"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[edthecynic]

grass roots Tea Party

The Tea Bag Brotherhood never was and never will be a "grass roots" movement.

You've been Bossed!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ed, the TP are a grass roots manifestation of a very small, very white, older, and far right reactionary group of Americans. Big money jumped on the band wagon and has been financing their no-longer grass roots movement. They are unworthy of what America provides them, but that is what our country is about: allowing the idiots there say.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Both major parties are progressive indeed.

Yeah, i've finally come to the point where i no longer engage in the Big Government vs. Small Government debate. That day has passed. Big Government is only growing bigger. Both Neocons and Communists/Progressives want it. So now it's just a matter of Americans trying to get theirs in this Big Government mess.

The debate over whether we should be Big Government or Small Government is dead. We're gonna be Big Government. Now we'll just squabble over the scraps. Who will be the beneficiaries of the massive spending? That's all the battle is now. It's very sad, but i tell my Libertarian/Conservative warrior friends, to give it up. They lost. It's over.

Okay, I accept your viewpoint.... now what? How long do you think we can go down this road of never-ending self-gratification without consequence? How much baseless currency can we print and how long will our economy survive if we continue writing checks we can't cash? Borrowing trillions from our enemies and such? Ten years? Twenty? Then what happens?

You see... at SOME POINT, we have to face reality. It's fine to give up and join in the freebie handout free-for-all, but eventually that party is over. Economies and indeed, civilizations, do not ask you how you feel about it before they collapse. Once it has all gone tits up is a really bad time to get smart and wise up, don't you agree?

Well the reality is we can't balance the budget and keep soc. sec medicare and Medicaid, without some new revenues from somewhere, no matter whether we do cost containment by altering the retirement age, covered services and copays and changing Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. But, to face that reality for a gop candidate is to have every superpac out there gunning for him.

Well, the reality is that our budget is far, FAR more than just Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, so do NOT try to convince us that we need to bleed even more to cover those things without even attempting to tighten the financial purse strings elsewhere. Taking more money is the LAST resort, not the first.

And frankly, if that gigantic abortion known as Obamacare fucked things up and made them more difficult, you're getting zero sympathy from us on it. Lose the bastard if it's such a problem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Though good to know that you support the political equivalent of white trash, and hate the very free market system that brought the UK back from the brink.

It's even better to know that you have not one ounce of proof to suggest Cecilie supports any of those things. What is it with liberals and their penchant for inference?

"If you don't agree with me, you support this,that or the other thing, even though I can't prove it."

Oh, is High Peter talking? Gosh, I'm so disappointed I missed it . . . nope. Can't even say it with a straight face.

 

[Skylar]

Okay, okay... Let me play Airhead Liberal here....

Hillary's donors:

Citigroup Inc... Probably these nice people who build villages to raise our children or something!
Goldman Sachs ...Uhm...I think they may sell dresses or shoes in NYC?
DLA Piper ...Probably some nice down-home group of country folk.
JPMorgan Chase & Co ...Hmmm... I think she was on The Gong Show!
EMILY's List $605,174 ..fightin' for women having the right to kill their babies!
Morgan Stanley $543,065 ...Probably some nice old geezer from Arkansas.
Time Warner $411,296 ...This is just Ted Turner and Oprah!
Lehman Brothers $362,853 ...More good ol' country folk!
Kirkland & Ellis $311,441 ..Probably the gays.
Squire Patton Boggs $310,596 ..Probably the lesbos.
21st Century Fox $302,400 ...The movie stars!
National Amusements Inc $297,534 ...The Theme Parks!
Ernst & Young $297,142 ...I think they play hillbilly music or somethin'!
Merrill Lynch $292,303 ..........I think they raise bulls?
Credit Suisse Group $290,600 ...I think they make hot chocolate!
Corning Inc $274,700 ...They make pie dishes and casseroles!

So as you can clearly see, Hillary has no rich influential billionaires, hedge fund managers and investment bankers backing her at all! They are all just the greatest people in the world who want to make everything better for us all! ...Except the unborn, of course!

And in only 1 week.....Cruz PACs collected more than all of those donations combined:

An associate of the Texas senator, a recently announced presidential candidate, tells Bloomberg that a cluster of affiliated super-political action committees was formed only this week, and among them they are expected to have $31 million in the bank by Friday.

Even in the context of a presidential campaign cycle in which the major party nominees are expected to raise more than $1.5 billion, Cruz’s haul is eye-popping, one that instantly raises the stakes in the Republican fundraising contest.

Exclusive New Ted Cruz Super-PACs Take in Record Haul - Bloomberg Politics

So that's almost 8 times what your little 'under 100' crowd managed. And that's WITHOUT Cruz's largest backers.

The super PACs aren't required to disclose donor information with the FEC until July but a source familiar with the fundraising movement told National Review Online that each of the four PACs will have the patronage of one "particular donor or donor family."

Billionaire New York financier Robert Mercer and his family are involved in at least one of the "Keep the Promise" PACs, according to NRO.

Read more: Ted Cruz super PACs raising 31 million - Business Insider

With this reaffirmed by other sources:

One of the key funders, according to Bloomberg, appears to be the family of Robert Mercer, a leader of the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies in New York.The Mercer role may explain why one of the Cruz-aligned groups, Keep the Promise I, has a New York address, while Texas is home to the others (Keep the Promise, Keep the Promise II, and Keep the Promise III).

The 31 million week big for Ted Cruz but also for his super PAC donors video - CSMonitor.com

But hey, you keep trying to convince yourself that the candidate bought and sold by Hedge fund managers, investment bankers and billionaires is out to stop 'crony capitalism'...and I'll keep laughing.

Deal?

Sugar, I'd drop the line about being "bought and paid for by hedge fund managers, investment bankers and billionaires" if I were you. ...Unless you're going to become a Cruz supporter and campaign against Hillary.

I'm perfectly happy with it, sweet pea. Let me see if I can work it into a sentence again.

Ted Cruz is the Crony Capitalist candidate, bought and paid for by hedge fund managers, investment bankers and billionaires who expect a return on their investment.

The funny part? That your ilk actually think Cruz is against Crony Capitalism. You're the proverbial 'some of the people, all of the time'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.

One either Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America, or one does not and since there's no such thing as "REALLY Recognizing, Respecting, Defending, and Adhering to American Principles, well... you know.

The thing to understand however is that where one runs a campaign resting upon those principles... one wins. And that is because those principles speak to the human soul.

And what exactly are American principles as set forth by those who wrote our Constitution? Oh yes, slavery is fine.

Not in the Constitution.

Blacks and women cannot vote.

Also not in the Constitution.

In fact, only land owners can vote.

Not in the Constitution.

Hell, women could only own land under certain special circumstances.

Not in the Constitution.

I'm a bit tired of right wing nutters assuming their version of America is the only one that is legitimate.

Back atcha. I'm tired of leftist lunatics assuming their idiocy is the pinnacle of moral righteousness. And the more immoral it is, the more impressed you are with it.

LOL!

My Lord... whatta BEAT DOWN! Nice work Cecilie.

Aww, shucks. 'Twarn't nothin'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Though good to know that you support the political equivalent of white trash, and hate the very free market system that brought the UK back from the brink.

It's even better to know that you have not one ounce of proof to suggest Cecilie supports any of those things. What is it with liberals and their penchant for inference?

"If you don't agree with me, you support this,that or the other thing, even though I can't prove it."

Your problem, not mine, which started when you called me a 'liberal', without evidence - the exact thing you accused me of doing.

Cecilie
a) Disagreed that the KKK, Neo Nazis,etc (or x) are far right.
b) Made a 'I don't care what you think' reply.
c) Made an issue out my post pointing out that the right vs left is a flawed spectrum to analyze politics.

So, yes, there is proof Cecilie supports x through Cecilie's statements, unless Cecilie states he/she doesn't support x.

Actually, Cecilie pretty much just supports the idea that you're a dimwit expecting us all to breathlessly await your approval or disapproval on things, or to tell us what you "think" about them, as though your feels affect fact.

Please don't take my mockery of you as an indication of any opinion on my part about any topic other than your ludicrousness.

 

[Skylar]

And in only 1 week.....Cruz PACs collected more than all of those donations combined:

Yes, Ted Cruz has raised a lot of money through grass roots Tea Party political action committees and not from hedge fund managers, investment bankers and billionaires like Hillary Clinton.

The ratio of money raised to support Cruz was almost 8 to 1 in favor of investment bankers, hedge fund managers and billoinaries. 31 million from the bankers, managers and billionaires and only 4 million from your 'grass roots' sources.

But hey, you keep trying to convince yourself that the 31 million doesn't exist. Or that the investment bankers didn't just buy Cruz.

I'll keep laughing.

All PACs must submit full disclosure on all individual contributions. Those individual contributions are limited to $2,000 maximum per candidate.

Individual contributions to PACs are unlimited. And you know it.

You can ignore the fact if you'd like. But you can't make us ignore it. All you can do is demonstrate how much you're willing to ignore to cling to what you want to believe.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No.

In negotiations with Tipp O'Neal, Reagan asked for and got SIX tax hikes.

You will not be allowed to re-write history just to make Reagan look perfect. He was not.

Maybe you should learn a little history genius

Over the course of his two terms in office, Reagan presided over several changes to the tax code. What is important to remember — what isvital to understand — is that not all taxes are created equal.
When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)

Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted. In recent years, Republicans ranging from former Sen.

Alan Simpson to Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett have been cited noting that Reagan raised taxes (he did.) But their statements are often taken out of context — as if to muddy the waters — to make it appear that Reagan was a fan of tax hikes.

T

he typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions

Overall, Reagan dramatically cut the most odious of taxes.

So, for those who care about the truth, here are some details. One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the

]Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (This could be thought of as a sort of “user fee,” inasmuch as the revenue generally went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.) These are real tax increases, but should not be confused with the income tax.

(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)

Make no mistake, these were real tax increases — in some cases, “regressive” taxation — but they pale in comparison to the scale of the income tax cuts that defined the Reagan era. Again, it’s important to put things in context. When inaugurated, Reagan inherited a nation with 16 tax brackets — ranging from marginal rates of 14 percent to 70 percent. By 1989, that was down to two brackets — with marginal rates of 15 percent and 28 percent

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/

Ah, yes, the vaunted historical site of the Daily Caller.

Facts are facts sweetie some day you actually learn what tax reform means

Facts certainly are facts, although I can't imagine what facts have to do with anything you're saying.

Furthermore, I wish I could say that someday you'll actually learn how to find reliable sources, but my natural skepticism prevents me.

 

[Skylar]

All PACs must submit full disclosure on all individual contributions.

But thanks to Citizens United creating a loophole for "dark money," the wealthy can donate unlimited money with no disclosure.
Where have you been all these years?

He knows it. He's talking around it, creating a little chalk outline around the corpse of his argument.

You can always tell where a poster knows there argument is weak by what they avoid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And in only 1 week.....Cruz PACs collected more than all of those donations combined:

Yes, Ted Cruz has raised a lot of money through grass roots Tea Party political action committees and not from hedge fund managers, investment bankers and billionaires like Hillary Clinton.

The ratio of money raised to support Cruz was almost 8 to 1 in favor of investment bankers, hedge fund managers and billoinaries. 31 million from the bankers, managers and billionaires and only 4 million from your 'grass roots' sources.

But hey, you keep trying to convince yourself that the 31 million doesn't exist. Or that the investment bankers didn't just buy Cruz.

I'll keep laughing.

All PACs must submit full disclosure on all individual contributions. Those individual contributions are limited to $2,000 maximum per candidate.

Individual contributions to PACs are unlimited. And you know it.

You can ignore the fact if you'd like. But you can't make us ignore it. All you can do is demonstrate how much you're willing to ignore to cling to what you want to believe.

And you know all of this is the gospel truth (you should excuse the expression) because Skylar says so, and his word all by itself with no proof should be enough for you.

Or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz is a major crony capitalist, the same as HRC.

 

[HenryBHough]

Cruz is a major crony capitalist, the same as HRC.

If that's so, how do you justify your puppy-dog love for Ms. Clinton?

 

[Jroc]

Cruz is a major crony capitalist, the same as HRC.

LOL ...then he's doing a piss poor job of it. He's not a rich man unlike your leftist heroes and establishment Republicans

 

[Boss]

It's no big deal until some liberal starts popping off her smart ass mouth about how Cruz is bought and paid for by hedge fund managers, investment bankers and billionaires when it's actually the other way around.

You didn't answer my question. Can't? Or won't?

The question is; no matter which political party wins, it will be done by spending huge amounts of money collected from a number of undisclosed sources who have ultra money behind them.

What difference does it make, if as you suggest, either party will "pay back" these ultra wealthy donors with the legislation of their desires.


Or do you think people like a Soros or a Koch give their money away with no expectation of repayment of some sort? Why would ultra rich people do that?

The ultra rich will be well taken care of no matter which party is in the White House.
So what difference does it make to you?

Look... 1) You can't do anything about it costing a lot of money to run for president. Regardless of WHO wins, they will have spent millions to do so, and it doesn't matter how you feel about that or think it should be in an alternate universe, do you understand?

2) Now you say "pay back these wealthy donors" as if you somehow think there aren't any restrictions on how much a donor can contribute. We have Federal Campaign Finance laws which prohibit an individual from making contributions over $2000 per candidate, and it doesn't matter how "wealthy" they are, we all abide by the very same laws. So the idea that Soros and Kotch are in a money war to buy the president is quite simply infantile. That's just not reality.

3) Several sources exist for funding a national presidential campaign. With McCain-Feingold CFR we decided that 527 groups could form PACs and make their donor rolls public, and this was better than having the money going to candidates through clandestine sources where it couldn't be tracked. Organizations, lobby groups and corporate interests can also contribute and they are limited in the amounts as well with full disclosure. And that's how people secure financing to run for president in the US.

With Hillary and Cruz: Most of Hillary's funding comes from lobbyists, corporate interests and liberal activist groups. Cruz funding comes from grass roots conservative PACs and a few minor lobbyist/corporate interests. You want to say they are both the same when they aren't.

Yes.... It does take lots of money to run for president and if you don't have funding you will not win... simple as that. We can wish we lived in a different universe, or we can accept that it takes a lot of money to win the presidency and that's just how things are. The overarching question is regarding character and ethics of who you are electing. Are they someone who will "sell their soul" to the highest bidder? Or are they people who have impeccable character and integrity and you can trust them to uphold their oath of office and represent us as they are supposed to?

 

[Boss]

All PACs must submit full disclosure on all individual contributions.

But thanks to Citizens United creating a loophole for "dark money," the wealthy can donate unlimited money with no disclosure.
Where have you been all these years?

That's just a flat out LIE.

Citizens did not change anything that wasn't already the law before CFR. It simply found a restriction in CFR to be unconstitutional. It does NOT allow any sort of "donations of unlimited money with no disclosure" and you can't show any such evidence this is true.

It is just a flat out baseless LIE.

 

[edthecynic]

All PACs must submit full disclosure on all individual contributions.

But thanks to Citizens United creating a loophole for "dark money," the wealthy can donate unlimited money with no disclosure.
Where have you been all these years?

That's just a flat out LIE.

Citizens did not change anything that wasn't already the law before CFR. It simply found a restriction in CFR to be unconstitutional. It does NOT allow any sort of "donations of unlimited money with no disclosure" and you can't show any such evidence this is true.

It is just a flat out baseless LIE.

As usual you are flat out lying when you accuse others of lying as your MessiahRushie has programed to do. Non profits are exempt from reporting their donors when they run ads themselves or donate to PACs or any other political organization which only have to report the amount contributed, so no one ever gets to know who the real donors are. But an expert know-it-all on everything such as yourself already knew that when you lied in your earlier post.

December 4, 2007
RUSH: Accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing.

Van Hollen Decision Overturned OpenSecrets Blog

A federal appeals court today overturned a lower court’s decision that might have led to disclosure of some donors to secretive, politically active nonprofits. ...

In a statement, Van Hollen called the decision a “blow against transparency.”

“The Court of Appeals’ decision today will keep the American people, for the time being, in the dark about who is attempting to influence their vote with secret money,” Van Hollen said in the statement.

Although today’s ruling does undo a potential step forward in terms of transparency, it may have little impact in a practical sense. That’s because the tax-exempt organizations, after the lower court’s ruling, had virtually ceased spending money on electioneering communications, lest they be forced to disclose their donors. Instead, these groups, many of which are 501(c)(4)s under the Tax Code, had been making independent expenditures — political ads that expressly advocate for or against a candidate. No matter when they run those kinds of ads, they aren’t required to name their funders.

In other words, even if Van Hollen’s argument had been upheld, most of the secretive nonprofits would be proceeding with secretly-funded ad campaigns just by tweaking slightly the message of the ads.

 

[zeke]

from NPR......

"In 2004 and 2006, literally 100 percent of the groups were fully complying with the disclosure laws," says Craig Holman of the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen. "Today, most groups do not disclose where they're getting their money from."

The key element here isn't the Supreme Court. In its ruling on corporate money, it called for transparency. But the Federal Election Commission drastically undercut the rules on disclosure. It said that money designated for what are called "electioneering" messages has to be made public. But other contributions don't.

So, what would a donor have to do before his or her identity would have to be disclosed? "You would have to designate, 'I am giving $100,000 to pay for a campaign ad to air in Ohio that targets a specific senator at such-and-such a time,'" Holman explains.

But if you write that $100,000 check without earmarking it that way, no one will ever know who you are.



Hey Boss dude. You are full of good ole fashioned bullshit. But you really need to learn how to use Google.
Huge undisclosed campaign contributions are the new normal. Where have you been? Locked in a cage somewhere that you didn't know this? This topic is all over the "Net, if you cared to go look.

The most undisclosed money ever spent on any campaign will happen this next Presidential election cycle.
True story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cruz is a major crony capitalist, the same as HRC.

"He's not a rich man unlike your leftist heroes and establishment Republicans"

His net worth is almost two million and will 100 times that when he leaves the Senate.
Ted Cruz R-Texas 2011 OpenSecrets

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss has been BOSSED by his betters.