• 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

polgara said:
Greetings, Mustachio. :2wave:

All the various donors don't bother me, but I remember when the Democrats yelled foul after the Supreme Court leveled the playing field by allowing businesses, as well as unions, to also contribute monies to an election effort, and they are now accepting money from them, from the very top on down. Obama stated he would stop the practice, but it's still in place and both sides take advantage of it. Do they influence how a person votes by using advertising to sway a voter's opinion one way or another, which is really the most important thing? Maybe not, as Soros learned in the midterms after giving millions to Democrat candidates.

What I think needs to be changed is the electoral college, which over-rules the individual voter, since it's winner-take-all by State. It could be 51-49 statistically, but it disenfranchises millions of voters, and I don't think that's fair. State elections are a matter of how many votes a candidate gets, which determines who won. Period. If there's a question, vote counting can be redone. The electoral college is outdated, IMO, since the reason for it has changed since it was put in place hundreds of years ago, due to TV and the internet being used to keep people updated on what's going on - things they did not have available to them back then.
Click to expand...

In 2012, there were 435 elections for the House of Representatives. The candidate who had and spent more money won 95% of those elections. The electoral college is a completely different matter and I don't strongly agree or disagree with your opinions regarding that institution.

But referring to the Supreme Court allowing businesses to spend as much money as they want during an election cycle as "leveling the playing field" is a joke. I mean it literally sounds like you're joking. I don't see how anybody could argue anything other than they made the playing field the least level it has ever been. Less than 1% of Americans contribute about 70% of the money for elections. How is that even a little bit level?

Look at for-profit education. There are colleges like the University of Phoenix who charge a huge amount of money for classes that are basically useless. They have huge enrollment levels because of their advertising, which both is a cause and result of the enormous amount of money they make. These for-profit colleges are complete garbage and when it comes right down to it, they are scams. But yet we have elected officials who are stonewalling any attempt to regulate the for-profit education field because they rely on for-profit colleges to donate huge amounts of money to their campaigns. I call that bribery. I call that lunacy. What is good for Americans is being ignored because corporate enterprise has purchased lawmakers. So, I guess I'd ask you who you think we're leveling the playing field for? Certainly not the American people.
 
SheWolf said:
I have addressed this three times already in this thread. I am against being ruled by select group of people. The people we vote into office should listen to all of us, instead they only listening to their donors. When I listen to right wing radio, they even complain about the "donor class."

Now to get back to your statement that government creates inequality, not the 1%. I don't understand the difference if it's largely the 1% influencing government policy.
Click to expand...

The government makes the rules ultimately, that where change needs to occur. Govt cannot control every aspect of your life though and make everything all fair. Too many rules can have their own unintended effects.
 
American said:
The government makes the rules ultimately, that where change needs to occur. Govt cannot control every aspect of your life though and make everything all fair. Too many rules can have their own unintended effects.
Click to expand...

Ironic. . . . the same leftist extremists who reject any sort of rules or morality from a church or the Bible, are happy to have rules or morality imposed by an all-powerful government created by humans. Such is the hypocrisy, and stupidity, of Liberalism.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Ironic. . . . the same leftist extremists who reject any sort of rules or morality from a church or the Bible, are happy to have rules or morality imposed by an all-powerful government created by humans. Such is the hypocrisy, and stupidity, of Liberalism.
Click to expand...

Not that I am saying that we should create an all-powerful government or anything like that, but realistically speaking we can change the laws of the country. No one has truly been able to do that with the popular religions.
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Ironic. . . . the same leftist extremists who reject any sort of rules or morality from a church or the Bible, are happy to have rules or morality imposed by an all-powerful government created by humans. Such is the hypocrisy, and stupidity, of Liberalism.
Click to expand...


Ironic, (not really, but ok Alanis) the same "very conservative" american patriot hasn't read the constitution.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Ironic, (not really, but ok Alanis) the same "very conservative" american patriot hasn't read the constitution.
Click to expand...

