Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Buzzard on Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:47 am

This is refreshing to see, a representative who insists on representing his people!

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/10/koch-brothers-group-shouted-irate-citizens-montana-town-hall-meeting.html

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Hawk on Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:01 am

ACORN is still active?

scratch

For every Koch Brother, there is a Communist supporting the Dims.

No


.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Pigeon on Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:37 am

News Hawk wrote:ACORN is still active?

scratch

For every Koch Brother, there is a Communist supporting the Dims.

No


.

Laughing You must have been a big fan of "McCarthy-ism"...
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism

_________________
The health of a democracy is dependent on an educated citizenry. Political illiteracy is the manure for the flourishing of political appeals based on sheer ignorance.
avatar
News Pigeon

Posts : 622
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  Outerlimits on Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:59 am

News Buzzard,

Why are you not starting threads on ActBlue, SEIU, Wall Street and the American Federation of Teachers?

Could it be their money helps get the “correct” message out?  Rolling Eyes

Democrats never mention the role their own special interests play because a lot of money goes to their party.
 
Koch Industries are #59 on the list of largest donors to political parties in America. Yet they are the Democrats #1 boogie man.  

The six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Koch Bros.
avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  WHL on Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:19 pm

We were listening to interview with Jean Shaheen before the elections and it was so funny. Every single sentence she had to mention the Koch Brothers. It went on and on and on. We couldn't believe it. We were finally laughing because she just couldn't complete one sentence without mentioning the Koch Brothers! It made her sound so stupid.
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6036
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Buzzard on Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:00 pm

Can anyone tell me how much dark money the Koch brothers are funneling to their candidates. That's right, no one can tell me because it's a big secret, courtesy of the US Supreme Court!! The unions are ponying up money just for survival, but is seems like a hopeless cause because morons like Chris Christie are giving away their pensions to millionaires in the form of tax cuts. Enjoy your majority while you have it, because it won't last long!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  Outerlimits on Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:36 pm

Dark Money…sounds so evil. So how does a fellow like George Soros fit into this evil scheme or does he get a free pass? Be honest…of course he gets a pass. The left can have their billionaire contributors.

Sure the Koch brothers contribute tens of millions of dollars to the GOP cause indirectly through their independent committees. But let’s be fair, the unions spent a half a billion dollars in such indirect spending in the 2012 election cycle.

Unions are by far the biggest contributors to politicians and public unions top the list. It’s your distinction to be made between "good" union money and "evil" Koch brother’s cash that makes you a partisan hack.

If unions need to manipulate the political system to exist, maybe they shouldn’t exist. Koch industries do not need to manipulate the political system to survive.
avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Buzzard on Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:46 pm

How do you know who spends what through the nonprofits?? The IRS was right to investigate them!! We had Scott Brown up here running against Obama, not Shaheen, with commercial after commercial coming from the non-profits. Scott Brown ran on Ebola, ISIS and immigration demagoguery. He doesn't know a damn thing about New Hampshire!! The unions are right to spend a lot of money, because they are under siege from the Conservatives. Those people work hard for the small pensions they get, and guys like Christie are trying to take it away from them. Americans will figure this all out and the Republicans will never beat Hillary!

Hillary in 2016!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  Outerlimits on Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:02 pm

In summation, Republican donors bad, Democrat donors good. Rolling Eyes

Seriously, who cares where the money comes from? You suggest “dark Money” comes from one side while the facts don’t support your claim. Do you really believe that just because you don’t like someone else’s opinion they shouldn’t be able to speak or financially support their beliefs?

Really, is that what you are hanging your hat on?

If you were condemning both sides I could respect your position, but what you are saying is absolute partisan nonsense.
avatar
Outerlimits

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Buzzard on Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:10 pm

That's baloney!! The Koch brothers endgame is to funnel as much wealth as possible to the top 1%, and I am proud to oppose that!! Something is very wrong in a world where the top 1% owns 50% of the wealth. We need serious and drastic tax increases on the wealthy. Wealth redistribution?? You betcha!!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Hawk on Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:32 pm

News Buzzard wrote:"...We need serious and drastic tax increases on the wealthy..."[/b]

How about a "Luxury Tax"?

scratch


.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  WHL on Wed Feb 11, 2015 6:20 pm

Do you really believe that just because you don’t like someone else’s opinion they shouldn’t be able to speak or financially support their beliefs?


Obviously he does, Outer.
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6036
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Buzzard on Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:21 pm

WHL wrote: Do you really believe that just because you don’t like someone else’s opinion they shouldn’t be able to speak or financially support their beliefs?


Obviously he does, Outer.  

Elections should be about the exchange of ideas and plans to move forward, not about any group buying elections. The Koch brothers shouldn't be involved in any New Hampshire election, so why are they allowed? Citizens United has to be done away with!!

In the meantime, you don't have anyone who can beat Hillary, so that will mean 8 more years of Republican intransigence!

Hillary in 2016!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Hawk on Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:32 pm

Wouldn't it be your preference to have Obama run for a third term, if he made it possible?

scratch

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Buzzard on Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:36 pm

News Hawk wrote:Wouldn't it be your preference to have Obama run for a third term, if he made it possible?

scratch

No. Hillary will do for the next 8 years. Hopefully by then the Tea Party will be extinct!!

_________________
(Hillary) Bernie in 2016! Very Happy
avatar
News Buzzard

Posts : 3091
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Saul Alinsky was from Chicago...! This isn't News...

Post  News Hawk on Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:03 pm

News Buzzard wrote:This is refreshing to see, a representative who insists on representing his people!

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/10/koch-brothers-group-shouted-irate-citizens-montana-town-hall-meeting.html

Again, a partisan source that is on the Koch Brothers Warpath.

Communist Saul Alinsky said,

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.

PoliticusUSA seems to have read "Rules for Radicals" by Communist Saul Alinsky.  



PoliticusUSA is as undeserving of replies to their propaganda as is cpUSA (Communist Party USA).

No




Last edited by News Hawk on Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:49 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Hawk on Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:41 pm

News Buzzard wrote:
Hillary in 2016!!

Oh?

scratch

avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Hawk on Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:56 am

News Buzzard wrote:
Elections should be about the exchange of ideas and plans to move forward, not about any group buying elections. The Koch brothers shouldn't be involved in any New Hampshire election, so why are they allowed? Citizens United has to be done away with!!

In the meantime, you don't have anyone who can beat Hillary, so that will mean 8 more years of Republican intransigence!

Hillary in 2016!!

Rogers: The fade of the liberal left


Hilary Clinton represents a strong candidate for 2016, but columnist Rogers does not see a bright future for Democrats beyond 2016.

A tectonic shift is occurring in American politics. The old guard of the Democratic Party will soon be far too ancient to contest an election. This creates serious problems for the party once 2016 passes. It’s obvious that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden will soon announce their candidacy, but who will fill the ranks when they’re gone?

It’s important to know that there was once a socially conservative generation deemed "The Greatest Generation." These, the heroes of Anzio and Guadalcanal, gave birth to a litter of selfish creatures called "baby boomers." The baby boomers soon colonized communal settlements known as colleges. Yes, it was here in this garden of earthly delight that millions of children sowed the seeds of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, which would destroy our civilization.

This is the cultural revolution that most prominent democrats belong. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are all remnants of that era. The '60s revolutionaries were fierce and brazen because liberalism was brazen during that time period. But now, times have changed. Liberalism predominates and modern Democrats are left with nothing to rebel against. The revolution has ended and the time of the milquetoast liberal has begun.

In her youth, Hillary Clinton dipped her hands in the blood of the revolution that uprooted our society. She and her contemporaries were fanatical, and their fanaticism helped turn them into popular politicians. Indeed, I challenge any reader to produce an example of a new Democratic face that could compete with Hillary. There is no competition even among her own cohort.

It is my firm belief that in two years we’ll have another Clinton in the White House. "Uncle" Joe Biden is the only other serious contender for the Democratic nomination. According to polling data, Hillary runs 40 points ahead of her nearest Democratic competitor in the state of Iowa. If one supposes, as I do, that Republicans cannot win a national majority in 2016, then there’s no way she can lose. But what happens after she’s gone?

The Republicans have time on their side. While the Democratic lower ranks are barren, the Republicans have no shortage of rising stars. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Joni Ernst will all be around for decades to come. Though none of these people stand much of a chance against Hillary, they may sweep the field in the 2020s. Where is the new generation of democratic leaders who will stand against them?

We caught a glimpse of the future last fall. The Republicans swept congress because Democratic resistance was so feeble. The Iowa race was a great example. Leaving politics aside, Ernst was infinitely more interesting than Bruce Braley. A motherly war veteran who packs a gun in her purse faced a sort of awkward-looking white guy. And Democrats ran awkward candidates across the entire country.

