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.

 

The Koch brothers and the Republican Party go to war — with each other

page: 3
47
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Hefficide

Why r u surprised? The Koch Bro are Libertarian and RNC is conservatives that adopted a Leftist type ideology. Of course LIberatarians and establishment types never truly like each other.


If the Koch bros are libertarians, why are they supporting a Republican. Why don't they support the Libertarian candidate whoever that might be. Scott Walker is a Republican; didn't you notice.

Is it possible that they are LINOS? Libertarian in name only....

Is it possible the Kochs want to take over the RNC? I think they can afford to buy the Republican party if they so choose.

Also the Republicans haven't adopted a leftist ideology when their core demographics are the Right Wing Christian, Rush Limbaugh worshiping, Conservatives; or perhaps it's all pandering; that's possible for a political party eh?

I thought Jeb had it in the bag....now I'm not so sure.


I have yet to meet a republican that wants Jub Dush to win the GOP nomination. Jub is a RINO, conservatives are sick of liberals republicans being shoved down their throats every election cycle.

I, and most folks I know, stand with Rand.




posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sweeper80

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Hefficide

Why r u surprised? The Koch Bro are Libertarian and RNC is conservatives that adopted a Leftist type ideology. Of course LIberatarians and establishment types never truly like each other.


If the Koch bros are libertarians, why are they supporting a Republican. Why don't they support the Libertarian candidate whoever that might be. Scott Walker is a Republican; didn't you notice.

Is it possible that they are LINOS? Libertarian in name only....

Is it possible the Kochs want to take over the RNC? I think they can afford to buy the Republican party if they so choose.

Also the Republicans haven't adopted a leftist ideology when their core demographics are the Right Wing Christian, Rush Limbaugh worshiping, Conservatives; or perhaps it's all pandering; that's possible for a political party eh?

I thought Jeb had it in the bag....now I'm not so sure.


I have yet to meet a republican that wants Jub Dush to win the GOP nomination. Jub is a RINO, conservatives are sick of liberals republicans being shoved down their throats every election cycle.

I, and most folks I know, stand with Rand.


Yeah right, When push comes to shove the Right wing will fall in line with what ever Rush Limbaugh tells them to do. He's the real leader of the GOP. And if Rush tells the Right to defend Bush; they will. The Tea Party and the Libertarians won't waste their vote against Hillary and vote for Rand Paul. imo the Right had rather vote AGAINST Clinton than vote their conscience.

In all my years, I have never voted FOR anyone.






edit on 12-6-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The Pauls ( First Ron and now Rand ) have been on the map for a long time now, and they're not meant to win. They're meant to polarize - a trick the other party has now figured out in the person of Bernie Sanders. A candidate so far into the paradigm of his or her own side that they are simply not tenable to the opposition at all.

Unelectable.

It's both the illusion of choice AND a way to scare the other party. If Hillary wins, Republican's will say "Well at least that commie Bernie didn't take it." and vice versa with Rand.

As many on ATS have observed, if Ron Reagan were alive and active today he'd be slammed as a moderate by the Right. Our current POTUS is constantly referred to as a traitor, commie, pinko, etc. When, in fact, his record shows that he has followed the same doctrine and policies that Bush did.

The entire political structure in the US has been shoved quite a bit to the right since I began voting in the eighties. So much so that, today, what is considered "far left", back then, would have been called "the Right".



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
From this NPR article back in January, it was reported that the Koch's planned on spending 889,000,000 on the 2016 elections... a price estimated to buy the whole presidential election. Seems the RNC is really miffed because they want their own poster boy to play puppet instead of who the Koch bros want to play puppet... I say this because he whom has the most donations always wins... so in my opinion; it's not if the Repubs would have won from nearly a billion dollars in the campaign, but that they would win... and the dispute comes down to who would puppet the show. This article mentions that they would be calling in the favors of Republicans they bought seats for during midterms to help things along.

Koch Brothers Put Price Tag On 2016: $889 Million

When I raised the point that no democracy happened during midterms because of money in politics... people wanted to play the sports team affiliation game... with sore loser and all of that business; when I do not back ANY party, just the person that listens to what the voters in their district/state/country want, a fanatical love for a political party simply dumbfounds me.

Many people back the R's because of guns, many people support D's because of immigration... since lobbies are not going anywhere any time soon? Why not put your money into lobbies like the NRA or instead of backing a party over a single piece of your legislative interest?

Am I a fan of lobbies? No, but a study by Princeton shows that unless a law is backed by a large lobby group it has less than a 30% chance of passing even if 100% of the people support it. Sadly, our voice is only heard in large groups with millions of dollars backing it to slap a sponsored sticker on the political helmet of a politician.

Fortunately insider trading was made illegal for members of the House and Congress as well as the Executive branch... it was fast tracked through when most members were not present and the vote was automatic without their physical presence. Very happy to see this pass myself. Political hopefuls often shift stocks right before elections, so they can't be seen as profiting off of things people might disagree with. Such as stocks in companies awarded rebuild contracts etc. because who wants to be caught profiting off the misfortune of tragedy?

The STOCK Act: Bans Members of Congress from Insider Trading

I'm personally happy Sanders is putting the screws on Clinton, so people following this sort of thing knows where she stands. I don't trust any politician that runs with the help of Pacs or any other money in politics business they're simply to win seats ahead of real votes. Elections are not won by these donations being an influence on voters as it is often assumed... If anyone could put the word out that they would happily whore to the highest bidder; that person would win the seat they ran for, it's as simple as that... instead people are groomed for the office way ahead of time, as a professional whore.



Career politicians are an affront to true democracy, as it opens the door for long term corruption term caps on every political office need to be established... I personally know of a few high up white collar workers that, embezzle, make deals and line their pockets that never plan on retiring or stepping down in position... because if they did? Their scam will be uncovered. Any wonder why some Senators are in office decade after decade despite, being extremely well off enough to retire? Their issue torch could easily be passed to an up and comer that would hold the same political views... yet they cling as hard as possible to that seat... aside from the power and prestige holding that seat can bring? It makes little sense.

edit on 13-6-2015 by BigBrotherDarkness because: typo



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: neo96

Nice commentary and opinion neo - if only it weren't for the fact that, well, facts.



Facts eh ?

Ok why is it the only billionaires that ever get mentioned buying elections, and policy just happen to be 2 named Koch, and Republican.

The flip side of that coin never seems to get mention. Like Soros,Gates,Buffet,Zuckerberg.

Dunno why but I expected more from Yahoo. Chalk that up to just another media source loosely using the term 'news'.

We can talk 'facts' like every election cycle it's the same thing.

Kochs, and Republicans 'at war'.


I agree with your point that there are liberal power brokers as well. Agreed. Soros, while I am not an expert on him, may be more in that league.

Do you know why I don't see them as bad? Because they, while being rich, support policies and programs that work towards social justice, anti-poverty, education, health for all, etc.

You see, it isn't so much the fact that someone is rich. The issue is whether they support justice and policies that help everyone, not just the 1%.

Sorry, the Republican elite and Koch brothers only support policies that help the upper class.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
I think what is being missed and the OP probably spun the wrong direction is that the Republican party is split. You have the true conservatives / libertarians vs the RINOs ala Boehner, McConnell, etc. The Kochs are probably fed up with the RNC leadership and them caving on core conservative issues and their doublespeak.

If you are conservative, this is probably a good thing that the Kochs are putting their foot down. Half the Republican party only votes Republican because there isn't a viable third party.


If you had read the article, you'd know that both Boehner and McConnell sided with the Koch's.


Others in the GOP, even some in highly consequential positions, think Priebus and the RNC are crying wolf. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have been reluctant to conclude that i360 represents a threat to the party.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

You need to pay better attention to the issue. Rush is about as big a fan of the RNC as the Kochs are at this point.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Great post. The only thing I would add is that on record Reagan was to the left of both W and Obama, yet because we always refer to sides in the context of left/right Reagan has taken on a near deification of being ultra right and wildly successful while being so. Take the tax issue, he rose taxes 7 times and his economic advisers said they were still too low. Yet today what is remembered is that he cut taxes and there were good times for all as a result.

Remember Bush Sr and his promise of "Read my lips. No new taxes" in response to Reagans tax increases?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
I think what is being missed and the OP probably spun the wrong direction is that the Republican party is split. You have the true conservatives / libertarians vs the RINOs ala Boehner, McConnell, etc. The Kochs are probably fed up with the RNC leadership and them caving on core conservative issues and their doublespeak.

If you are conservative, this is probably a good thing that the Kochs are putting their foot down. Half the Republican party only votes Republican because there isn't a viable third party.


If you had read the article, you'd know that both Boehner and McConnell sided with the Koch's.


Others in the GOP, even some in highly consequential positions, think Priebus and the RNC are crying wolf. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have been reluctant to conclude that i360 represents a threat to the party.


For many it's just the win that matters, they know their basic ideologies will gain strength and a momentum from that win, enabling policy... whether the public wants it as policy or not. Take the gay marriage issue; generally as a party... Republicans were wanting to make a constitutional amendment against it and Democrats see it as discrimination and unconstitutional. So now we have the whole Religious Freedom business, trying to fight it from another angle.

If corporations were not made "people" and remained the entity that they are? Non issue. According to the constitution? It's also a non issue, which is exactly why one side was trying to put it in the constitution. Politicians and everyone else running around yelling morals? Save it for church this is an ethics issue... and as it stands, it is ethically wrong under the banner of "equality" to deny anyone the ability to marry regardless of sexual identity. Get it? Morals and ethics are not the same thing... despite them being constantly lumped as a singular interchangeable mass as if they are.

If someone wants to chose a side based on something being ethically "wrong" but "morally" right? You're in an extreme ideological personal belief land... and no one should have to be subjected to your belief as a rule for their life; that is what freedom means... and that's why the US isn't wasn't and never will be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan or any other religious nation. Just a free place where all of those are ok, if you keep it out of politics where it doesn't belong. People against gay marriage? No one is going to force you nor anyone else to be involved in a gay marriage... whether you think it is wrong or not... has no bearing on if it should be legal.

According to the constitution? It doesn't care if you want to marry a gay giraffe... it just gives you the freedom too if it is in the pursuit of your happiness. Anyone that wishes to properly interpret the constitution; seriously needs to read the preamble for it that sets the tone for it's interpretation. There are a lot of unconstitutionally illegal laws on local books... due to morals and ethics getting mixed up.

Both main parties almost pride themselves on this mix up; by pandering moral ideologies of voters on both sides... and pointing to the other as being morally wrong. This reduces both parties to the status of a team; it ceases to be about what is ethically right by the constitution... and instead an issue that won't go away any time soon, that keeps coming up over and over because it is a talking and debate point, that can automatically cause a cognitive shut down to the whole other side even being heard on any other issue.

Then all a party has to say is those so and so's are at it again, hear the media spin and simply believe it as gospel... without any logic or ration in the process.

This issue effects ALL of our voices, by removing them. Sometimes you just have to leave your party at home on some issues to actually comprehend it fully ok? It's a US issue not a specific party issue... wanting to jump at a party's throat or rabidly defend a party is part of the sickness, and I'd hope people have enough ration to realize when it comes to political issues... some are way bigger than either party in and of itself.

If you must bite the divide and conquer tactic in politics? Know that in doing so... we ALL lose.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I wish I could have given you more stars. That was well said and I agree with every word. I don't defend either party and I can usually see the rhetoric for what it is. I have certain beliefs that reside on the left and some that reside on the right. I will NOT compromise my ideals because whatever party I belong to or may appear to be aligning with doesn't believe in them.

I just look at the truth of the matter and try to sift through the BS. That's why I called out that poster on his talking point. He was getting all hot about McConnell and Boehner, but he hadn't checked to see where they actually stood. It's a perfect example of what you are talking about. He just needs to make sure his team looks good even if he has the facts backwards. It's important to him to distill the argument down to us versus them, even if "them" happens to be another part of his own party.




top topics



 
47
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join