It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When one family can raise as much as an entire party, the system is broken.

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
so, with the topic being "When one family can raise as much as an entire party, the system is broken.", is anyone actually arguing this?

Or is this just (yet another) exercise in defending political turf?

It would seem that calling it fake outrage does nothing but create a partisan wedge. It seems that this should be an issue everyone agrees on. But no one can stop arguing long enough to try. Even when there is nothing to really argue over.

THAT, my friends, is what is wrong. Not big money. Not dumb people. But rather, people who would rather argue than ever see anything get done. Because, if this thread is an indication, no one seems to disagree with the fact that "When one family can raise as much as an entire party, the system is broken.".




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Doesn't look broken to me.

Both sides get funded by billionaire organizations.

The "Losers" and the "Winners".




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well then I would say people need to stop selling their votes.

What's to argue ?

There has always been money in politics, and the people vote for who gives them money, and things.

Maybe, just maybe people need to stop arguing selective greed.

The people are the most greedy.

Nothing satisfies them.

That's why more, and more money get's thrown at them, and the politician's that supposedly represents them.




It would seem that calling it fake outrage does nothing but create a partisan wedge. It seems that this should be an issue everyone agrees on. But no one can stop arguing long enough to try. Even when there is nothing to really argue over.


Read the thread title ?

1 family ?

Hell lot's of people try to buy elections.

That is not limited to families, business's, union's, and back to the people.

The title alone made it partisan.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

See my prior post: there has been a concerted effort at the federal level to create a lower valued product coming out of public education.

I have posted about this upwards of 100 times on ATS. Charlotte Iserbyte is a good start to it. But it just doesn't seem to get anyone's interest. Maybe its hard for us to admit we are not as bright as we could be were the system we trust to educate our own children doing its job. I dunno why....but we can all recognize that schools have stopped teaching people how to think, and instead just teach what to think.

So "the moronic masses" are happy to sell their votes. Group think and the nation full of people who want to be owed something makes sure of that. All courtesy of the US Department of Education.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Jamie1
I don't see the problem.

If people sitting watching their televisions are so ignorant and apathetic that they vote based on 30 second commercials, then so be it.

The problem isn't the big money.

It's the small minds who are easily influenced by the big money.


again...big money.

Our populace has been purposefully "dumbed down" via a concerted effort at the national level.


Yes, it begins with public schools and teachers' unions. That's where the dumbing down is born.

It's also why anybody who can afford to moves out of the crappy city school districts to suburban school districts. Then if they can afford to they send their kids to private schools.

They graduate to live productive and successful lives while those left behind argue over how they deserve more money from the successful people, and how they should be allowed to limit what the successful people spend their money on.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Federal guidelines do their job regardless of if the school is crappy or not.

Its why standardized testing is in place. And why that standardized testing tells what you have memorized, and not what your aptitudes are. It is measuring your performance, not determining your skill. In other words: standardized testing is rearward looking, not forward looking.

We have measured the education out of schools. My son dreads his 11th grade testing. They will spend 2 months memorizing crap so they can take this test. Because if they do poorly, as a district, they face financial penalties from the state and federal level.

It is so myopic that it is impossible to truly succeed in a reasonable level of education. Teachers unions....i wish that we were ready to deal with that. But that problem is completely dwarfed by the negative impact of the game of purse strings played over the standardized testing scores.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Think you just made the argument for private versus public education.

If I am not mistaken they are worlds apart.

Private is the way to go.

I fully support abolition of the DOE.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Some good points there Tex. I think the bigger problem is when we have
lifetime politicians who are rolling in it, use corporate ties to raise political
contributions, then( none of that I have a problem with ...but then.....) they
try and portray to the American public they were broke yesterday.


originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: neo96


So "the moronic masses" are happy to sell their votes.


It's a sad tale, but this is the Method of Operation used by many Democrats.
Then they turn and point to folks like these brothers as the problem.

Pot calling the kettle, and hypocritial lies on their part!

Clinton, (before the Cattle Futures obviously) Obama ( we struggled )
Clinton again ( dead broke ) LOL!
edit on 28-1-2015 by burntheships because: fix quotes



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Teachers unions....i wish that we were ready to deal with that. But that problem is completely dwarfed by the negative impact of the game of purse strings played over the standardized testing scores.


Just research how private schools work. Teachers are typically on 1-year contracts. It's not a coincidence private schools turn out high-achieving kids.

The same people who support teachers unions controlling education are the ones who complain when successful people have influence.

Rewards based on merit have been replaced by the moving target of "fairness" which usually translates to "equal."

Fairness does not mean equal.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

only problem i have with private education is you don't get away from standardized testing, In Texas, you still hve to take another one in College, unless you are self paying at a private university. But who in the hell can afford $400 a semester hour out of pocket?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Interesting points.

However, wealth does not equate success. Unless you would agree that drug cartels should have more influence on politics than average Americans.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Two points here about the OP

#1. When is what the Koch brothers doing considered sedition? We have a well funded group, that is purchasing votes to get their people in office, running domestic propaganda machines, and trying to dismantle the government. Say what you will of people like Soros, Buffet, and Gates but they are spending their money to improve the government not abolish it.

#2. Do people not grasp the seriousness of what this OP is talking about? We live under a system of Democracy, each person is supposed to have an equal vote. Lets remove partisianship from the debate and talk about things only in the framework of Republicans. Two people are spending more than every other man, woman, and child in their party combined. What are their chances of having their agenda pressed, their stance on policies codified into official doctrine, national priorities set to benefit them, and state representatives looking out for their interests? Now what are the chances of your representatives looking out for your interests, making sure the country is going in a direction that you want it to, and writing legislation that isn't written at your expense?

People here like to talk about the shadowy TPTB that act as the real power behind the throne our elected officials sit on. Well, you're looking at it right here. To the Republican party the Kochs are TPTB, and if we take what the courts said that money=free speech, by virtue of the amount of money they spent and the idea of majority rule their speech wins. You have no speech, and thus effectively no representation.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Uh...where was the outrage when the Kochs funded Bill Clinton?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Two points here about the OP

#1. When is what the Koch brothers doing considered sedition? We have a well funded group, that is purchasing votes to get their people in office, running domestic propaganda machines, and trying to dismantle the government. Say what you will of people like Soros, Buffet, and Gates but they are spending their money to improve the government not abolish it.

#2. Do people not grasp the seriousness of what this OP is talking about? We live under a system of Democracy, each person is supposed to have an equal vote. Lets remove partisianship from the debate and talk about things only in the framework of Republicans. Two people are spending more than every other man, woman, and child in their party combined. What are their chances of having their agenda pressed, their stance on policies codified into official doctrine, national priorities set to benefit them, and state representatives looking out for their interests? Now what are the chances of your representatives looking out for your interests, making sure the country is going in a direction that you want it to, and writing legislation that isn't written at your expense?

People here like to talk about the shadowy TPTB that act as the real power behind the throne our elected officials sit on. Well, you're looking at it right here. To the Republican party the Kochs are TPTB, and if we take what the courts said that money=free speech, by virtue of the amount of money they spent and the idea of majority rule their speech wins. You have no speech, and thus effectively no representation.


Not even close. All those billionairs you mention do not helpnthe government or society or they wouldnt be billionairs. The supreme court is who to blame. How about Obama's 2 billion where did it come from public donations? Nope places like monsanto which are far worse than the Kochs..its all dispicable.

Oh yeah the Kochs funded and got Bill Clinton elected too in case you forgot that. He is a democrat right? The guy the signed the telecomunication act and consoldated all the media outlets to a few. And nafta,...etc etc.

The only good democrat was JFK, Carter intended well but,..

The last decent republican was Eisenhower. Now both parties are the same self serving monster.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Not even close. All those billionairs you mention do not helpnthe government or society or they wouldnt be billionairs. The supreme court is who to blame. How about Obama's 2 billion where did it come from public donations? Nope places like monsanto which are far worse than the Kochs..its all dispicable.

Oh yeah the Kochs funded and got Bill Clinton elected too in case you forgot that. He is a democrat right? The guy the signed the telecomunication act and consoldated all the media outlets to a few. And nafta,...etc etc.

The only good democrat was JFK, Carter intended well but,..

The last decent republican was Eisenhower. Now both parties are the same self serving monster.


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
-Eleanor Roosevelt

For those who can only seem to discuss all the billionaires rather than the idea of what's happening... care to discuss what it means for a democracy when a very small minority of people have the vast majority of the influence over the direction politics takes? How about when a handful of well funded people launch a prolonged and serious campaign to destroy the government?

Just to put this in perspective, Al Qaeda has an annual budget of 30 million. The amount they've spent since the first WTC bombing up to the present day, assuming 100% of it has gone to anti American activities trying to collapse our government is less than the Koch's have spent trying to dismantle our government in a single election year.

Citizen's United needs to be overturned.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Nobody got the punchline?

(from OP link)


The billionaire Koch brothers plan to spend $889 million in the 2016 elections, twice what their network spent in 2012, according to the reports published on Monday. “In the last presidential election, Obama and Romney raised about $1 billion each. The Koch brothers, the second wealthiest family in America, now say they will raise nearly $1 billion for the 2016 elections. When one family can raise as much as an entire party, the system is broken. This is oligarchy, not democracy,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders. “We must overturn Citizens United,” added Sanders, who last week filed a constitutional amendment to undo the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that struck down laws limiting how much corporations and wealthy individuals may invest in campaigns.



Can you imagine the can of worms that would open up !!!

related story:
Bernie Sanders Files A New Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Billionaires are controlling policy. Soon you will be voting in a corporation not a party, and it will be transparent.

I was in Concord MA where the revolution first shot was fired recently and I honestly don't think those brave minutemen would think they won the war if they saw the wealthy tyrants controlling policy today.

Cap election spending to 1 million from capped party membership fees. Give free TV coverage to debates. Use the internet, radio and tv via non paid interviews/advertorials to promote your message. Go out and meet people and communities who you represent and create policy to provide for their needs. Then see who gets voted in and if this country can call itself a democracy again.


edit on 28-1-2015 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The all time top Donors tend to be heavy Democrat, funny how people seem to care when a group funds Republicans and not Democrats.

If they actually do this it would be historic, and not in a good way.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Jamie1

Interesting points.

However, wealth does not equate success. Unless you would agree that drug cartels should have more influence on politics than average Americans.


You might want to think this through.

Where do you think drug cartels derive the majority of their income?

Answer: selling drugs to your Average American.

If one of your goals in life is to make money, then accumulating wealth is by definition a success.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: links234
This Is Not Democracy

Bernie Sanders' statement on the announcement by Charles and David Koch that they'll contribute $889 million during the 2016 election cycle.


I said the same thing when the current potus raised $2 BILLION dollars to buy the last two elections.

I smell FAKE outrage.


President Obama is who the money was being raised for, there is a difference. Obama got a lot of his money from smaller individuals through online donations. The Koch Brothers are one of many donors to the Republican party, they are not the people running for office.

That said, there used to be a limit on how much could be spent in a Presidential campaign because there was public money available to help candidates. But by declining that public money, Obama was able to raise as much as he wished privately.
edit on 29amThu, 29 Jan 2015 04:11:55 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join