The New American Politics thread

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

In the beginning of 2007 when Obama announced he was running for the presidency, Soros within hours donated the maximum allowable amount directly to Obama.

So... $2700 ?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Soros has funded the Democratic party directly, not just community projects alone.

Which was not the point of the drivel you first posted. You attempted to make it seem like George Soros was responsible for directly funding those causing social unrest in Missouri, which is a total lie.

But it's not just in America where Soros funds his political interests. He bankrolled Havel in the Czech Rebublic's 1989 revolution. He's openly admitted to funding the rebels in Ukraine.

Irrelevant.

In the beginning of 2007 when Obama announced he was running for the presidency, Soros within hours donated the maximum allowable amount directly to Obama. Obama gave 2 billion of Americans tax dollars to fund Brazil's state owned drilling company, Petroleo Brasileiro. At the same time Soros pumped over 800 million into same company.

Did you any research on that to verify the lie you believe? It was Export-Import Bank that approved the loan, and at that time it was stacked with Bush appointees. Not a single Obama appointee had found their way into the Bank when the loan was approved. Sorry man, you've been duped by Glenn Beck and the Fox News crew.

No, what's funny is that it's impossible for a conversation to exist on american politics without people from the left crying about the Koch brothers. While conveniently forgetting about all the other donors that pump money into the Democratic party to suit their own agendas. I'll reiterate again that I'm not a fan of either political party being infiltrated by elite money.

Yet you were the one who first trotted out Soros?

Thomas and Kathryn Ann, Michael Bloomberg, Fred Eychaner, James and Marilyn Simons... look I can name drop too.

Good names, but not even in the same universe. Checkout the list of the top 100 individual contributors to political campaigns. Just for your information, of the list of the top 100 political contributors tracked, who do not hide behind shell foundations like the Koch brothers, the majority of the contributions go to Republican interests. Of the $380M contributed, $264M went to Republican politicians. Pretty amazing. Now look at the Koch brothers. $898M this cycle alone. Almost a BILLION dollars. Most of it untracked and untraceable because of their shell foundations.

[2Stonedbirds]

I guess I'll say it for a third time since you are either willfully ignorant or have the reading and comprehension skills of a dead moth; I'm not a supporter of any elite money dictating direction of supposed democratic procession.

Playing devils advocate can be entertaining though. After 1000+ posts with many containing belly aching and loathing over the Koch bros, I figured someone should play the ying to the yang.

So far all I have gathered from your posts is that it's not about corporate money being used to further the interests of individuals, but only the amount. So how much money is ok New Era?

Originally Posted by New Era

Which was not the point of the drivel you first posted. You attempted to make it seem like George Soros was responsible for directly funding those causing social unrest in Missouri, which is a total lie.

No, my attempt was to illustrate the double think that is responsible for simple minded people being sucked into believing whatever it is the various political news agencies would have you believe. Hey, you've picked your team and that's fine. Power to you.

But since it's a total lie, why don't you prove otherwise. I'm sure Soros intentions are as pure as the driven snow, especially considering...

Irrelevant.

...If you believe that money being pumped into a rebel uprising that overthrew a democratically elected gov't is irrelevant when it comes to donations being funneled into the US... well then I'm going to have to go with the willfully ignorant statement again.

Did you any research on that to verify the lie you believe? It was Export-Import Bank that approved the loan, and at that time it was stacked with Bush appointees. Not a single Obama appointee had found their way into the Bank when the loan was approved. Sorry man, you've been duped by Glenn Beck and the Fox News crew.

So he's a Republican supporter then? Interesting.

Yet you were the one who first trotted out Soros?

Devils. Advocate.

Good names, but not even in the same universe. Checkout the list of the top 100 individual contributors to political campaigns. Just for your information, of the list of the top 100 political contributors tracked, who do not hide behind shell foundations like the Koch brothers, the majority of the contributions go to Republican interests. Of the $380M contributed, $264M went to Republican politicians. Pretty amazing. Now look at the Koch brothers. $898M this cycle alone. Almost a BILLION dollars. Most of it untracked and untraceable because of their shell foundations.

What's funny is the names I researched came from the same site. Categorized differently but the same source. Again I must ask, are you concerned about the practice of corporate interests influencing US policy, or is it only the dollar amount you care about?

And crying about the Kochs shell foundations in the context of George Soros is hilarious.

[MRCboicgy]

Ok, everybody, take a breather. There's still over a year to go in this mess.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Ok, everybody, take a breather. There's still over a year to go in this mess.

That makes me either happy or depressed, can't decide which.

[Vulcan]

Bill Maher on his TV show Real Time, just gave Hillary Clinton $1M for her campaign.

So far Hillary has looked pretty lack-luster to me and I'd like to see Joe Biden get in to increase the competition.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I guess I'll say it for a third time since you are either willfully ignorant or have the reading and comprehension skills of a dead moth; I'm not a supporter of any elite money dictating direction of supposed democratic procession.

Then why bring up the red herring of George Soros and attempting to directly connect him to the happenings in Ferguson, knowing full well that he is not even remotely close to being the largest funder of political interests in the United States? Why bring it up? You complained that liberals always bring up the spectre of the Koch brothers, but you were the one that injected the money aspect into this discussion. Don't cry when you get pummeled with your own point.

Playing devils advocate can be entertaining though. After 1000+ posts with many containing belly aching and loathing over the Koch bros, I figured someone should play the ying to the yang.

See, there's the thing. You haven't provided any ying to the yang. You trotted out an example based on a bad narrative and got crushed. The worst example of what you find so detestable has been proven to be a relatively minor player in the grand scheme of political givings. Soros is #23 on the list of top benefactors, a list that does not include the Koch brothers because of how they hide their donations. To make matters worse, that list shows just how imbalanced political donations are in the United States.

So far all I have gathered from your posts is that it's not about corporate money being used to further the interests of individuals, but only the amount. So how much money is ok New Era?

I haven't commented on this at all. I've just been beating you over the head with your Soros strawman argument. My position on campaign financing and political givings is pretty straight forward. There should be no corporate givings (corporations are not people), and donations should be capped at $50 per donation. Democracy was founded on the concept of one man, one vote. That same concept should extend to political givings, where the entire playing field is leveled and the poor have just as much say as the rich.

Frankly, the whole system has been set up for the rich to assume control of the political mechanism. As soon as the courts made a mockery of the 14th amendment and corporations were granted personhood by Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, and then Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, we have been on a slippery slope to a plutocracy. With the recent ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, the flood gates have been opened and democracy has been pounded to a pulp. Now, one man, one vote, is a bit of a joke. When uber-rich benefactors can direct their corporate interests to fund campaigns we find ourselves existing in an illiberal democracy. The only way to fix politics is to get money out of it.

No, my attempt was to illustrate the double think that is responsible for simple minded people being sucked into believing whatever it is the various political news agencies would have you believe. Hey, you've picked your team and that's fine. Power to you.

I have not picked a side. I've picked your argument to pieces. My personal point of view is way too complex to distill into a right versus left discussion. I don't buy into the BS of political parties and instead focus on issues, where both of the current parties in the United States are cut from the same cloth. Many of the big issues are not decided at the federal level, but are instead controlled at the state level. The big things for people to understand is that the President of the United States has little power when laws get passed at the state level. When enough states pass similar laws, they become defacto standards and are impervious to any direction or writ from any President. There are many groups out there that recognize this, which is why ALEC is the most powerful and important lobby in existence today. The real power in the United States is not found in the Oval Office. It is in special interests that control congress and state legislatures. Understanding these goings on gives you better idea of where the country is headed.

Please don't bring up the concept of double think. Do yourself that service. You have stepped into that cow pie twice now. You brought up the Soros line of thought, a tired and well worn narrative about a liberal billionaire ruining our democracy. That has been proven to be patently false as his givings are dwarfed by those on the conservative side of the ledger. You then brought up the fallacious Petroleo Brasileiro story, which really blew up in your face when it was discovered to be approved by conservatives, not who you thought it was. These two stories you accepted as fact, because of your particular political indoctrination, have drawn you directly into that double think scenario.

But since it's a total lie, why don't you prove otherwise. I'm sure Soros intentions are as pure as the driven snow, especially considering...

Already did.

...If you believe that money being pumped into a rebel uprising that overthrew a democratically elected gov't is irrelevant when it comes to donations being funneled into the US... well then I'm going to have to go with the willfully ignorant statement again.

Irrelevant to the discussion. I could easily inject into the conversation that conservative money and doctrine is causing a human rights situation in Africa with the systematic purge of rights and kills of homosexuals, but that is irrelevant to the conversation. It is a very important issue, but irrelevant to what is being discussed.

So he's a Republican supporter then? Interesting.

That's what you got out of reading that Snopes article? You should never use the term double think in one of your posts again. Your picture is now forever placed along side the definition of that term.

Devils. Advocate.

Uninformed. Irrational. Unfocused. Incoherent. Try and stay focused and on track. You're all over the place and your argument is coming down itself. Don't bring up an issue if you don't want to get slapped around with it. Don't cry foul when that argument is not what you think it is.

What's funny is the names I researched came from the same site. Categorized differently but the same source. Again I must ask, are you concerned about the practice of corporate interests influencing US policy, or is it only the dollar amount you care about?

Answered above.

And crying about the Kochs shell foundations in the context of George Soros is hilarious.

And why is it hilarious? Soros is much more transparent in his givings. In a complex system where dollars are the new ballot, I think we need as much transparency as possible. When people start hiding behind their foundations and 501(c) interests, we lose track of who is really influencing the system.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

But since it's a total lie, why don't you prove otherwise.

"I'm going to make up some incendiary bull**** about someone I don't like, and then wait for others to try to prove that I'm lying about it. Seems fair."

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

But it's not just in America where Soros funds his political interests. He bankrolled Havel in the Czech Rebublic's 1989 revolution. He's openly admitted to funding the rebels in Ukraine.

Sounds like he has good experience fighting evil then!

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Bill Maher on his TV show Real Time, just gave Hillary Clinton $1M for her campaign.

So far Hillary has looked pretty lack-luster to me and I'd like to see Joe Biden get in to increase the competition.

I thought he was a Bernie Sanders supporter....

[Caged Great]

He's not actually giving her money, at least from what I can see in headlines.

Not sure if he will or not.

He did say that he was giving her 1 million dollars worth of advice.

[Senator Clay Davis]

You know the election cycle is too long when...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I can never tell whether something is a joke in this thread. It's really off-putting.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I can never tell whether something is a joke in this thread. It's really off-putting.

It's American politics, you gotta be use to the line being blurred right? It's why we love it.

[ernie]

Trump pushing his ludicrous immigration plan which includes things that amount to mass deportation which is almost certainly illegal ("They've got to go. We don't want to break up families but they've got to go"), has now said the 14th amendment of the US constitution is not constitutional. The birthright is only part of the amendment.

Whether there is an actual legal case to be made for it or not is a legitimate question (it likely falls on the "under the jurisdiction of the US part of things). But it also guarantees that he won't get any hispanic vote and the GOP desperately needs to get that vote up from the last two elections.

But don't worry, after he deports the "good ones" they will have an expedited process to allow them to come back in legally. Because that makes sense.

The Tea Party is just lapping it up.

[Vulcan]

Trump was also saying that the US needs to be able to compete with China and we can't do that with high wages.

Mr. Trump said if he wins the White House, he would “make us so competitive as a country.”
“But we are no longer competing against one state against the other. … It’s the United States against other places,” he said. “Where the taxes are lower, where the wages are lower, where lots of things are” lower.

He's no friend of the common man but that's where he probably gets a lot of his support because people are idiots.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...not-bad-thing/

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

He's no friend of the common man but that's where he probably gets a lot of his support because people are idiots.

But, this is the same, imo of right to work states. All the people there think they are living in a progressive, super economic, anti union state, but I think, they are just turning jobs into the same kind the illegal Mexicans get. No worker rights and low pay. People are idiots.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You know the election cycle is too long when...

"Deez Nuts" is running the most successful independent campaign since Ross Perot in 1996.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...2016-candidate

[ernie]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

"Deez Nuts" is running the most successful independent campaign since Ross Perot in 1996.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...2016-candidate

From the mouths of babes...

“Then I saw the slop bucket that we call the GOP field, the one-woman show on the Democratic side, and the lack of any third party candidate and thought ‘Man, Deez Nuts would be better than any of these guys,’” Olson continued. “So after that I just ran with it.”

15 year old Olson (Deez Nuts) sums up the field.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

This is the best paragraph I have read about this election so far.

There are 585 registered candidates for president in 2016, including Sydneys Voluptuous Buttocks (independent), President Emperor Caesar (Democrat), Buddy The Cat (Democrat), Crawfish Crawfish (other), Bailey D Dog (independent), Buddy The Elf (write-in) and Lindsey Graham (Republican), none of whom – unlike Deez Nuts – received any support whatsoever in PPP’s North Carolina poll.

Suck it, Lindsey Graham.