• 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

Jack Hays said:
My interests were addressed just fine. Of course I had not over borrowed. When the bubble burst and interest rates fell I was able to refinance twice and now pay a historically low rate. I retired from one career in 2009 and took up another in 2010. Doing just fine. I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

aononno_1281037854_04C091.jpg
 
rocket88 said:
Ah, so money is only bad when Democrats spend it. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

No. This may be difficult for some to grasp, but it's actually okay if people or organizations want to spend their own money on advocacy.
 
Hard Truth said:
Claiming that Soros spends as much as the Kochs is not a good argument against doing something about the disproportionate amount of political influence the extremely rich can buy.
Click to expand...

You want to reduce the political influence exerted by big money? I can actually tell you how to do that, if you want.
 
Jack Hays said:
My interests were addressed just fine. Of course I had not over borrowed. When the bubble burst and interest rates fell I was able to refinance twice and now pay a historically low rate. I retired from one career in 2009 and took up another in 2010. Doing just fine. I don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

Well as long as you were OK I guess there was never a problem. Sure glad you straightened that out.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....sorry...but cherry picking a few people that hold that opinion doesn't make it so. The concept of "liberal" media is nothing more than a creation of Fox News to justify their far-right propaganda machine.
Click to expand...

Why deny it? Journalists are literate, educated, informed, smart and choose to work in a profession that usually doesn't pay well, but provides a vital public service.. Of course most of them are liberals.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's just the ups and downs of entrepreneurial capitalism in a liberal democracy.
Click to expand...

and the people who lost their jobs and homes are just routine collateral damage.
 
Unrepresented said:
Charles-Koch_minimum-wage.jpg


Tell me more about how this man is protecting workers' rights.
Click to expand...

He's for one exposing another Progressive fallacy.

Raising the minimum wage.

Lol....Progressive " solutions " are so one dimensional and silly. Kept simple so their core constituency can easily understand the nonsensical rhetoric.

In the interest of " fairness " the Government is the final arbiter of who's deserving and who deserves to be targeted.

Liberals would arbitrarily raise the minimum wage and raise cost on bussinesses in order to increase economic growth in at economy they don't understand.


Its a contradiction. Obama pretends to understand how our economy functions and implements policies to increase " aggregate demand " and help the free market grow.

But he's never given credibility to Free market solutions because at his core he opposes them No wonder his Green Jobs iniative was such a friken disaster.

Its no wonder his stimulus only stimulated more debt.


In the end doesn't care about improving our economy. His State of the Union proves that.

He cares about creating division where none exist for the purpose of perpetuating his progressive agenda.
 

And how much have thug unions spent on Democrat campaigns over the decades. . . . without the consent of the dues payers I might add?

Yah, when its working for the Democrats they keep their yaps shut.
But when some Republican donors come along they all start to snivel like beee-atches.
 
Hard Truth said:
People should not be swayed by political adverts because they offer too little information, often misrepresent the facts and appeal to emotions. People who are not sufficiently informed about the issues shouldn't vote, but I wouldn't support a law to stop them from voting.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't people be swayed by political ads?
 
TerryOfromCA said:

And how much have thug unions spent on Democrat campaigns over the decades. . . . without the consent of the dues payers I might add?

Yah, when its working for the Democrats they keep their yaps shut.
But when some Republican donors come along they all start to snivel like beee-atches.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot: Have the snivelers ever heard of George Soros? Bill Gates? Billionaires who give to the Left? Them plus the unions. . . . and they want to cry about the Koch's? Give me a break.

Freekin' hypocrites
 
Geoist said:
Difference is, how you spend your money doesn't affect the average citizen. Their money is intended to have a HUGE impact on our rights.
Click to expand...

The Koch brothers aren't looking to take away any of my rights that I'm aware of. What rights of yours are they looking to take away or even impede?
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Oh, I forgot: Have the snivelers ever heard of George Soros? Bill Gates? Billionaires who give to the Left? Them plus the unions. . . . and they want to cry about the Koch's? Give me a break.

Freekin' hypocrites
Click to expand...

Are you upset with guys like Soros and the Koch brothers funding elections and buying our politicians?

That's funny, because I feel the same way.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And as a matter of principle, what is wrong with supporting those running for office who support policies you support? Doesn't pretty much everyone want to elect those who have the same ideas/ideals that they do? And what is wrong with speaking over the media, around the media, getting your message directly to the voters? If politicians on the right and those who support them left it to the media to get their message across, conservative politicians would be at a distinct disadvantage.

As for sending jobs overseas, it's likely the policies of those the Koch brothers oppose that are shipping jobs overseas - more conservatives, friendlier to business, would keep jobs at home.
Click to expand...

I think there is a bit of a difference between speaking out on the candidate/issue you support and throwing nearly a billion dollars to influence elections. Our 'democracy' is becoming more and more of a joke, everyday.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so you're saying the Koch brothers and all the rest of the big donors, such as the FIRE sector which alone donated nearly $500 million to candidates in an off year, and the firms who spent about $3 billion in lobbying last year, in D.C. alone, are stupid and wasted all that money. Good point!
Click to expand...

Wow. What a stupid post. Of course i never said anything about who was stupid and who wasted money since that had nothing to do with what I posted about. But thanks for the moronic post. I needed a good laugh.
 
Geoist said:
Right. Those poor oppressed conservatives. :lol:
Click to expand...

What Conservatives are holding the bullhorn in DC today? What Conservatives are getting what they want passed into law? Who was the strong Conservative voice that successfully opposed the passing of the ACA and Dodd-Frank?
 
TerryOfromCA said:

And how much have thug unions spent on Democrat campaigns over the decades. . . . without the consent of the dues payers I might add?
Click to expand...


When did corporations start polling their shareholders about their lobbying and campaign contributions? I own shares - must have missed my election form which allowed me to direct contributions to politicians of my choice....
 
disneydude said:
Choosing a President is a little more important than choosing peanut butter. We are already influenced by China and other countries over the products we purchased.
Do you want to allow them to buy our Presidency as well?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



That's basically what they intend to try to do. :roll:

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I predict that it will fail and the Democrats will keep control of the White House.

The Koch brothers aren't the only people in this world with money.
 
tres borrachos said:
Wow. What a stupid post. Of course i never said anything about who was stupid and who wasted money since that had nothing to do with what I posted about. But thanks for the moronic post. I needed a good laugh.
Click to expand...

Here's what you said, "Great. If there is tons of evidence of their money forcing a politician to cast a vote on legislation in a way that he wouldn't have voted without their influence, then it should be easy for you to post tons of links showing that."

Forgetting the straw man "forcing" - either the money influences/changes votes or it doesn't. Seems self evident the money has a tremendous influence, causes recipients of big money to vote in the interests of donors, which is why sophisticated donors who travel in circles we're not part of give $billions every year, and spend $billions more in lobbying. Do you agree or not?
 
tres borrachos said:
Great. If there is tons of evidence of their money forcing a politician to cast a vote on legislation in a way that he wouldn't have voted without their influence, then it should be easy for you to post tons of links showing that.
Click to expand...


Of course our findings speak most directly to the “first
face” of power: the ability of actors to shape policy
outcomes on contested issues. But they also reflect—to
some degree, at least—the “second face” of power: the
ability to shape the agenda of issues that policy makers
consider. The set of policy alternatives that we analyze is
considerably broader than the set discussed seriously by
policy makers or brought to a vote in Congress, and our
alternatives are (on average) more popular among the
general public than among interest groups. Thus the fate
of these policies can reflect policy makers’ refusing to
consider them rather than considering but rejecting them.
(From our data we cannot distinguish between the two.)
Our results speak less clearly to the “third face” of
power: the ability of elites to shape the public’s
preferences. We know that interest groups and policy
makers themselves often devote considerable effort to
shaping opinion. If they are successful, this might help
explain the high correlation we find between elite and
mass preferences. But it cannot have greatly inflated our
estimate of average citizens’ influence on policy making,
which is near zero.
What do our findings say about democracy in
America? They certainly constitute troubling news for
advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments
to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy
preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our
findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not
in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.​

http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
 
American said:
Is there a source for that quote?
Click to expand...
After searching, it appears to be a summary of his foundation's advertising campaign against minimum wage increases, rather than a direct quote.

Point remains, he's still anti-worker.
Fenton said:
He's for one exposing another Progressive fallacy.

Raising the minimum wage.

Lol....Progressive " solutions " are so one dimensional and silly. Kept simple so their core constituency can easily understand the nonsensical rhetoric.

In the interest of " fairness " the Government is the final arbiter of who's deserving and who deserves to be targeted.

Liberals would arbitrarily raise the minimum wage and raise cost on bussinesses in order to increase economic growth in at economy they don't understand.


Its a contradiction. Obama pretends to understand how our economy functions and implements policies to increase " aggregate demand " and help the free market grow.

But he's never given credibility to Free market solutions because at his core he opposes them No wonder his Green Jobs iniative was such a friken disaster.

Its no wonder his stimulus only stimulated more debt.


In the end doesn't care about improving our economy. His State of the Union proves that.

He cares about creating division where none exist for the purpose of perpetuating his progressive agenda.
Click to expand...
Tell me more about how lowering the already poverty level minimum hourly wage will increase workers' pay.
 
TerryOfromCA said:

And how much have thug unions spent on Democrat campaigns over the decades. . . . without the consent of the dues payers I might add?

Yah, when its working for the Democrats they keep their yaps shut.
But when some Republican donors come along they all start to snivel like beee-atches.
Click to expand...


Yep, the Left lost its monopoly and they don't like it one bit.

" Unions represent people " , even though if your'e in a Union you have no say how your Union dues are spent.
 
Geoist said:
Right. Those poor oppressed conservatives. :lol:
Click to expand...

Not at all - delusions of oppression are for the weak and the left. Conservatives are self-actualizing. That's why they're proactively going out and trying to create what they want rather than sitting back and bemoaning what others are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom