• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrat Super PACs outspent Republican PACs by 32 million...

mac said:
So much for money buying elections.
Click to expand...
Switch the view to "Independent Expenditures," and you'll see conservatives spent about $45 million more than liberals.

Change it to "all types" and the gap is around $55 million in favor of conservatives.

Switch to "by recipient party," and Republicans received more than Dems by $113 out of $533 million.

Anyway, you'd need a far more involved and detailed analysis to determine the effects of increased spending on these elections.
 
Carleen said:
Never heard of them, but the name sounds like just another rag. Is there proof they are unbiased?
Click to expand...

They provide legit information on all candidates, no matter party affiliation or lack thereof, and who exactly is giving them money and how much.
 
pbrauer said:
Have you ever heard about the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision and unregulated money? Money does buy elections and the Koch Brothers undoubtedly contributed their share. Massive Gerrymandering helps as well.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Obama and his Democratic buddies also went the SuperPAC way as well and also the Democrats engage in massive gerrymandering, correct?
 
Carleen said:
Never heard of them, but the name sounds like just another rag. Is there proof they are unbiased?
Click to expand...

So you're willing to be condescending towards using a source you know nothing about?

Typical.
 
Visbek said:
Switch the view to "Independent Expenditures," and you'll see conservatives spent about $45 million more than liberals.

Change it to "all types" and the gap is around $55 million in favor of conservatives.

Switch to "by recipient party," and Republicans received more than Dems by $113 out of $533 million.

Anyway, you'd need a far more involved and detailed analysis to determine the effects of increased spending on these elections.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but other than the Koch brothers demonization....most of the Democrat's crying has been about super PACs. This thread was about super PACs.
 
Carleen said:
Never heard of them, but the name sounds like just another rag. Is there proof they are unbiased?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? You call them a "rag" but admit you never heard of them. And the fact that you never heard of them is curious in itself. You should do some research on them and who they are.

Yes they are unbiased. They always have been. They are non-partisan and they are also non-profit.
 
mac said:
So you're willing to be condescending towards using a source you know nothing about?

Typical.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I usually check out a website before I post about it. I apologize for being ignorant about this one.
 
mac said:
No doubt, but other than the Koch brothers demonization....most of the Democrat's crying has been about super PACs. This thread was about super PACs.
Click to expand...
You titled it about SuperPACs, linked to a page, and then said "So much for money buying elections." Sure looks like fair game to me. (Nor are you Lord of the Thread.)

Oh, wait. I get it. You're cherry-picking a specific item to accuse "the other guys" of hypocrisy. 'Cause, y'know, it's not like any Republican ever has done anything that could remotely be classified as hypocritical. ;)
 
The radio airwaves are DOMINATED by stinking, cheerleading Republican operatives...How is that valued in your political $pending calculus, Republicans??

We'd be MUCH better off choosing public officials randomly/through sortition rather than allowing these stinking Republicrat dildons to dominate public office!!

Shame on you Republicrat supporters!!
 
H. E. Panqui said:
The radio airwaves are DOMINATED by stinking, cheerleading Republican operatives
Click to expand...

Actually the MSM is very liberal, it is only a few Radio hosts that fill the role of stinking, cheerleading Republican operatives.

Interesting that you attacked me on another post claiming I was ignorant to the fact that both the Republicans and the Democrats are simply two sides of the same coin yet you continuously assault Republicans as if they are not only different but the cause of all our problems, so which is it, you can't have it both ways.
 
Visbek said:
You titled it about SuperPACs, linked to a page, and then said "So much for money buying elections." Sure looks like fair game to me. (Nor are you Lord of the Thread.)

Oh, wait. I get it. You're cherry-picking a specific item to accuse "the other guys" of hypocrisy. 'Cause, y'know, it's not like any Republican ever has done anything that could remotely be classified as hypocritical. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm addressing a specific issue, not another issue. :shrug:

The issue was Super PACs.
 
Blaxshep writes: yet you continuously assault Republicans as if they are not only different but the cause of all our problems, so which is it, you can't have it both ways.

:roll:

OF COURSE THE DEMOCRATS STINK TOO!..BUT GET REAL!!...There appears to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more pom-pom waving cheerleaders for the stinking Republicans here than the stinking Democrats!
 
mac said:
I'm addressing a specific issue, not another issue.
Click to expand...
>> lol << No, you aren't.

You've said very little in this thread. What you have said is a broad reference to "money in politics," then you linked to how much money is traceable to the Koch brothers -- which, by the way, is hardly extensive. Lots of what they spend isn't on the record; they intentionally hide their donations. Conservative / Republican groups, by the way, do a lot more of this than leftists / Democrats.

And no, you can't make inconvenient facts go away by focusing on a part of the picture.
 
Visbek said:
>> lol << No, you aren't.

You've said very little in this thread. What you have said is a broad reference to "money in politics," then you linked to how much money is traceable to the Koch brothers -- which, by the way, is hardly extensive. Lots of what they spend isn't on the record; they intentionally hide their donations. Conservative / Republican groups, by the way, do a lot more of this than leftists / Democrats.

And no, you can't make inconvenient facts go away by focusing on a part of the picture.
Click to expand...

I created the thread, Dude, and it's title. It's about Super PACs, trust me.
 
pbrauer said:
Have you ever heard about the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision and unregulated money? Money does buy elections and the Koch Brothers undoubtedly contributed their share. Massive Gerrymandering helps as well.
Click to expand...



And a President that's damaged the Democrat brand SO bad no candidate could campaign with him.

And a Health Care law SO bad mere mention of its existence would guarantee a Democrat loss.

" Gerrymandering "....Lol !
 
mac said:
I created the thread, Dude, and it's title. It's about Super PACs, trust me.
Click to expand...
But you came to the wrong conclusion when you said: So much for money buying elections. You apparently don't know about the Citizen United decision. lol
 
And George Soro's spent his share so what's the diff? Other than your bitter hatred of course.


pbrauer said:
Have you ever heard about the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision and unregulated money? Money does buy elections and the Koch Brothers undoubtedly contributed their share. Massive Gerrymandering helps as well.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom