• 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

rabbitcaebannog said:
I've no idea what this has to do with my statement.
Click to expand...

Is there any amount of money that will buy your vote? That is the point, only the stupid voter as Gruber stated buy the rhetoric and are influenced by rhetoric which is all that advertising is.
 
Conservative said:
It may work but it isn't illegal and the bigger problem continues to be the votes being bought not the spending of ones own money to influence a particular vote. Bet you are after the gun manufacturers as well vs. the person pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...
I don't see there being a particular distinction between influencing the voters and influencing the politicians. Both produce the same result and both are qualities of plutocracies. Both should be avoided.
Conservative said:
Is there any amount of money that will buy your vote? That is the point, only the stupid voter as Gruber stated buy the rhetoric and are influenced by rhetoric which is all that advertising is.
Click to expand...
We both buy the rhetoric, the only difference is the source of our respective rhetoric.
 
Conservative said:
Is there any amount of money that will buy your vote? That is the point, only the stupid voter as Gruber stated buy the rhetoric and are influenced by rhetoric which is all that advertising is.
Click to expand...

....and my point is advertising obviously works. People buy into sound bites all the time.
 
Unrepresented said:
I don't see there being a particular distinction between influencing the voters and influencing the politicians. Both produce the same result and both are qualities of plutocracies. Both should be avoided.

We both buy the rhetoric, the only difference is the source of our respective rhetoric.
Click to expand...

The world of the politician matters more than the influence being peddled by outside sources. Obama lied and sold the American people a white board in which the public could make him whatever they wanted. They ignored the resume and are getting exactly what they deserve. The problem is those who didn't vote for Obama are getting something they really didn't deserve. Obama won on rhetoric and his competence is being seen now.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
....and my point is advertising obviously works. People buy into sound bites all the time.
Click to expand...

Yet people then whine about the results they get or double down on their stupidity by defending the indefensible.
 
Conservative said:
The world of the politician matters more than the influence being peddled by outside sources. Obama lied and sold the American people a white board in which the public could make him whatever they wanted. They ignored the resume and are getting exactly what they deserve. The problem is those who didn't vote for Obama are getting something they really didn't deserve. Obama won on rhetoric and his competence is being seen now.
Click to expand...
Oh good, I was hoping this would get partisan and we could quote talking points rather than discuss financial influence in politics.
 
Unrepresented said:
Oh good, I was hoping this would get partisan and we could quote talking points rather than discuss financial influence in politics.
Click to expand...

Nothing partisan about a thread that focuses on Koch Brothers and ignores Soros and other Democrat support groups.
 
Conservative said:
Nothing partisan about a thread that focuses on Koch Brothers and ignores Soros and other Democrat support groups.
Click to expand...
Please show me where I've been arguing "please stop only rich conservatives from influencing elections."
 
Unrepresented said:
Please show me where I've been arguing "please stop only rich conservatives from influencing elections."
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you condemn Democrat groups and if I missed it, I apologize. The issue here continues to be what freedoms do
you support if not a persons ability to spend whatever they want to try and influence a particular vote. You have yet to prove that those efforts are successful
 
Whether it is a Bush dynasty or a Clinton dynasty, it does not matter who ends up in power, We The People will not be represented in the way that we were meant to be.
 
Conservative said:
I haven't seen you condemn Democrat groups and if I missed it, I apologize. The issue here continues to be what freedoms do
you support if not a persons ability to spend whatever they want to try and influence a particular vote. You have yet to prove that those efforts are successful
Click to expand...

Oh, please!

Money determines the outcome of political races. The slack jawed yokels watch the slick advertising campaigns that it buys and vote accordingly, and you know it. It doesn't matter whether the money is from Soros or Koch, it still buys elections and therefore favorable treatment in the halls of Congress.

And it does no good to say, "but if people weren't so stupid, if only they wouldn't pay attention to the ads." That's like saying, "but if only people used common sense." They don't, and that's a fact of life Further, whining that "liberals do it too," while true, does nothing to address the real issue, which is the influence of money on politics.

And, until that issue is addressed, purchasing political influence will still be a good investment.
 
Conservative said:
I haven't seen you condemn Democrat groups and if I missed it, I apologize. The issue here continues to be what freedoms do
you support if not a persons ability to spend whatever they want to try and influence a particular vote. You have yet to prove that those efforts are successful
Click to expand...

I have been advocating for a reduction in financial influence on politics, that would presume less spending by both major political parties and political groups.

I support speech, I don't necessarily support the viewpoint that money is speech.

If we can accept that advertising is successful, we can easily extrapolate that advertising for political positions or candidates would be successful.
 
JasperL said:
It's nice for you to keep repeating the same thing over and over and pretending that you're making anything resembling a persuasive point, but you're not.

If our property rights don't extend to the air we breathe, then why aren't you allowed to set up shop in the lot next to me and burn hazardous materials? On what basis can I sue you? IMO the landowner has property rights extending to the air he breathes and if you infringe on that right, he can sue for damages or to prevent you from infringing on his property rights to enjoy the use of his property without being poisoned by YOUR acts.

Alternatively, my neighbor can do as he wishes on his property, and there is nothing but a law that can prevent him from inflicting harm on me by poisoning the air I breath, killing my dogs, or cattle. If I want the burning to stop, I have to pay HIM.
Click to expand...

You have failed to make a case for a right. You have a remedy in the law. Nice try though.
 
So Gruber was right. Was it money or Obama rhetoric that elected this incompetent?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh, please!

Money determines the outcome of political races. The slack jawed yokels watch the slick advertising campaigns that it buys and vote accordingly, and you know it. It doesn't matter whether the money is from Soros or Koch, it still buys elections and therefore favorable treatment in the halls of Congress.

And it does no good to say, "but if people weren't so stupid, if only they wouldn't pay attention to the ads." That's like saying, "but if only people used common sense." They don't, and that's a fact of life Further, whining that "liberals do it too," while true, does nothing to address the real issue, which is the influence of money on politics.

And, until that issue is addressed, purchasing political influence will still be a good investment.
Click to expand...

The solution is to reduce the amounts of legal plunder. Eliminate the politicians' ability to plunder and money in politics will not matter one bit.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
You have failed to make a case for a right. You have a remedy in the law. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your notion of property rights might consist of then. Your position is that absent a law specifically banning the burning of hazardous materials that I have no recourse? It's absurd. Of course I can sue you for damages with or without a law prohibiting "pollution" of the type that you're engaged in. I have a right for the air I breath not to be poisoned by your acts - what is the origin of that right if not a property right?
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure what your notion of property rights might consist of then. Your position is that absent a law specifically banning the burning of hazardous materials that I have no recourse? It's absurd. Of course I can sue you for damages with or without a law prohibiting "pollution" of the type that you're engaged in. I have a right for the air I breath not to be poisoned by your acts - what is the origin of that right if not a property right?
Click to expand...

Do you own the air?

You do not have a right. You have a law.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you own the air?
Click to expand...

Of course I own the air that I breath as a normal part of enjoying my property rights. And so, if you poison that air, I can sue you for damages and I will win.

You do not have a right. You have a law.
Click to expand...

Well, you're wrong, but I don't see any point in continuing the debate. All you guys can or will do is just double down on baseless, unreasoned assertions unsupportable by any theory of property rights ever enunciated.
 
US should be upgraded to No 1 spot in the corruption index.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom