Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Jeb vs Hillary? The enlightened US Republic, founded in the late 1700s, has survived much but I would date the decline of western civilisation from the early 2000s. Does that include the Adams' multiple presidencies? Or the Roosevelts? Quote
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 They do. There'll be at 12 candidates running in the primaries, possibly even more. How many would the average American get to vote on? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 And someone said here that American voters actually have a choice! True. Im sure the Koch bros. have it pretty well worked out by now. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 True. Im sure the Koch bros. have it pretty well worked out by now. Koch brothers, Soros, anyone with money. The political players are puppets, the masters are the ones funding them. Quote
Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 True. Im sure the Koch bros. have it pretty well worked out by now. The Koch brothers have no say in whether a person decides to run, despite your addiction to Koch. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 The Koch brothers have no say in whether a person decides to run, despite your addiction to Koch. I recall you bitching about Soros and his contributions and influence on the democratic party. Quote
Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Koch brothers, Soros, anyone with money. The political players are puppets, the masters are the ones funding them. That's actually not true. A candidates positions rarely changes on the basis of who's donating money. Usually people fund candidates that are already politically alike. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 That's actually not true. A candidates positions rarely changes on the basis of who's donating money. Usually people fund candidates that are already politically alike. The candidate gets money because they are in line with the financial backers. The people with the money choose who gets into office. That has always been the case. Quote
Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 The candidate gets money because they are in line with the financial backers. The people with the money choose who gets into office. That has always been the case. No that's just not true. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Koch brothers, Soros, anyone with money. The political players are puppets, the masters are the ones funding them. The amounts they have to throw in are sometimes staggering, but Im sure it pays off down the road. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) The amounts they have to throw in are sometimes staggering, but Im sure it pays off down the road. Elections are a billion dollar item these days. Obama did not get there on his own!!! He did not build it! Edited April 18, 2015 by GostHacked Quote
Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 The amounts they have to throw in are sometimes staggering, but Im sure it pays off down the road.Not really. Last election they ranked third in spending. Behind two liberal groups. But theyre a popular foil to people that believe what the left wing blogs say. Addicted to Koch. Quote
Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Elections are a billion dollar item these days. Obama did not get there on his own!!! He did not build it! I know! And if he didn't get funding from others, he'd actually be a small government libertarian! Lol! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Not really. Last election they ranked third in spending. Behind two liberal groups. But theyre a popular foil to people that believe what the left wing blogs say. Addicted to Koch. Um..the point being Shady, elections, especially in the US, are bought and paid for. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Um..the point being Shady, elections, especially in the US, are bought and paid for. Nah, you'll never get through to him. He took the blue pill. Quote
Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Um..the point being Shady, elections, especially in the US, are bought and paid for. Yes, they're paid for because it costs money to print news letters, newspaper ads, pamphlets and radio and television advertisements. They've been paid for since the very first one! Quote
Shady Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Nah, you'll never get through to him. He took the blue pill. Like I've already stated, candidates don't change their position on issues or their ideology based on who's giving them money. Anyways, democracy isn't perfect. It's the worst form of government except for all the others. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Yes, they're paid for because it costs money to print news letters, newspaper ads, pamphlets and radio and television advertisements. They've been paid for since the very first one! Well you do have a point there, its a rather naive one if you think thats all there is to it, but a point nonetheless. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Like I've already stated, candidates don't change their position on issues or their ideology based on who's giving them money. Their stated position, perhaps. Hillary was known to be heavily supported by Wal-Mart. I'm sure that she helped them out as a result, but did anybody perceive that ? That's the problem with this kind of politics. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Their stated position, perhaps. Hillary was known to be heavily supported by Wal-Mart. I'm sure that she helped them out as a result, but did anybody perceive that ? That's the problem with this kind of politics. The Clinton's WhiteWater scandal is also proof of their shady financial dealings. The Clinton's are no strangers to fraud. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 The Clinton's are no strangers to fraud. This isn't fraud, it's legal politics. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 This isn't fraud, it's legal politics. Rape should be legal then too. Different set of rules for them, and another for us. I hope some are starting to see that now. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 That's actually not true. A candidates positions rarely changes on the basis of who's donating money. Usually people fund candidates that are already politically alike. Yes....the large campaign contributions only guarantee access, not firm policy changes by candidates. The liberals and progressives spend just as much influence money but often fail to get what they want as well. It's like health care in Canada....citizens pay taxes for access to a waiting list ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted April 18, 2015 Report Posted April 18, 2015 Different set of rules for them, and another for us. You haven't influenced anything for your friends, ever ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted April 20, 2015 Report Posted April 20, 2015 You haven't influenced anything for your friends, ever ? My friends have to run with the same set of rules that I do. They are not the same rules for people like Hillary. But what kind of influence are you talking about? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.