• 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 to withhold millions for health care 'yes' votes

You're talking about the guy who stole nearly a quarter billion dollars from regular Americans. Good luck with that.

I took one point away from Trump in the last week because of RyanCare, if this Turkey passes Trump goes to 8/10 on job performance.

This is not OK.
 
I took one point away from Trump in the last week because of RyanCare, if this Turkey passes Trump goes to 8/10 on job performance.

This is not OK.

But you deducted no points for stealing a quarter billion dollars from regular Americans. Whatever moral compass you're operating on, it's not one I recognize.
 
"House GOP right now is like a college kid rewriting his term paper because the first draft wasn't ****ty enough."

-Michael Ian Black
 
You just made an argument for why Citizens United is bad for average Americans.

So because people aren't using thier rights to thier full potential it should be taken away?
 
That is crazy. Previously, that was not allowed, under the First Amendment. There was a cap.

Because of the Citizens United case, corporations and a few wealthy people now own Washington lock, stock, and barrel. That's not a democracy. That's an oligarchy.

Previous to a SCOTUS ruling you didn't have a personal freedom of speech, should that be taken away too? I rarely have a problem with the SCOTUS expanding already existing rights.

In this case it was just a consistent position with previous SCOTUS rulings. Liberal act like that giving corporations the same freedom of speech that people have is new and unprecedented but not one of those liberals is whining about the 1971 SCOTUS ruling that gave the NYT corporation the same freedom of speech as an individual. In fact it would be impossible for news organizations to exist without corporations having 1st amendment rights.
 
This is why Citizens United is horrible for the U.S.A. Politicians have to do the bidding of the Koch bros, or else! What happened to government getting its legitimacy from the people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. Since Fascism is defined by corporate control of a government, this amounts to Fascism by proxy. And no, this has nothing to do with Hitler. Think Mussolini here.
 
Not really. Taxes belong to the country.

We all earn our money by virtue of the services and environment that the country provides. The electric grid, the interstate system, dams for electricity, street lights, clean air and water, government agencies that handle car registrations and deeds and records, etc.

Every citizen contributes to the country proportionate to his or her income. We pool that money for us to use to support the continuance of our country and the government, keep the environment clean and protected for future generations and enable us to make a living and pursue a free, happy, healthy life.

True to the nature of human beings, some are selfish and don't want to acknowledge the community that contributed to their success or their duty to contribute to the community, like the rest of us. Ironically, it is often those with the most who resent paying their fair share.

Our country doesn't ask much of the wealthy. Most pay a lower percentage of their income to the country than the middle class. And some very wealthy people and corporations pay nothing at all, legally.

So, no...it's not "their" money in the sense that they are not entitled to dictate how the country sees fit to use it in the best interest of the country. I may disagree with the use of my taxes, such as for a war I don't support. But we don't get to dictate specifically how each dollar of our taxes can be used. Which makes sense.

All civilized societies provide a safety net for those at the bottom, for our most vulnerable. All civilized societies provide health care to all of its citizens. That's the least of which a country should do for its citizens. If someone disagrees, maybe they should move to another country and see if their success can continue over there. Of course, if they move to another country, they'll have to look for one that doesn't provide the basics to its citizens. There aren't many successful, civilized countries that don't do that. Except here in the U.S., where people die for lack of health care.

I didn't read past, "not really." No matter what you or anyone else has to say, there's no way anyone can convince me that the property of a person doesn't belong to that person.

Their money, is their money.
 
Well, look at it this way. That either:

1) Kills this bill. Status-quo largely remains in tact.

2) Kills this bill, institutes far worse bill. Dooms GOP.

I think the GOP is doomed either way. And that doesn't make me happy to say that or feel that.
 
Not really. Taxes belong to the country.

We all earn our money by virtue of the services and environment that the country provides. The electric grid, the interstate system, dams for electricity, street lights, clean air and water, government agencies that handle car registrations and deeds and records, etc.

Every citizen contributes to the country proportionate to his or her income. We pool that money for us to use to support the continuance of our country and the government, keep the environment clean and protected for future generations and enable us to make a living and pursue a free, happy, healthy life.

True to the nature of human beings, some are selfish and don't want to acknowledge the community that contributed to their success or their duty to contribute to the community, like the rest of us. Ironically, it is often those with the most who resent paying their fair share.

Our country doesn't ask much of the wealthy. Most pay a lower percentage of their income to the country than the middle class. And some very wealthy people and corporations pay nothing at all, legally.

So, no...it's not "their" money in the sense that they are not entitled to dictate how the country sees fit to use it in the best interest of the country. I may disagree with the use of my taxes, such as for a war I don't support. But we don't get to dictate specifically how each dollar of our taxes can be used. Which makes sense.

All civilized societies provide a safety net for those at the bottom, for our most vulnerable. All civilized societies provide health care to all of its citizens. That's the least of which a country should do for its citizens. If someone disagrees, maybe they should move to another country and see if their success can continue over there. Of course, if they move to another country, they'll have to look for one that doesn't provide the basics to its citizens. There aren't many successful, civilized countries that don't do that. Except here in the U.S., where people die for lack of health care.

Actually, no. While I'm no fan of multibillionaires going public with this kind of message, the reality is, their money is NOT the country's money. Their money is their money. Period.
 
Uh-oh.

The clash of the Titans. The Koch Brothers are directly challenging Trump's power. Who is more powerful? The Koch Brothers or Trump (who could end up being removed from office)?

Good question. The last election cycle proved who is the most powerful.

The voters. ;)

Rather proves how limited the influence the left's bogie men have.
 
Only because average citizens haven't really banded together yet, it's pretty sad because I see a lot of issues where people could make a difference

Yeah silly average citizens who grew up with the obsolete notion that this country was founded on- ONE MAN, ONE VOTE. People do band together- marches and town meetings- the problem is a pair of brothers can easily outspend millions banded together in the PAC arena. Let's have a billionaires march or something... :peace
 
Good question. The last election cycle proved who is the most powerful. The voters. Rather proves how limited the influence the left's bogie men have.

A very bizarre one-off election between two of the stinkiest candidates ever proves nothing... :peace
 
Proves everything. Impossible to argue otherwise.

Proves a lot of things but not that PACs are powerless in the face of voters... impossible to argue otherwise....

This was a one-off election, the lowest point in our democracy so far... :peace
 
Proves a lot of things but not that PACs are powerless in the face of voters... impossible to argue otherwise....

This was a one-off election, the lowest point in our democracy so far... :peace

Well, I recognize it must be seen as a one off to people who identify with certain political ideologies.

In reality, the PACS were shown to have far less influence over voters than their millions had hoped for.

Why else would donors be screaming at the laughable Hillary on one side, despite the manipulations and collusion, and reeling at the failure of establishment Republicans to prevail in the primaries on the other.

As proven, the voters were the most powerful group, and the trend continued in States across the Nation.
 
Yeah silly average citizens who grew up with the obsolete notion that this country was founded on- ONE MAN, ONE VOTE. People do band together- marches and town meetings- the problem is a pair of brothers can easily outspend millions banded together in the PAC arena. Let's have a billionaires march or something... :peace

Hey, Soros just pays people to march, he doesn't do it himself.
 
A very bizarre one-off election between two of the stinkiest candidates ever proves nothing... :peace

That's for sure. The left hates Trump, the right hates Clinton. Trouble is, the right didn't like Trump so much, the left didn't like Hillary so much.
 
Uh-oh.

The clash of the Titans. The Koch Brothers are directly challenging Trump's power. Who is more powerful? The Koch Brothers or Trump (who could end up being removed from office)?

They are free to voice their view, they want to see more actual change, what this bill is is reform light because too many GOP'ers in leadership are afraid to act with conviction.
 
Would you still feel the same way if the PAC was funded by the 24 million people that might lose insurance all giving small donations?

it's pretty much how obama won so handedly in 08 and no, it's not remotely the same. It's just another form of democracy. Corporations are not people, despite what the 1% and the republican party wants us to think
 
It is hard to argue against the 1st, but there IS a solution. Candidates for public office deserve fair treatment of their position, regardless of their financial means, so matching funds have to be made available. Lets see the billionaires spend money and then the taxpayer have to match it and how long that will last.
 
it's pretty much how obama won so handedly in 08 and no, it's not remotely the same. It's just another form of democracy. Corporations are not people, despite what the 1% and the republican party wants us to think

Funny how liberals supported corporations being people when it helped the new york times :shrug:
 
I took one point away from Trump in the last week because of RyanCare, if this Turkey passes Trump goes to 8/10 on job performance.

This is not OK.

If it passes and he signs it, will be known as Trumpcare. He'd have to veto it otherwise and given the weight he's throwing behind it, calling it Ryancare is pointless. Even the republicans admit this. It won't be just one congressman going down if it's disastrous, will be all of them

Just as everyone calls the ACA Obamacare, not Liebermancare
 
Back
Top Bottom