The difference between the parties is quite profound. Conservatives hate their establishment, and wait like hyenas around a dying elephant for its departure. Democrats have nothing but an establishment. What will happen when the Bruce Braleys of this world inherit the party? The Democratic tribe does a very good job at stirring itself up into a wild frenzy during presidential campaigns, but will the tribe be so inspired when its champions are gone?

Well, that’s the future, what about the present? In 2016, Republicans will probably commit election suicide as usual. They run elections so poorly that I’ve come to believe they actually enjoy losing. If Jeb Bush gets the nomination, then the election is as good as over. They’ll split the conservative vote among four or five minor candidates and allow a liberal Republican like Bush to take the nomination. Most true conservatives would rather be hit by a train than vote for Jeb Bush.

Liberals have the habit of not turning out in mid-term elections. With the Democratic warrior queen leading them into battle, turn out will not be a problem in 2016. Republicans may have youthful candidates on their side, but the culture is not. It goes without saying that our country is now center-left. The new liberal majority has many members in the GOP wanting to shift left. This adds another incentive to run a suicidal candidate like Jeb Bush.

Though the culture war ended many years ago, the culture warriors survived. Cunning, ruthlessness and cruelty hoisted them to the top. It’ll be a different society when they’re gone. Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech will almost certainly be the last gurgling bubbles of a sinking ship.
By Clay Rogers clay.rogers@iowastatedaily.com

Will Democrats rob the Supreme Court for a "Wise Latina" candidate to run?

I don't agree with much the above, as I believe that the Dims are plotting far ahead.

Arrow


.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  News Hawk on Sun Feb 15, 2015 8:21 am

...
Five of the past six popular-vote tallies have gone to the Democratic candidate. And early polls that show Clinton sporting a big lead, especially among women, have strategists wondering how the Republican nominee could ever catch up.

But outside of the capital, from Georgia to New York to California, there's another set of political professionals watching this race: academics and model-makers. And based on the data they track, Democrats have little reason to be so bullish about Clinton's chances.

"Viewing her as a prohibitive favorite at this point is misplaced, definitely," says Alan Abramowitz.

Abramowitz isn't a Republican pollster or a professional Clinton-hater. He's a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta. And he and his ilk—the wonky academics who research in anonymity while pundits predict races on TV—offer the most compelling case for reconsidering Clinton as the likely winner.

"I would feel comfortable saying that it's a 50-50 race right now," says Drew Linzer, a political scientist who is an independent analyst in Berkeley, California. "But I don't think anyone would be wise going far past 60-40 in either direction."

Veteran political operatives regard these predictions as nothing more than musings from the Ivory Tower. But political scientists who specialize in presidential-race forecasts aren't relying on their guts. They've built statistical models that draw on the history of modern presidential campaigns (since Harry Truman's reelection in 1948) to determine with startling accuracy the outcome of the next White House contest.

The best-known forecasting tool of the bunch—and one that plainly spells out Clinton's looming trouble—is Abramowitz's "Time for Change" model. He first built it before George H.W. Bush's 1988 election, and he has used it to predict the winner of the popular vote in the seven White House races since.

The model uses just three variables to determine the winner: the incumbent's approval rating, economic growth in the second quarter of the election year, and the number of terms the candidate's party has held the White House. Official forecasts aren't made until the summer before the presidential election. But reasonable estimates rooted in current political and economic conditions demonstrate Clinton's vulnerability.

Consider this scenario: President Obama retains equal levels of approval and disapproval, better than he has had most of his second term; and gross domestic product growth in the second quarter of 2016 holds at 2.4 percent, the same as last year's rate of growth. Under this scenario, the "Time for Change" model projects that Clinton will secure just 48.7 percent of the popular vote.

In other words, she loses.

Slight increases in Obama's approval rating and economic growth aren't enough to change the outcome for Clinton. Every 10-point improvement in the president's approval—if, for example, 55 percent of voters approved of Obama while 45 percent didn't—earns Clinton only an additional 1 percentage point of the popular vote. It takes an extra 1 percent year-over-year GDP growth to give Clinton an extra half percentage point of the popular vote.

For Clinton to reach 50 percent of the popular vote, under this model's rules, the president would need to see a 5-point increase in his approval rating and GDP growth would have to hit 3.5 percent. It's certainly possible, but it's fair to call that a best-case scenario for Obama in his final year as president.

So while Democrats see the recent gains in both Obama's approval and economic growth as signs that Clinton enters the race as the favorite, the academic modeling suggests that assessment is far too sunny. In fact, the recent uptick is the only thing keeping her from being a prohibitive underdog.

The reason Clinton struggles under seemingly decent conditions is obvious. After one party holds the presidency for two terms, voters want change. In the model, this desire for a new direction manifests itself as a 4-point reduction in the candidate's take of the popular vote compared with what candidates could expect had their party held the White House for just one term.


"One of the regularities you'll find for all presidential elections since World War II is, after a party has been in power eight years and is trying to hold on to the White House for a third consecutive term, it gets harder," Abramowitz says. "Another way of looking at it: In the first election after a party takes over the White House, you have a significant advantage. And the next time, after you've held another term, you lose that advantage."

Campaign operatives love to hate this academic assessment of politics, much like Wall Street belittles the technical analysts who use past performance to predict stock-market moves.

The tension between the strategists and the scientists speaks to the distinct approaches they employ: Political professionals (including journalists) study strategy, tactics, the day-to-day activities of a campaign, while political scientists see fundamentals shaping every election, almost no matter the strength of a candidate.

In 2012, for example, most strategists think Obama won because he ran one of the best presidential campaigns in American history while Mitt Romney ran one of the worst. According to political scientists, however, Obama's victory was a product of favorable conditions, such as an improving economy, decent approval ratings, and his incumbency. The unemployment rate was high, yes, but the state of the economy matters little compared with the direction it's headed.

In an era of hyper-professionalized, financially flush campaigns, it is this set of fundamentals that will make the difference between winning and losing, the scientists argue.

"The notion the campaign doesn't matter, it's not that simple," says Michael Lewis-Beck, a political science professor at the University of Iowa. "It doesn't matter so much because everyone is campaigning so hard that they cancel each other out."

Lewis-Beck showcased his own presidential model—one of many that now dot the political landscape—on the political science blog Monkey Cage. Academics began developing statistics-based predictions as early as the 1970s, but they have become more popular and mainstream since Nate Silver correctly forecast the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/predictive-intelligence-20150213




.

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

al Qaida Magazine?

Post  News Hawk on Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:55 am

They have a magazine?

scratch

That has a "hit-list"?

scratch

News Buzzard wrote:
WHL wrote: Do you really believe that just because you don’t like someone else’s opinion they shouldn’t be able to speak or financially support their beliefs?

Obviously he does, Outer.  

Elections should be about the exchange of ideas and plans to move forward, not about any group buying elections. The Koch brothers shouldn't be involved in any New Hampshire election, so why are they allowed? Citizens United has to be done away with!!

In the meantime, you don't have anyone who can beat Hillary, so that will mean 8 more years of Republican intransigence!


Hillary in 2016!!

Al Qaeda Mag Urges Attack on Koch Brothers

A notorious al Qaeda Magazine is encouraging lone-wolf terrorist attacks on U.S. economic leaders, including the Koch Brothers.

The list in Inspire magazine also included industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch, internet entrepreneur Larry Ellison, and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. A prominent economist was also on the list but asked that his name be withheld. [Friedman?] Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke was named, though not Janet Yellen, who succeeded him.

The slickly produced magazine article begins with a photo illustration showing blood-spattered pictures of several of the leaders next to a dripping gun. Its stated goal is to derail the "revival of the America Economy."

The article says the "economic personalities" and "wealthy entrepreneurs" can get off the list by withdrawing their money from U.S. banks, investing their wealth outside American soil, and denouncing support for Israel.

Evan Kohlmann of Flashpoint Intelligence, an NBC News counterterrorism analyst, said that while much of the magazine's content is "somewhat aspirational," it has also played a role in actual plots.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...

You'd think al Qaida would target Hillary. No, wait...

Bill Clinton had three opportunities to take down al Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, but waved them off.

Al Qaida owes the Clintons.

pale

_________________
..."The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning..."
avatar
News Hawk

Posts : 7956
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2013-01-16
Location : Winnipesaukee & Florida

View user profile http://bwolfeboro.runboard.com/f2

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  WHL on Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:55 am

I heard that. Why aren't the Clintons on the hit list?
avatar
WHL
Admin

Posts : 6036
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Koch Brothers Can't Buy Them All

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum