Koch Bros. to spend $900 million to get Republican in the White House

Flee · May 24, 2015, 05:06:08 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Not Comms Officer · May 24, 2015, 05:07:58 AM

Quote from: Flee on May 24, 2015, 05:06:08 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 24, 2015, 05:01:43 AM
Quote from: Flee on May 24, 2015, 04:35:36 AM
Quote from: Luciana on May 24, 2015, 12:06:27 AM
Meanwhile the UK has restrictions on money spent, and can't get ads on TV.
Same.
For candidates or for parties?

Or both?
Parties = candidates. And limits on spending + amount of donations they can receive.

Ah, limitations. Not outright barring. Had me lost for a moment.

Flee · May 24, 2015, 05:42:55 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · May 24, 2015, 08:18:30 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

maverick · May 24, 2015, 09:24:32 AM

What a waste.

Mr. Psychologist · May 24, 2015, 10:05:16 AM

If they want to get a republican in they'd be better off just endorsing the democrat candidates for free.

Mordo · May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM

I'm not seeing the problem here. Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote? No. The Democrats are just as equally guilty by having rich, champagne socialist Hollywood actors endorse them, and I've yet to see an outcry about that.

Not Comms Officer · May 24, 2015, 06:24:02 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM

I'm not seeing the problem here. Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote? No.

And there's the problem. Funding does affect the outcome of elections quite a lot. It also locks the existing two-party system in place, as the two big parties have vastly more resources at their disposal than the other ones. So that results in the only parties people hearing of being the Republicans and Democrats. Many Americans aren't even aware of the existence of parties outside of those two.

Alternative Facts · May 24, 2015, 07:54:41 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM

Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote?

Uh, yes. It does, quite a bit.

Quote

The Democrats are just as equally guilty by having rich, champagne socialist Hollywood actors endorse them, and I've yet to see an outcry about that.

I hardly see any Hollywood "socialists" spending $900 in one election cycle. However, even when they do it shouldn't be acceptable.

Not Comms Officer · May 24, 2015, 08:15:05 PM

Quote from: Icy on May 24, 2015, 07:54:41 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote?

Uh, yes. It does, quite a bit.

Quote
The Democrats are just as equally guilty by having rich, champagne socialist Hollywood actors endorse them, and I've yet to see an outcry about that.

I hardly see any Hollywood "socialists" spending $900 in one election cycle. However, even when they do it shouldn't be acceptable.

It's people not living in the US who masturbate to Capitalism and think that it's the best system ever despite the fact that they never even lived in an actually Capitalist country. This is something that Meta's also very guilty of.

BrenMan 94 · May 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 24, 2015, 08:15:05 PM

Quote from: Icy on May 24, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote?

Uh, yes. It does, quite a bit.

Quote
The Democrats are just as equally guilty by having rich, champagne socialist Hollywood actors endorse them, and I've yet to see an outcry about that.

I hardly see any Hollywood "socialists" spending $900 in one election cycle. However, even when they do it shouldn't be acceptable.
It's people not living in the US who masturbate to Capitalism and think that it's the best system ever despite the fact that they never even lived in an actually Capitalist country. This is something that Meta's also very guilty of.

What does this have to do with anything? And the majority of the world is capitalist, so I don't know what you mean by "an actually Capitalist country".

Not Comms Officer · May 25, 2015, 12:14:56 AM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on May 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 24, 2015, 08:15:05 PM
Quote from: Icy on May 24, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote?

Uh, yes. It does, quite a bit.

Quote
The Democrats are just as equally guilty by having rich, champagne socialist Hollywood actors endorse them, and I've yet to see an outcry about that.

I hardly see any Hollywood "socialists" spending $900 in one election cycle. However, even when they do it shouldn't be acceptable.
It's people not living in the US who masturbate to Capitalism and think that it's the best system ever despite the fact that they never even lived in an actually Capitalist country. This is something that Meta's also very guilty of.
What does this have to do with anything? And the majority of the world is capitalist, so I don't know what you mean by "an actually Capitalist country".

Because there's a difference between capitalist countries and countries which use hybrid capitalist-socialist systems.

BrenMan 94 · May 25, 2015, 01:17:04 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 25, 2015, 12:14:56 AM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on May 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 24, 2015, 08:15:05 PM
Quote from: Icy on May 24, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote?

Uh, yes. It does, quite a bit.

Quote
The Democrats are just as equally guilty by having rich, champagne socialist Hollywood actors endorse them, and I've yet to see an outcry about that.

I hardly see any Hollywood "socialists" spending $900 in one election cycle. However, even when they do it shouldn't be acceptable.
It's people not living in the US who masturbate to Capitalism and think that it's the best system ever despite the fact that they never even lived in an actually Capitalist country. This is something that Meta's also very guilty of.
What does this have to do with anything? And the majority of the world is capitalist, so I don't know what you mean by "an actually Capitalist country".
Because there's a difference between capitalist countries and countries which use hybrid capitalist-socialist systems.

If your economy is based around spending and accruing wealth, it is necessarily capitalist.

Not Comms Officer · May 25, 2015, 01:35:22 AM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on May 25, 2015, 01:17:04 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 25, 2015, 12:14:56 AM
Quote from: BrenMan 94 on May 25, 2015, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 24, 2015, 08:15:05 PM
Quote from: Icy on May 24, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Madman Mordo on May 24, 2015, 10:29:11 AM
Does political party funding affect the results of an election and damage the individual's vote?

Uh, yes. It does, quite a bit.

Quote
The Democrats are just as equally guilty by having rich, champagne socialist Hollywood actors endorse them, and I've yet to see an outcry about that.

I hardly see any Hollywood "socialists" spending $900 in one election cycle. However, even when they do it shouldn't be acceptable.
It's people not living in the US who masturbate to Capitalism and think that it's the best system ever despite the fact that they never even lived in an actually Capitalist country. This is something that Meta's also very guilty of.
What does this have to do with anything? And the majority of the world is capitalist, so I don't know what you mean by "an actually Capitalist country".
Because there's a difference between capitalist countries and countries which use hybrid capitalist-socialist systems.
If your economy is based around spending and accruing wealth, it is necessarily capitalist.

Yeah, but Capitalism isn't some cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all economic system. There are systems of Capitalism which deviate significantly from its base form.

Mattie G Indahouse · May 30, 2015, 06:06:30 AM

It's one thing for video games to have high budgets for advertising but when it comes down to important things like this it should be more controlled. Instead of having an infinite limit on the amount of advertising money these people can have we should limit it down to a more fairer amount. That way everybody has an equal chance on advertising so instead of gaining votes by their advertising it's more from their stances. When it comes to TV ads I feel those should just be banned. You don't get enough on why you should vote for this person in a 30 second clip and some of them are bashing as well.

Nascent Email · May 31, 2015, 06:40:08 AM

Two words: George Soros.