• 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

When you have to compete with billionaires for a "chance," most of the time you're going to lose.

Billionaires make their own chances. But by that logic if I make $100K/yr I get more chances than someone making $10K/yr. So why don't we just go straight to communism where everyone makes $10K/yr, right?
 
Right, and I didn't say they were wealthy. Very confused..... :doh

Okay let's look at it this way, we have the biggest govt in history right now in DC, and you complain about wealth distribution. It really kills your argument.
 
Billionaires make their own chances. But by that logic if I make $100K/yr I get more chances than someone making $10K/yr.
So why don't we just go straight to communism where everyone makes $10K/yr, right?



The difference between Communism and Socialism is that under Communism, 'everyone wearing glasses gets their heads smashed in with rifle butts' and under Socialism, 'drinks and smokes are on the middle class'. :roll:

Which do you prefer?
 
Okay let's look at it this way, we have the biggest govt in history right now in DC, and you complain about wealth distribution. It really kills your argument.

You do realize that the same could be said every year of Reagan's administration also don't you?

We have the biggest government every year. Our population keeps growing.
 
No one is stopping them from doing that, but they will not be able to buy the White House. :roll:

Wait and see. They aren't the only people in the USA with some cash.
Wtf?

Did I say they could?

Nor is that how it even works.
 
Wtf?

Did I say they could?

Nor is that how it even works.



The Koch Brothers have a lot of cash and they can buy a lot of things with that cash.

But there are a few things that they can't buy - like your vote and my vote.

That's what dooms their plans to failure.

The next occupant of the White House will be a Democrat.

Wait and see.
 
why would public financing be the answer?
and how would it be structured to prevent abuse?

Politicians clearly work for those who pay for their campaigns.

So we the people should pay for their campaigns.

Plus they spend much of their time at work raising money.
 
Are you under the impression that this example properly addresses the concerns people have about money and its influence on politics?

IRS... how quick one forget Obamas illegal action to have the IRS not approve the tax exemption requests of the Tea Party...
 
One thing that might be a step in the right direction is that candidates have 30 days to campaign. Of course, the same problems crop up, but at least the bulk of the spending is limited to those 30 days.

The greater question is how to remove the special interest groups from pushing the greater agenda? Annenberg Trust, a member of the Progressive Machine, has access to our nations public schools through it's Annenberg Learner program. The NEA, the national teachers union, has it's Director as the head of the mighty Democracy Alliance, which is the central core of the Progressive Machine.

AFSCME is another massive public union spender pushing Progressive agenda's and backing liberal/progressive candidates. The SEIU is also similarly spending and affiliated. While their dues may be collected from the individual government employees, it's the taxpayers who are providing the money. How does this spending get accounted for?



How do these ongoing enterprises get removed from equation?

Groups whose money is made up of many voluntary contributions are different from those of wealthy single individuals and corporations.

They just are. Its just more "democratic". The voice of the many instead of the few.

That said, I would like to see public financing.
 
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?

The Kochs want to end pollution regulations. We all have a right to breathe unpolluted air.
 
Simple.

When you have a crappy product that no one likes, you have to spend a lot of extra money on marketing to sell i.

Yea.... Soros bought us pure junk snake oil..... we all suffer now
 
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?

Power goes back and forth. The conservatives held it between 2000 and 2008 in the White House and look what "good" that did us. I am not defending Democratic policies, only laughing at the notion that conservatives are somehow underrepresented in DC.
 
Groups whose money is made up of many voluntary contributions are different from those of wealthy single individuals and corporations.

They just are. Its just more "democratic". The voice of the many instead of the few.

That said, I would like to see public financing.

It depends on how those "individual voluntary contributions" are obtained. Until recent court rulings, union members had no say. To a degree, they don't know they have a right to chose now. Taxpayers in California have provided $100's of millions to the SEIU in the form of dues over the years through one program alone, In-Home-Support-Services. Would that be any different than one person like George Soros writing a check for $100 million to a super PAC?

I don't think so.

As I've written, I really don't know how one can fairly remove the spending on political agenda that is represented by elections. That marketing effort can take many forms beyond just an election cycle, such as what the very Progressive Annenberg Foundation does.

How do you stop that? I believe you can't so why not go the opposite way, and let them all spend what they want. In the end, it's always only a percentage of a percentage of a percentage who vote anyway, so all that money is a giant stimulus plan that trickles back into the economy.
 
The Koch Brothers have a lot of cash and they can buy a lot of things with that cash.

But there are a few things that they can't buy - like your vote and my vote.

That's what dooms their plans to failure.

The next occupant of the White House will be a Democrat.

Wait and see.

If ISIS has their way, you are correct, and it will be Joe Biden. After Joe loses his head, which likely has already happened, it looks like Boehner will be next on the chopping block. I feel pretty good about this. I'm a long, long way down the political ladder. At 65, I don't think they'll make it to me.
 
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.

C'mon, conservatives don't bemoan? They are constantly bickering and crying over the policies of our "socialist" president. You're a smart guy John and I like you but that's kind of silly.
 
Actually, the US Supreme Court rightly believes that the act of spending money is a form of free speech - very democratic.

Is bribing a state official "free speech?"
 
You do realize that the same could be said every year of Reagan's administration also don't you?

We have the biggest government every year. Our population keeps growing.

Are you missing the point, the govt gets bigger and bigger every year and the difference in wealth gets bigger and biggger; yet Lefties think bigger govt is the cure. Bull****!
 
The difference between Communism and Socialism is that under Communism, 'everyone wearing glasses gets their heads smashed in with rifle butts' and under Socialism, 'drinks and smokes are on the middle class'. :roll:

Which do you prefer?

Capitalism.
 
Power goes back and forth. The conservatives held it between 2000 and 2008 in the White House and look what "good" that did us. I am not defending Democratic policies,
only laughing at the notion that conservatives are somehow underrepresented in DC.



I predict that conservatives will be underrepresented in the White House after 2016. :lol: No matter how much money the Koch brothers spend.

Wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Power goes back and forth. The conservatives held it between 2000 and 2008 in the White House and look what "good" that did us. I am not defending Democratic policies, only laughing at the notion that conservatives are somehow underrepresented in DC.

If you're referring to George W. Bush, he wasn't a conservative.
If you're referring to the leaders of the House & Senate who were in control during those years? They are not conservatives.
Today is 2015 and there are still not many conservatives representing us.
 
Maybe I should run for office so I can be able to buy that second house I've always wanted make a difference! :2razz:

Viva America!

Running for office is big business. It's a moneymaker for lots of folks, both the politician and the 'handlers'.

A Politico article from the other day.

A POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission covering the 2014 cycle found that 33 PACs that court small donors with tea party-oriented email and direct-mail appeals raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs.


The rise of 'scam PACs' - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO
 
We need one Member per 100,000 citizens and the ability of the members to primarily work at home in their district. It would make the government far more effective than 1,000 campaign finance laws would. It scatters the flock from the wolves.
 
If you're referring to George W. Bush, he wasn't a conservative.

He absolutely was a conservative. A neoconservative, specifically.

If you're referring to the leaders of the House & Senate who were in control during those years? They are not conservatives.
Today is 2015 and there are still not many conservatives representing us.

Oh, thats right. The only TRUE conservatives are people like Ted Cruz. :roll: You do not have to be a radical conservative to be a conservative.
 
Back
Top Bottom