• 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

PureVanilla said:
I agree. But the Kochs are far right wing Republicans who throw their support to the Tea Party candidates. That's what this thread is about. Their money and influence.
Click to expand...

How many TP got elected in the last election? I do not know, reason I ask.
 
Conservative said:
You mean like Senators paying millions for a 174,000 a year salary? Still waiting for how some rich person spending their own money hurt you and preventing you from becoming rich? Again you are levying charges against the wrong source, you should be more angry at the politician who votes on the legislation and had their vote bought.
Click to expand...
If you're still waiting, you haven't been reading the multiple responses I've made to it.
 
Unrepresented said:
If you're still waiting, you haven't been reading the multiple responses I've made to it.
Click to expand...

All I see is you demonizing wealth and people spending their own money the way they want. That is freedom and the only harm is you believing they are the problem rather than the politicians whose votes can be bought.
 
Conservative said:
All I see is you demonizing wealth and people spending their own money the way they want. That is freedom and the only harm is you believing they are the problem rather than the politicians whose votes can be bought.
Click to expand...
Buying politicians occurs both directly and indirectly.

You can either bribe a weak willed established politician or simply buy public opinion which forces either like-minded laws or politicians into office.

Both are symptoms of a plutocracy.
 
PureVanilla said:
I agree. But the Kochs are far right wing Republicans who throw their support to the Tea Party candidates. That's what this thread is about. Their money and influence. And they want to drag God into the mix along with taking away women's rights and putting gays back in the closet. But they will make sure illegal immigrants stay here and work because they are all for paying millions of people $3 an hour under the table.
Click to expand...

That should get their 900 million back pretty quickly, with interest.
 
"Do you believe that the rich ought to pay of a percentage of their wealth to fund government programs intended to transfer wealth to government workers and "the poor"? If so you just might be a Marxist.
Do you believe that some should rule over the many because the many must be led (the dictatorship of the protes)?
If so you just might be a Marxist.

Do you believe that the productive steal from the poor?
If so you just might be a Marxist.

Do you believe that capitalism must be weakened or even destroyed for equality's sake?
If so you just might be a Marxist.

Do you believe that the government must dominate and control everything for the sake of fairness?
If so you just might be a neo-Marxist."
whysoserious said:
I see someone is a fan of bad comedy.
Click to expand...
And I see someone who just might be a Marxist.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm not going to throw out a dollar amount, but in general, if we're to accept that "all men are created equal," then there shouldn't be men who have millions of times more influence than others, at least without being vetted by the election process, which includes checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
Dittohead not! said:
but it is a bit of a stretch to say that Romney bowed out because of the Koch brothers. Why would he have had a part of that campaign chest for his own run?

Personally, I was surprised that he even considered running after having promised his wife he would not put her through another campaign.

Now, the Koch brothers are astute capitalists. Were they not, they wouldn't be sitting on a fortune with the capability of spending nearly a billion dollars to get their way politically. Astute capitalists, the ones who are able to amass huge fortunes, aren't going to spend all that money without a good chance for a return on investment. If that's not buying political influence, I don't know what is.

It's way past time for meaningful campaign finance reform. Let the billionaires invest elsewhere besides purchasing elections.
Click to expand...

What does meaningful campaign finance reform mean to you? What does Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech mean to you?
 
Unrepresented said:
Buying politicians occurs both directly and indirectly.

You can either bribe a weak willed established politician or simply buy public opinion which forces either like-minded laws or politicians into office.

Both are symptoms of a plutocracy.
Click to expand...

So you would deny an individuals right to spend their money the way they see fit vs. solving the problem by getting rid of politicians that are bought? Interesting. So when you stop people from spending on things you don't agree with what is next?
 
Last edited:
Unrepresented said:
I understand incentives.

Incentives come in a variety of forms. They also don't have to be winner takes all form to be effective.

My incentive is to increase equality because I like being equal, and I like those around me to be more equal.
Click to expand...

Feel free to be as equal as you like.
 
Misterveritis said:
What does meaningful campaign finance reform mean to you? What does Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech mean to you?
Click to expand...

Money is not speech, money is, well, money. Being able to purchase a louder voice than anyone else is not freedom of speech, nor is being able to legally bribe politicians to get what you want. None of that is what the founders intended.

There should be strict limits on how much money any politician can take and can spend to be elected.
 
Conservative said:
Winner take all? So tell me how a rich person prevented you from becoming rich? Apparently you think the pie is frozen in size, is that correct? You are limited by your own ability and effort from getting into the same class as those evil rich people you want to punish. Only you are stopping yourself
Click to expand...

At least he is effective at it.
 
Unrepresented said:
I have no pathology that drives me to exploit people sufficiently to become "rich."

I would prefer not to be exploited by people with such pathologies.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, those who opt out of providing goods and services people want and are willing to buy lack the talent to do so. It is convenient to describe success as a pathology. You are not failing. You just don't want to be sick.
 
Unrepresented said:
Wealth is like obesity; you get fat from eating too much, you get rich from exploiting too much. They're both compulsive disorders.

You can work hard, take risks, and develop skills without exploiting people. Many of us do it, a few have an untreated addiction that we as a society should help free them from.
Click to expand...

I am impressed at how easily you drink the Marxist bath water.
 
PureVanilla said:
I agree. But the Kochs are far right wing Republicans who throw their support to the Tea Party candidates. That's what this thread is about. Their money and influence. And they want to drag God into the mix along with taking away women's rights and putting gays back in the closet. But they will make sure illegal immigrants stay here and work because they are all for paying millions of people $3 an hour under the table.
Click to expand...

Are you rejecting those who want to restore the Constitution to its rightful place in our lives and form of government? I hope the money will be well spent in getting Constitutional Conservatives into additional positions to prevent the further spread of authoritarian statism.
 
PureVanilla said:
I agree. But the Kochs are far right wing Republicans who throw their support to the Tea Party candidates.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a few examples of far right wing Republicans? What makes them far right to you? Is it because they are highly successful and provide good, non-government jobs to tens of thousands of people?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Money is not speech, money is, well, money. Being able to purchase a louder voice than anyone else is not freedom of speech, nor is being able to legally bribe politicians to get what you want. None of that is what the founders intended.

There should be strict limits on how much money any politician can take and can spend to be elected.
Click to expand...

Your view, while interesting, is simply untrue. Nice try though.
 
Conservative said:
So you would deny an individuals right to spend their money the way they see fit vs. solving the problem by getting rid of politicians that are bought? Interesting. So when you stop people from spending on things you don't agree with what is next?
Click to expand...
We have many laws that limit how you can spend your money.

Try buying a nuclear weapon, or a hit man, or Cuban cigars.

Your money is only yours to spend if approved.
 
Unrepresented said:
We have many laws that limit how you can spend your money.

Try buying a nuclear weapon, or a hit man, or Cuban cigars.

Your money is only yours to spend if approved.
Click to expand...

Yeah, always was scared as hell of someone spending their money to influence politicians. Didn't realize that my spending was a vote in Congress. Hmmm, missed that in basic civics
 
Conservative said:
Yeah, always was scared as hell of someone spending their money to influence politicians. Didn't realize that my spending was a vote in Congress. Hmmm, missed that in basic civics
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that campaign spending has no effect on voters or the politicians elected?
 
Unrepresented said:
Are you arguing that campaign spending has no effect on voters or the politicians elected?
Click to expand...

Term limits is the answer, not restricting how much an individual can contribute to a political campaign. Why aren't you campaigning against those whose vote you believe has been bought?
 
Conservative said:
Term limits is the answer, not restricting how much an individual can contribute to a political campaign. Why aren't you campaigning against those whose vote you believe has been bought?
Click to expand...
My campaign is a candle to the sun with the billion dollars that rival interests are spending.
 
Unrepresented said:
We have many laws that limit how you can spend your money.

Try buying a nuclear weapon, or a hit man, or Cuban cigars.

Your money is only yours to spend if approved.
Click to expand...

Tyrants and wannabe tyrants support such things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom