• 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

ocean515 said:
Actually, given their support, they likely represent more people than the total membership in unions you reference.
Click to expand...

Prove it. How many people support the Koch's agenda? Link?
 
tres borrachos said:
And...? So do the candidates' ads. Are you proposing the elimination of any advertisements?
Click to expand...

Political advertisements includes candidate's ads. I do not advocate banning advertisements. I am saying that only fools base their votes on advertisements. I want to see useful information on candidates and ballot measures made public and easier to access. For example, I would require all broadcasters to air debates with all candidates and statements from all candidates and ballot measure supporters and opponents repeatedly during a variety of times, including prime time.
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, if someone really liked "Brand X" peanut butter and decided to initiate a campaign to get more people to like the brand would you have a problem with that? What if they spent $900M to get you to change from "Brand Y" to their preferred brand?
Click to expand...

One of the founders of modern public relations has a quote that goes something like this:

"Give me an unlimited budget and 100% saturation and I could get a pig elected to the white house".

So maybe we'll see.

And as to the second question, I would have a problem if brand "x" was poisonous and they knew full well.
 
tres borrachos said:
If I understand Terry's point correctly, a handful of people in the Unions decide how all of their members' dues are donated. The Koch Brothers aren't spending anyone else's money. It doesn't matter if there are 2 of them or 387443756 of them. It's their money.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Any union member who gets involved can influence those decisions. Just voting in union elections gives members influence.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
No, I'm a capitalist. If you've got it, spend it I say.

The exception is the unions, because they take the money they force out of dues payers, money that should be going to help the member, and they give it to one political party that many of those dues payers do not support!! That is BAD.

But the rich donors? That does not bother me. What bothers me is the Liberal hypocrites who are cool with Soros and Gates but think the Koch's are the devil.
Click to expand...
iliveonramen said:
Unions put money towards pro-union candidates.... . .
Click to expand...

That is a load of dung. Its a two-way corrupt slush fund. Its corruption at its worst.

Look at the Keystone Pipeline: The unions HATE that Obama is not building it. Obama is costing them jobs on that and a host of other issues.

Republicans are all about jobs and economy, and that can only be good for unions. The LIE the Democrats are the pro-union party is the same LIE that Democrats are pro women, pro little guy, and all that other crap.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
No, I'm a capitalist. If you've got it, spend it I say.

The exception is the unions, because they take the money they force out of dues payers, money that should be going to help the member, and they give it to one political party that many of those dues payers do not support!! That is BAD.

But the rich donors? That does not bother me. What bothers me is the Liberal hypocrites who are cool with Soros and Gates but think the Koch's are the devil.
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
Unions are people
Click to expand...

Then let those people donate to the party they want to donate to.

Right now, a union worker who votes Republican gets his money taken from him and given to Democrats. On what planet is that anywhere near acceptable?
 
TerryOfromCA said:
No, I'm a capitalist. If you've got it, spend it I say.
Click to expand...

By this definition even the Liberals you hate are capitalist. They're spending money too.

TerryOfromCA said:
The exception is the unions,
Click to expand...

Of course there is a exception. Double standards aren't complete without them.

TerryOfromCA said:
because they take the money they force out of dues payers, money that should be going to help the member, and they give it to one political party that many of those dues payers do not support!! That is BAD.
Click to expand...

Then is it fair that a company to donate money to political movements that it's employees don't support?

TerryOfromCA said:
But the rich donors? That does not bother me. What bothers me is the Liberal hypocrites who are cool with Soros and Gates but think the Koch's are the devil.
Click to expand...

I'm not okay with anybody, including Unions being able to donate large sums of money to Political groups. I'm just stumped that you are so angry against hypocrites when you are so transparently hypocritical yourself.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well since many persuasion techniques work even on those who use them in their profession, you almost certainly ARE influenced by persuasive messaging.

Which is why its current level of use (pervasive) is of concern and why many are concerned about vast amounts of money being spent on it, above and beyond the potential for corruption that money poses.
 
Hard Truth said:
They want to take away your right to use local government to enact regulations:

ALEC has long pushed bills like the “Living Wage Preemption Act" to block city, county, or local governments from enacting progressive economic initiatives like a higher minimum wage. - See more at: An Embattled ALEC, Buoyed by Election Results, Lays Blueprint for 2015 | PR Watch

Forbidding local governments from limiting pesticide use. Environment, Energy, and Agriculture - ALEC Exposed

The residents of Denton, Texas, had a remarkable victory over Big Oil in the midterm elections, becoming the first town in Texas to pass a ban on hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. But now state officials with ties to energy interests and to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the pay-to-play corporate bill mill, are threatening to undermine local democracy by refusing to follow the ban. - See more at: ALEC and Big Oil Work to Overturn Denton Fracking Ban | PR Watch
Click to expand...

That isn't taking my right away. The federal government almost always supercedes the local government in important issues. I'm looking to find out what individual rights they are looking to take away from citizens.
 
Hard Truth said:
That is incorrect. Any union member who gets involved can influence those decisions. Just voting in union elections gives members influence.
Click to expand...

My cousin is a steamfitter. He had to pay his dues. His union made big donations to Obama. My cousin voted for Romney. His union hall wasn't interested in his argument.

And again, the Koch brothers aren't spending anyone else's money - are they?
 
TerryOfromCA said:
That is a load of dung. Its a two-way corrupt slush fund. Its corruption at its worst.

Look at the Keystone Pipeline: The unions HATE that Obama is not building it. Obama is costing them jobs on that and a host of other issues.

Republicans are all about jobs and economy, and that can only be good for unions. The LIE the Democrats are the pro-union party is the same LIE that Democrats are pro women, pro little guy, and all that other crap.
Click to expand...

Unions support the Keystone Pipeline...which is one project. Republicans have tried to neuter unions at every turn. If Republicans weren't so anti-union, I'm sure money would go towards them. Saying that Republicans are good for Unions is just a blatant lie. Their base (I'm assuming you as well) and the party uses anti-union rhetoric all the time.
 
Hard Truth said:
Political advertisements includes candidate's ads. I do not advocate banning advertisements. I am saying that only fools base their votes on advertisements. I want to see useful information on candidates and ballot measures made public and easier to access. For example, I would require all broadcasters to air debates with all candidates and statements from all candidates and ballot measure supporters and opponents repeatedly during a variety of times, including prime time.
Click to expand...

And you think that the middle voters who make up their minds 5 minutes before they walk into the polls are going to invest their evenings watching debates between local candidates.

Anyone who wants to make an educated decision on a candidate or a ballot measure has all of the information needed right at their fingertips, between the internet and the local print media. They can even call the campaigns.

You aren't making a persuasive argument against the money the Kochs are going to spend.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
That is a load of dung. Its a two-way corrupt slush fund. Its corruption at its worst.

Look at the Keystone Pipeline: The unions HATE that Obama is not building it. Obama is costing them jobs on that and a host of other issues.

Republicans are all about jobs and economy, and that can only be good for unions. The LIE the Democrats are the pro-union party is the same LIE that Democrats are pro women, pro little guy, and all that other crap.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? The GOP wants to kill unions outright, and aren't shy about saying so. My GOPer Senators and roughly the entire GOP state legislature threatened the VW plant with punitive fallout if workers voted to unionize the plant in Chattanooga, and that was even though VW management supports unions.

BTW, your point about the unions supporting Keystone makes no sense. Yes, they do support it, so what? Obama went against them on that. How does that prove the unions are corrupt, etc?
 
iliveonramen said:
Unions support the Keystone Pipeline...which is one project. Republicans have tried to neuter unions at every turn. If Republicans weren't so anti-union, I'm sure money would go towards them. Saying that Republicans are good for Unions is just a blatant lie. Their base (I'm assuming you as well) and the party uses anti-union rhetoric all the time.
Click to expand...

And then they wonder why the Unions aren't their buddies....
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Then let those people donate to the party they want to donate to.

Right now, a union worker who votes Republican gets his money taken from him and given to Democrats. On what planet is that anywhere near acceptable?
Click to expand...

On the same planet where a shareholder who votes democratic gets his dividend check cut and the money given to republicans?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Why does money from the left get a pass but Koch money gets scrutiny?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Those concerned about big money in our politics are concerned about ALL big money in politics.

But that doesn't generate talking points, so it is ignored in favor of the false position that we want only republican money out.
 
What if...? said:
Well since many persuasion techniques work even on those who use them in their profession, you almost certainly ARE influenced by persuasive messaging.

Which is why its current level of use (pervasive) is of concern and why many are concerned about vast amounts of money being spent on it, above and beyond the potential for corruption that money poses.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't accept that the media should be choosing our elected officials either. And since the media long ago gave up unbiased journalism, it's left to paid TV and other paid media to get alternate messages to the public.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Then let those people donate to the party they want to donate to.

Right now, a union worker who votes Republican gets his money taken from him and given to Democrats. On what planet is that anywhere near acceptable?
Click to expand...

Those "people" did decide. Not all of Koch's employees support Republicans, and if you think there's no pressure from corporations for employees to donate to "their PAC," you're wrong. I've seen it first hand.
 
CMPancake said:
<snip>



Then is it fair that a company to donate money to political movements that it's employees don't support?



.
Click to expand...

Do corporations require their employees to pay dues that are transformed into political contributions to candidates? My understanding is that union donations are paycheck deductions. I'm not aware of corporations that are deducting funds from their employees' paychecks for political contributions.
 
tres borrachos said:
Okay, you laughed. Please show me some evidence of the Koch brothers forcing politicians to do something against their will or strictly because the Koch brothers required/demanded/bought it. I'm not aware of it.
Click to expand...

Its really more about getting their hand picked candidates elected. The guy they know will further their agenda.

Look up "wealth primary". That's where money picks who we get to choose between.
 
rocket88 said:
Those "people" did decide. Not all of Koch's employees support Republicans, and if you think there's no pressure from corporations for employees to donate to "their PAC," you're wrong. I've seen it first hand.
Click to expand...

Where did you see employees getting pressured to donate to their Koch PACs? That is against the law, and if you saw it you should report it. That is a violation of election laws. The only thing that they could offer is an incentive to donate, such as a matching or even accelerated contribution to a charity of the employees' choice. But that isn't pressure.
 
What if...? said:
Its really more about getting their hand picked candidates elected. The guy they know will further their agenda.

Look up "wealth primary". That's where money picks who we get to choose between.
Click to expand...

And everyone doesn't want his/her candidate elected? I do. When i make a political donation, I do it because I expect the candidate will cast a vote that I would approve of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom