Koch-Backed Network to Spend Nearly One Billion Dollars on Republican 2016 Presidential Election

rkunsaw said:
Okay, I admit it. I'm guilty of buying the government. I gave a total of $145 dollars to our Senate candidate, Tom Cotton. I also gave $25 dollars to Arkansas' candidate for governor, Asa Hutchinson. Both won big time thanks to my donations.

I'm happy to report that Republicans won every elective statewide office in Arkansas for the first time ever.

How many of you supported candidates with more than lip service?
Click to expand...

Me.... I always send money.. and not just to candidates in my state, but to candidates in other states who support my political views.. in order to defeat those that don't. While they say that all politics is local, we have to make sure the Federal aspect is protected.
 

In essence, the Koch Brothers are controlling the American political process with and estimated $1 BILLION dollars to be spent in 2016.. They are deciding who they want in office and will get them there by spending this money, almost entirely on negative TV and radio ads blasting the opposing candidate. This is the spawn of the now infamous Citizen's United ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing unlimited and most times anonymous contributions to PACS (political action committees) who purchase this negative air time.
 

IN stark contrast to the vast sums dregged up by the Koch brothers... this George Sorros false equivalency nonsense holds no water.. The right ALWAYS likes to compare Sorros to the Kochs... BUT.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/george-soros-super-pac_n_1920491.html

A spokesperson for Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing President Barack Obama's reelection, confirmed to The Huffington Post Thursday that billionaire investor George Soros has committed $1 million to the PAC. A spokesman for House Majority PAC also confirmed to HuffPost that Soros had given a combined $500,000 to House Majority PAC and the Senate Majority PAC in September.
Click to expand...
 
QuickSilver said:

An individual BLogger who took his numbers from the CAMPINGN FINANACE INSTITUTE. It is a nonpartisan group...
Click to expand...


I would suggest that you more closely investigate this CFI...paying particular attention to their Management and Board of Directors. However, if you have been exposed to the Chicago Political Machine, arguably the Most Corrupt in the nation, I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views. Here is a pretty good breakdown of the 2012 Presidential race, and the financing thereof. If you go through some of the subtitles, you can get even more detailed information as to where these candidates got their financial support.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out

As you can see from these numbers, the ONLY area in which the Romney supporters outspent the Obama team was in the area of "outside spending"...which is another way of noting the massive amount of money these PAC's, authorized by "Citizens United", are throwing at our election campaigns. This "Dark Money" is going to completely ruin our political system, and will only get worse as time passes.
 
Don M says....."I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views." I wonder what excuse we can find for your extreme partisan positions?
 
AZ Jim said:
Don M says....."I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views." I wonder what excuse we can find for your extreme partisan positions?
Click to expand...

Have you noticed that? It's only "Partisan" when it's liberal... All the Conservatives are just expressing their opinions.. :yes:
 
AZ Jim said:
Don M says....."I can somewhat understand your extreme Partisan views." I wonder what excuse we can find for your extreme partisan positions?
Click to expand...

If this comment is directed at me, I can assure you that I have NEVER been Dumb enough to vote the "Party Ticket". I try to devote sufficient time, each election, to looking closely at the various candidates, and selecting the one who presents the best potential for proper governance. Increasingly, those representing our two major parties leave little choice other than trying to find the one who will do the least amount of damage to the nation. I am registered as an "Independent", and I fully intend to stay that way.
 
Don M. said:
If this comment is directed at me, I can assure you that I have NEVER been Dumb enough to vote the "Party Ticket". I try to devote sufficient time, each election, to looking closely at the various candidates, and selecting the one who presents the best potential for proper governance. Increasingly, those representing our two major parties leave little choice other than trying to find the one who will do the least amount of damage to the nation.
Click to expand...

If you are suggesting all liberals vote "the party ticket", you are no more right in that assessment than suggesting Cons don't vote a straight party ticket. A good microcosm of that can historically be found in our senate, Democrats there vote all over the map but not the Republicans. Republicans "toe the line" and vote as one. You might say that is a good example of who (albeit in in the visible senate voting) of who votes the "straight party ticket". I am sure the same holds true for the general electorate.
 
AZ Jim said:
If you are suggesting all liberals vote "the party ticket", you are no more right in that assessment than suggesting Cons don't vote a straight party ticket. A good microcosm of that can historically be found in our senate, Democrats there vote all over the map but not the Republicans. Republicans "toe the line" and vote as one. You might say that is a good example of who (albeit in in the visible senate voting) of who votes the "straight party ticket". I am sure the same holds true for the general electorate.
Click to expand...

As evidenced by how many times Dems will vote with Republicans on issues... Those are the Blue Dogs that represent red States... You will always hear of a Conservative Democrat... however... has anyone ever heard of a Liberal Republican?..... That bird simply does not exist.
 
QuickSilver said:
Have you noticed that? It's only "Partisan" when it's liberal... All the Conservatives are just expressing their opinions.. :yes:
Click to expand...

Yup, labeling All Liberal viewpoints as "Partisan" makes as much sense as calling everyone who criticizes Obama as being "Racist"....yet, that seems to be the favorite tactic of those who blindly follow his every word.
 
AZ Jim said:
If you are suggesting all liberals vote "the party ticket", you are no more right in that assessment than suggesting Cons don't vote a straight party ticket. A good microcosm of that can historically be found in our senate, Democrats there vote all over the map but not the Republicans. Republicans "toe the line" and vote as one. You might say that is a good example of who (albeit in in the visible senate voting) of who votes the "straight party ticket". I am sure the same holds true for the general electorate.
Click to expand...

Over the years, I was always amazed at the number of people who just checked the "Party" on the ballot...until the State removed that option. Now, they at least have to go down the list looking for the D or R after a candidates name. The Best option would be to remove ALL reference to Party on the ballot, thus perhaps forcing some of these Dolts to do a Little Homework.
I fully agree about these politicians who can only vote the Party line...they are Absolutely worthless, and if the voters had an ounce of sense they would note that and refuse to re-elect these types. One of the Very Few in Congress that I have any respect for is our own Democratic Senator...Claire McCaskill. Her voting record is right in the Very Middle of the Senate, and she is ranked number 50 in terms of voting with/against the Party. I just wish she would demonstrate some aspirations to the White House....she is about the Only one I've seen that would make me want to join a campaign.
 
I like Liz Warren too but I will support whoever holds viewpoints closest to mine and it will most likely be a Democrat. In the simplest terms I will not vote for anyone in a party that advocates the destruction of the social programs I hold dear, not only because of myself but other seniors, disabled and poor.
 
AZ Jim said:
I like Liz Warren too but I will support whoever holds viewpoints closest to mine and it will most likely be a Democrat. In the simplest terms I will not vote for anyone in a party that advocates the destruction of the social programs I hold dear, not only because of myself but other seniors, disabled and poor.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my position... I don't vote for Republicans because I have not found one in many many years that holds my values. Why would I vote for someone that didn't? Just so I could say I did and prance around claiming to be an enlightened Independent?? Sounds silly to me..and a wasted vote
 
AZ Jim said:
I like Liz Warren too but I will support whoever holds viewpoints closest to mine and it will most likely be a Democrat. In the simplest terms I will not vote for anyone in a party that advocates the destruction of the social programs I hold dear, not only because of myself but other seniors, disabled and poor.
Click to expand...

Social Security if often referred to as "The third rail of US politics", and with good reason. Millions of Seniors rely on that program for their primary means of support. Were any politician Dumb enough to attack that program, he would quickly find that most voters over the age of 40 would abandon him. However, there is a problem quickly coming in the SSDI program. That program is slated to run out of funding in 2016...and how Congress chooses to address That issue, could be a good indicator of what direction our Entitlement programs will be taking in the future. We would ALL be well advised to pay close attention when that issue comes up for debate.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top