Obviously neither have you or about its history, since the govt was intended to be limited.
 
American said:
Obviously neither have you or about its history, since the govt was intended to be limited.
Click to expand...


Please cite me the portions of the constitution that proclaim we need to derive societal "moral" norms from the Bible.
In fact, cite me the constitution saying anything about the Bible.
 
CMPancake said:
Not that I am saying that we should create an all-powerful government or anything like that, but realistically speaking we can change the laws of the country. No one has truly been able to do that with the popular religions.
Click to expand...

Why do you copy my posts and post them in the dungeon where I cannot go? Thats a cowardly punk move.
 
Hard Truth said:
The constitution is not the only authority regarding our rights. It only limits which rights can not be taken away by the government in the USA.
Click to expand...

:doh

And again.

If that were the case, automobiles and chimneys would have been outlawed long ago.​


Stop playing silly. No such right exists.
 
Unrepresented said:
This is a fairly one sided depiction of management/labor relations. Neither side can perform without the other. Leadership alone doesn't drive nails, provide patches, interact with customers, win accounts, or design new products.

The emphasis on leadership at the expense of the many backs, minds, and hands who executed that vision is disturbing.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what comprises membership to either. Labor has no nails to drive without leadership. In fact, labor doesn't care what kind of nails to drive, it just does what it is told to do. Of course, this argument between the importance of one over the other started when the first person agreed to work for another for some form of payment.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is not true that union members have no say in campaign donations. Unions are democratic organizations that represent 14.6 millions workers in America. Union members vote to elect their officers, can run for office and attend meetings.
Click to expand...

Until very recently, union membership, or at least payment of dues, was not voluntary. It would still be that way if unions had their way. The unions in turn could spend that money in any manner they wished. And they have. Look at the spending on political campaigns by AFSCME. Or the SEIU.
 
It is funny how the Kochs are always mentioned when it comes to political donations, yet they aren't at the top of the list for private donors. What about all of the other major players in the political money landscape? Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg, etc....? Wasn't Soros in the spotlight recently because one or some of the groups he funds was stirring up trouble in Ferguson?

You are trying to start a "bash the Kochs" thread and it is quite dishonest. Both teams are fairly even when it comes to money they spend on campaigns, yet libs tend to want to bash the Kochs when Soros and Bloomberg are 10x more destructive and divisive.

Until we take money out of politics, you can't say squat about either team's donors. Both teams have the same rules correct? I don't see the problem? The only problem is the ill-informed and under-educated American public gets duped every election cycle by a sycophant that does the opposite of their platform that got them elected (ie: Obama).
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
Fell right into that trap!

"Job Creators": Luntz Strikes Again | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

As to the rest, y'all's manufactured memes are starting to collide.

First there was no income inequality. Then it was all the increases in productivity were from investments in technology, but non-ownership-class people have nothing to fear from automation. Then, in the face of this, ya try to ram this "job creator" nonsense down our throats, when they've been doing the exact opposite of "job creation for almost forty years now (and no, exploiting a desperate person's desperation overseas isn't "job creation" either. Its "job reduction" because they took a job that paid "x" and turned into a job that pays a tiny fraction of "x".
Click to expand...

LOL.

The only trap that has been sprung is the one you tripped yourself. I really don't understand the Progressives fixation with Luntz. What does this obsession prove?

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to discover why jobs are so precious today, rather than follow the rest of the lemmings and lap up the "rich are evil" memes Progressives are required to eat daily.
 
JRSaindo said:
It is funny how the Kochs are always mentioned when it comes to political donations, yet they aren't at the top of the list for private donors. What about all of the other major players in the political money landscape? Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg, etc....? Wasn't Soros in the spotlight recently because one or some of the groups he funds was stirring up trouble in Ferguson?

You are trying to start a "bash the Kochs" thread and it is quite dishonest. . . . .
Click to expand...

Explaining dishonesty to a dishonest person rarely bares any fruit.
 
JRSaindo said:
It is funny how the Kochs are always mentioned when it comes to political donations, yet they aren't at the top of the list for private donors. What about all of the other major players in the political money landscape? Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg, etc....? Wasn't Soros in the spotlight recently because one or some of the groups he funds was stirring up trouble in Ferguson?

You are trying to start a "bash the Kochs" thread and it is quite dishonest. Both teams are fairly even when it comes to money they spend on campaigns, yet libs tend to want to bash the Kochs when Soros and Bloomberg are 10x more destructive and divisive.

Until we take money out of politics, you can't say squat about either team's donors. Both teams have the same rules correct? I don't see the problem? The only problem is the ill-informed and under-educated American public gets duped every election cycle by a sycophant that does the opposite of their platform that got them elected (ie: Obama).
Click to expand...

Complains OP is singling out the Kochs and GOP and says its dishonest.

Singles out Soros and the Dems and says they are 10x worse.

Then says you can't say anything about either side.

Nice.
 
Mustachio said:
In 2012, there were 435 elections for the House of Representatives. The candidate who had and spent more money won 95% of those elections. The electoral college is a completely different matter and I don't strongly agree or disagree with your opinions regarding that institution.

But referring to the Supreme Court allowing businesses to spend as much money as they want during an election cycle as "leveling the playing field" is a joke. I mean it literally sounds like you're joking. I don't see how anybody could argue anything other than they made the playing field the least level it has ever been. Less than 1% of Americans contribute about 70% of the money for elections. How is that even a little bit level?

Look at for-profit education. There are colleges like the University of Phoenix who charge a huge amount of money for classes that are basically useless. They have huge enrollment levels because of their advertising, which both is a cause and result of the enormous amount of money they make. These for-profit colleges are complete garbage and when it comes right down to it, they are scams. But yet we have elected officials who are stonewalling any attempt to regulate the for-profit education field because they rely on for-profit colleges to donate huge amounts of money to their campaigns. I call that bribery. I call that lunacy. What is good for Americans is being ignored because corporate enterprise has purchased lawmakers. So, I guess I'd ask you who you think we're leveling the playing field for? Certainly not the American people.
Click to expand...

When I referred to "leveling the playing field," I was being serious. Perhaps I'm not seeing things correctly, and that is very possible, but we never heard of The Koch Brothers, as an example, until fairly recently. I think the Supreme Court attempted to make it more fair by allowing businesses and banks to also fund campaigns. Unions have been donating to the Democrats for a long time, and they didn't make a secret of it, and of course there is Soros and people like him who are billionaires, but they are unusual because they are neither union nor big business, just extremely wealthy people who are pro one-world-government, which is a third faction interfering in things.

As usual, the pendulum swung too far in the wrong direction, and what we have now is lots of money being funneled to both parties and this certainly leaves the average guy on the street out in the cold. I suppose all the big donors want their interests represented in government, and the fact that congress has again changed the rules to allow them to spend even more shows us they like big money involved in the electoral process. Greed rules!

The fact that Obama and Romney each spent one billion dollars on the last POTUS election astonished me, but it proves my point. The days of average citizens donating $20 to the campaign of a candidate they liked are gone. Oh, they may still do so, but why bother - it's not going to matter, and that's wrong all around. We seem to have become ancient Rome reincarnated, and the "barbarians" at the gate this time are the ME terrorists who would like to see Western countries destroyed - and Rome did fall. Will history repeat itself? I sincerely hope not!
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Please cite me the portions of the constitution that proclaim we need to derive societal "moral" norms from the Bible.
In fact, cite me the constitution saying anything about the Bible.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim that.
 
SheWolf said:
Have you read Citizens United and understand corporate personhood? The law says corporations can donate directly to political campaigns. Corporations are people.
Click to expand...

No way! I never heard that before. Wow, if I didn't come to DP years after SCOTUS makes a ruling, I would never know what they're up to.
 
polgara said:
When I referred to "leveling the playing field," I was being serious. The fact that Obama and Romney each spent one billion dollars on the last POTUS election astonished me, but it proves my point. The days of average citizens donating $20 to the campaign of a candidate they liked are gone. Oh, they may still do so, but why bother - it's not going to matter, and that's wrong all around. !
Click to expand...

Except as I showed earlier, the bulk of Obamas donations came from individuals who gave less than $200. Think about the impact of that, and how that may shape Obamas stance on issues. I can only hope that phenomenon continues in 2016..
 
Threegoofs said:
Complains OP is singling out the Kochs and GOP and says its dishonest.

Singles out Soros and the Dems and says they are 10x worse.

Then says you can't say anything about either side.

Nice.
Click to expand...

Right, there are probably tons of articles I could easily find right now in seconds about other high profile donors to any party. This one happened to be about the Koch bros because they are now putting an unprecedented amount into the field, which explains why someone would take the time to write an article about it. So we are trying to discuss this new development and yes some of us are bashing it because we think big money should stay out of campaigning. So even if some of the conservatives here don't really like it either instead of bashing them too they have to pull out exactly what you just outlined.
 
Napoleon said:
Do you think campaign contributions or other political spending should be subject to a yea/nea vote by the shareholders?
Click to expand...

I believe the company operates based upon shareholder votes and support
 
TerryOfromCA said:
Ironic. . . . the same leftist extremists who reject any sort of rules or morality from a church or the Bible, are happy to have rules or morality imposed by an all-powerful government created by humans. Such is the hypocrisy, and stupidity, of Liberalism.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. You're complaining that people who reject theocracy embrace the government established by our founders. There is no hypocrisy in that position.
 
ocean515 said:
I guess it depends on what comprises membership to either. Labor has no nails to drive without leadership. In fact, labor doesn't care what kind of nails to drive, it just does what it is told to do. Of course, this argument between the importance of one over the other started when the first person agreed to work for another for some form of payment.
Click to expand...
The point I'm belaboring (ho ho) is that ultimately it's a societal product. It's not just the guy with the dream, it's not just the guy with the hammer, it's not just the official who ensures it's going to make code, it's not just the financial backer, it's not just the supportive spouses, it's not just the police who prevent mischief, etc. etc. etc.

America seems to have a pathology for putting a single face on success rather than acknowledging that our success is not in spite of each other, but because of each other. Once we can get past that myopia, we can more fairly distribute.
 
Unrepresented said:
The point I'm belaboring (ho ho) is that ultimately it's a societal product. It's not just the guy with the dream, it's not just the guy with the hammer, it's not just the official who ensures it's going to make code, it's not just the financial backer, it's not just the supportive spouses, it's not just the police who prevent mischief, etc. etc. etc.

America seems to have a pathology for putting a single face on success rather than acknowledging that our success is not in spite of each other, but because of each other. Once we can get past that myopia, we can more fairly distribute.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you need to look a little further, and a little deeper. One major missing ingredient is the return on investment derived from a mindset that involves responsibility. When someone makes a decision to be, what in effect is, a follower, it is unreasonable to demand they receive the benefits of being a leader.

Let me see if I can explain my rational for believing this.

Remove all commercial economic "rewards" from any endeavor. For it to be successful, there can't be 20 chefs, and no servers. Someone has to step up and help direct the effort. That person most likely is not going to be down in the mud with the others. Is it fair for the others to demand similar treatment? If the leader is particularly skilled at directing the others, should they not receive some extra benefit? Wouldn't other groups want to have that person provide the same skills to their endeavors, and be willing to offer even greater benefits for agreeing to do so? Should the people down in the mud demand even louder that they receive equal treatment?

Distribution is fair today, because it is what it is. Do I think top CEO's need to be paid on average $10 million per year? I leave that to board of directors, and the compensation committee. Ultimately it comes down to the stakeholders. Do I think the workers "out in the trenches" should begrudge the CEO? Well, I'm sure they'd like to get 1/10th of the CEO's pay. The question becomes, what's stopping them from trying, and if they don't try, why are they complaining?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom