class envy. Why do you care and how does that affect you? You live in the most bankrupt state in the nation but rather than handle your own problems you focus on class warfare at the national level. Why is that? The entitlement mentality in California is a disease, please don't promote that nationwide.

Californians have moved to TX and are trying to change this state into the one they left. How did that work out during the last election?

We are all tied together. The actions of anyone impact everyone.

It's my business when I'm being impacted by wealth buying votes.
You consider buying influence worse than the people who allowed their vote to be bought and that to me is a problem with your thought process.
False dichotomy. Both the corrupted and the corruptors are bad.
 
You can remark, it's just dishonest to suggest the entirety of the argument is class envy when you're focusing on one line (that's not particularly class envy IMO).

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'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?
 
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-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-Money-And-Votes.pdf
 
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.

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.


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-Money-And-Votes.pdf


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.
 
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'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
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom