Billionaire Threatens Democratic Party

[kage69]

I agree.

Doesn't sound like it.

They should totally tell him (and other millionaire/billionairs) off and reject his money.

How about you totally comprehend this is about one man's issue with having the term "billionaires" used pejoratively? He's the one telling people off here, not the Dems. If having the facts of fiscal policy brought up causes you distress, maybe you're sitting at the wrong table. I'd say if he wants to be kowtowed to and seen as an authority figure because of his donations, he's donating to the wrong party. Banana Republicans are that way. ----->

Maybe you can send $5 or something to the Democratic party instead. I'm sure that will work out perfectly.

Maybe you can work on your comprehension and retention difficulty. One more time: I'm not a Dem, and FWIW my donations only go to food banks, children's charities, and disaster relief. Giving a wealthy entitled snowflake a dose of reality is a nonpartisan joy, I suggest you try it.

 

[Stokely]

Sounds like the same problem the Democrats always have--if I can't have things all my way, I'll take my ball and go home.

For most of us, the "ball" is our vote...it's all we have.

For this guy, it's $$$.

And the GOP keeps winning elections because they play team ball better than the Dems. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

[Jhhnn]

The idea that the labor class has no influence is amusing.

Yes, there's a lot of partisan hatred on both sides. But that is a distraction from the failure of trickle down. The sapping of value from labor over the past 4 decades. The leftovers people are fighting over are mere scraps compared to what their parents and grandparents once enjoyed. Compared to what the 'Boomers had in value.

Productivity remains high. If that lost value is not obtained through labor it should be obtained through other means, such as taxes. It's time we restored America by restoring that lost value. By giving our people what they need.

Burn him! Burn the Heretic!

 

[bshole]

I looked him up and ever since he's been a public figure he's been donating to Dems. He even gave Clinton a million dollars last year. Clinton lost, he is still here. IF he was hedging bets he'd be wearing a MAGA hat now, but he's still bitching. I think he's an actual Democrat who happens to be rich. However, if I was the one nice crack dealer on the block I would understand why everyone was talking shit about crack dealers.

Is he pissed off now that Democrats are opposing the Republican tax plan that would benefit him and his children greatly? It sure seems like it. Sorry dude, are the Democrats supposed to lie about what is in the tax plan?

 

[kage69]

And the GOP keeps winning elections because they play team ball better than the Dems. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Sorry, but playing ball good doesn't entail gaming the rules so you have an unfair advantage. Take away voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the boogeyman of Hillary and your Yankees are now the Padres.

 

[bshole]

Sounds like the same problem the Democrats always have--if I can't have things all my way, I'll take my ball and go home.

For most of us, the "ball" is our vote...it's all we have.

For this guy, it's $$$.

And the GOP keeps winning elections because they play team ball better than the Dems. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

At this point I think the middle class would settle for a bone being tossed their way once every couple decades. Isn't it true that the Republican tax plan starts out as a tax cut and over time becomes a tax increase for the middle class?

 

[Younigue]

At this point I think the middle class would settle for a bone being tossed their way once every couple decades. Isn't it true that the Republican tax plan starts out as a tax cut and over time becomes a tax increase for the middle class?

I told my sister that I consider it the last nail in the coffin of the middle class.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I told my sister that I consider it the last nail in the coffin of the middle class.

If things doesn't change the US becomes Russia 2.0.

It's starting to look like the oligarchs are assembling in the Trump admin right now.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Is he pissed off now that Democrats are opposing the Republican tax plan that would benefit him and his children greatly? It sure seems like it. Sorry dude, are the Democrats supposed to lie about what is in the tax plan?

Got me. Don't care either way. This is like when the black folks don't want white people in their BLM march. Can't really engage in effective class warfare while being supported by the offending class so he's going to get a rough ride from the populace over this shit.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I guess he couldn't discern that all of the bashing that the very wealthy Repub donors get from the Dems didn't include him.

What is that, some kind of misplaced guilt complex gone wild or something?

He's barking up the wrong tree. He should be yelling at those fellow billionaires of his who are betting their money on the folks he is betting against.

He should realize that his fellow billionaires are the enemy and not the working class folks who rail against the inordinate influence the very wealthy have over our politicians. If he is truly a Dem liberal at heart, then wouldn't it be quite natural for him to realize that the very wealthy folks the Dems are demonizing are specifically those that support the class warfare that they, through the GOP, are waging against the common folk who actually work for a living and not himself?

Not sure what's with this guy.

In all probability he donates/pay-off both parties in return for favorable legislation.

edit: make that return for/expectation of.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Billionaires aren't a monolithic group. Even today, we still have Carnegies and Goulds. Don't hate the Carnegies because of the Goulds.

You mean end of life exploitation guilt that hits while watching your descendants turn into wastrels?

 

[Perknose]

Sites like Kyle's are about the only outlets around that will talk in depth about the influence of money in politics. He highlights the important news that the mainstream media doesn't give a shit about.

You're kidding, right? Rachel Maddow, John Oliver, Bill Maher, and Samantha Bee . . . even Keith Olbermann on YouTube, Dan Rather on Facebook . . . all "talk in depth about the influence of money in politics" with more sourced facts and at a much higher level than . . . Kyle . . . whose main shtick seems to be, "Here's an interview I saw on TV. This guy is bad and wrong. AmIrite?"

^^^ And that's just the more prominent and effective commentators. WaPo, the NYT, the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Politico, HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, the BBC and countless other sites and publications both actually investigate and then break the actual news regarding the influence of money in politics, and then comment in depth on same.

All these "mainstream media" outlets not only do give a shit about money in politics, they are the ones who do the actual reporting that . . . Kyle . . . piggybacks on. So, when you make the claims you make in your statement above, I simply can't let it pass.

 

[J.Wilkins]

You're kidding, right? Rachel Maddow, John Oliver, Bill Maher, and Samantha Bee . . . even Keith Olbermann on YouTube, Dan Rather on Facebook . . . all "talk in depth about the influence of money in politics" with more sourced facts and at a much higher level than . . . Kyle . . . whose main shtick seems to be, "Here's an interview I saw on TV. This guy is bad and wrong. AmIrite?"

^^^ And that's just the more prominent and effective commentators. WaPo, the NYT, the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Politico, HuffPo, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, the BBC and countless other sites and publications both actually investigate and then break the actual news regarding the influence of money in politics, and then comment in depth on same.

All these "mainstream media" outlets not only do give a shit about money in politics, they are the ones who do the actual reporting that . . . Kyle . . . piggybacks on. So, when you make the claims you make in your statement above, I simply can't let it pass.

I'm sorry but without money... where will they speak? On channel 917 local cable in Manitoba?

 

[Perknose]

I'm sorry but without money... where will they speak? On channel 917 local cable in Manitoba?

You seem to have completely missed my point.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's his money, why should he continue to monetarily support a political party to villanizes him. I mean look at your signature "Eating the rich, and bleeding tiger blood". He should pull out and stop contributing to the Democrat party. Let people like you send in their $5 or $10; would that be bleeding tiger blood?

If the man is not a Republican, if he supports policy to help the middle and lower class, then my suggestion is he simply choose which Democrat(s) to support in the primaries. Be picky, that's fine. Hell, I encourage him to find and recruit fresh faces to the crowd. But in a general election he should know which policies this country needs, and who is most likely to support them. Least that's my take on it.

 

[J.Wilkins]

You seem to have completely missed my point.

Ah, you were going by unbiased news because they do not get their money from political entities, well how about Breitbart and Fox News, they get it as much from politician funding as the rest apart from the BBC (which is state funded and required by law to be unbiased).

Now don't get me wrong, I've been looking at WP and they certainly have a staff that are both inquisitive and seemingly very, dare I say exceptionally, good at what they do but that does not change the fact that they are not an independent entity.

 

[Perknose]

Ah, you were going by unbiased news because they do not get their money from political entities, well how about Breitbart and Fox News, they get it as much from politician funding as the rest apart from the BBC (which is state funded and required by law to be unbiased).

Now don't get me wrong, I've been looking at WP and they certainly have a staff that are both inquisitive and seemingly very, dare I say exceptionally, good at what they do but that does not change the fact that they are not an independent entity.

WaPo, the NYT and all the others sites and commentators that I listed all get their funding from their subscribers, same as Kyle, and are thereby as free from "politician funding" as Kyle, who also gets his funding from his. . . subscribers.

Indeed, the men and women and owners of WaPo and the NYT risked their fortunes, their jobs, and the continued existence of their very companies to publish the Pentagon Papers in legal defiance of that noted politician, Richard Nixon.

But my post was in response to the fellow I responded to who made this claim, "Sites like Kyle's are about the only outlets around that will talk in depth about the influence of money in politics. He highlights the important news that the mainstream media doesn't give a shit about." Both sentences are simply and materially not true, so I was moved to provide copious evidence to the contrary.

It is not that "mainstream media' doesn't report on and talk in depth , , , painfully real depth and repeatedly so . . . about the influence of money in politics, it is that people in thrall to the alt-right ghetto of the media landscape like Breitbart and Fox don't listen.

Look, Kyle has his place in getting the word out. But, again, when bshole says "sites like Kyle's" are the only ones who do so, that is wildly and irresponsibly inaccurate.

 

[Maxima1]

Sounds like the same problem the Democrats always have--if I can't have things all my way, I'll take my ball and go home.

For most of us, the "ball" is our vote...it's all we have.

For this guy, it's $$$.

And the GOP keeps winning elections because they play team ball better than the Dems. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

GOP has a similar problem with being disgruntled about their establishment (yet still very conservative) pols, but I think you're overemphasizing it. Both parties follow a similar pattern. Midterms lower turnout and the party in power generally does worse in the elections. But Democrats hurt more during midterms or when in power because of a younger and poorer base (i.e. less reliable).

 

[J.Wilkins]

WaPo, the NYT and all the others sites and commentators that I listed all get their funding from their subscribers, same as Kyle, and are thereby as free from "politician funding" as Kyle, who also gets his funding from his. . . subscribers.

Indeed, the men and women and owners of WaPo and the NYT risked their fortunes, their jobs, and the continued existence of their very companies to publish the Pentagon Papers in legal defiance of that noted politician, Richard Nixon.

But my post was in response to the fellow I responded to who made this claim, "Sites like Kyle's are about the only outlets around that will talk in depth about the influence of money in politics. He highlights the important news that the mainstream media doesn't give a shit about." Both sentences are simply and materially not true, so I was moved to provide copious evidence to the contrary.

It is not that "mainstream media' doesn't report on and talk in depth , , , painfully real depth and repeatedly so . . . about the influence of money in politics, it is that people in thrall to the alt-right ghetto of the media landscape like Breitbart and Fox don't listen.

Look, Kyle has his place in getting the word out. But, again, when bshole says "sites like Kyle's" are the only ones who do so, that is wildly and irresponsibly inaccurate.

I don't think you realize how the funding works through ads from political entities and subscribers wanting a specific view presented or they will cancel their subscription. It is not a good thing, really but they make the best of it.

But my point is more that to have truly unbiased news you need to enact it in law and provide public funding.

That does not mean any disrespect to the actual investigative journalist though, wherever they get their funding they do an incredible job and I'd be amiss to say that I don't enjoy personalities like Rachel Maddow, Samantha Bee and even Alex Jones just for a massive belly laugh at his belly jiggling around while pretending to be a bodybuilder screaming how Hillary is an actual demon...

I agree with your end point, he's just plain wrong. I also agree that the best of American journalism is right there at the very top.

 

[bshole]

You're kidding, right? Rachel Maddow, John Oliver, Bill Maher, and Samantha Bee . . . even Keith Olbermann on YouTube, Dan Rather on Facebook . . . all "talk in depth about the influence of money in politics" with more sourced facts and at a much higher level than . . . Kyle . . . whose main shtick seems to be, "Here's an interview I saw on TV. This guy is bad and wrong. AmIrite?"

Your initial post insinuated that you had never heard of Kyle. Kyle is closely associated with the Young Turks. Kyle cofounded Justice Democrats whose core philosophy is removing corporate money from politics. He often posts on this topic on a daily basis. I know the commentators you listed above and I am not seeing anywhere near the laser focus on this topic ( I happen to love some of the people you mentioned).

Here is an example of Kyle's videos released in the last two days.

McConnell Can't Promise the Middle Class won't get taxes raised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syMIt-0pKtw

Centrist Joe Manchin: I'm for the average joe and corporate leaders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLb14RvkfG8

Wealthy dem donor, if dems go left i'll cut off their money
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctluj7jbbmE

etc...


I counted 17 stories from Kyle in the last week talking about corporate money in politics. You can go to the site and see for yourself. I know you don't like Bernie and Kyle is a HUGE Bernie fan, dude like worships Bernie.

Factually I think he is pretty impeccable. He has a huge bias against corporate money but he doesn't seem dishonest in the least.

Other favorite topics of Kyle are the effects of America's war on the Middle East, pot legalization, Clinton bashing and occasionally religion.

 

[gregoryvg]

I don't think you realize how the funding works through ads from political entities and subscribers wanting a specific view presented or they will cancel their subscription. It is not a good thing, really but they make the best of it.

But my point is more that to have truly unbiased news you need to enact it in law and provide public funding.

Public funding would also add bias into the reporting. Your "customer" then becomes the government. I don't think we will ever get truly unbiased reporting, but we should strive to minimize bias. Some "news" sites (Huff Post and Breitbard for example) are extremely biased. Others, like WaPo, NYT and WSJ are less biased, but still slant to the left or right a little.

If you don't read the news, you are un-informed. If you read the news, you are mis-informed.

 

[bshole]

Public funding would also add bias into the reporting. Your "customer" then becomes the government. I don't think we will ever get truly unbiased reporting, but we should strive to minimize bias. Some "news" sites (Huff Post and Breitbard for example) are extremely biased. Others, like WaPo, NYT and WSJ are less biased, but still slant to the left or right a little.

If you don't read the news, you are un-informed. If you read the news, you are mis-informed.

You can use a variety of sources to get a reasonable approximation of reality. It is all about probabilities. Truth probability increases with sources. International news sources increases the probability even more.

 

[Perknose]

I know you don't like Bernie and Kyle is a HUGE Bernie fan, dude like worships Bernie.

You know I don't like Bernie? WTF? Don't be lazy. Get your facts straight. Such an easily disproved assertion should be beneath you.

Now, I love Bernie Sanders, and there is no candidate on either side who most espouses my hopes and dreams for our Republic, but I'm voting for Hilary Clinton for president because politics is the art of the possible, and the most politically possible thing I can contribute my vote to is who will nominate the next Supreme Court candidates in the next 4-8 years.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...olitics-as-usual.2489001/page-3#post-38522970

Bernie Sanders would protect our civil liberties with more integrity than any public political leader I can think of. The fear and anxiety pulsating through your YUUUUGE amygdala has rendered you blind and stupid if you think otherwise.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/development-on-clinton-email-probe.2478994/page-2#post-38331250

That same ugly hate campaign would be equally repulsive to me were it directed against Bernie, which it surely would have if the Repubs thought he would be the nominee, which was my point to you after you TRUMPeted polls showing Bernie beating Trump more soundly than Hilary was.

To reiterate, they never went after Sanders like they have gone after Hilary because they saw he wasn't going to be the nominee. That's why his poll numbers were better at the time of those polls. He wasn't (yet) in their crosshairs. Got that? Because there is nothing peculiar or "double-standery" about what I said.

You seem to want to say that I'm offended about the attack campaign on Hilary (Vince Foster! Bengazi! E-mail server! Meeting on the tarmac!) but wouldn't be offended if and when they turned it on Bernie. That's just not true, Moonie.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...nvention-thread.2481164/page-11#post-38384408

Bernie doing us all proud, moves to give all his delegate votes to Clinton. If you ever doubted the chasm in class between Bernie Sanders and, say, Ted Cruz, well, there it is.

Take us to the promised land, Bernie!

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/would-you-give-obama-a-third-term.2467447/page-4#post-38122991

That's why I'm voting for Hilary Clinton, despite her flaws. I love Bernie, but I don't believe he's electable. My eye is principally on the Supreme Court, and was even before Scalia's death.

Politics is the art of the possible. And the SC is where we need a Democratic President appointing non-Scalias. Citizens United needs to be overturned, for one. Money is not free speech, and I also don't believe Corporations are people, with all of their rights but none of their legal responsibilities.

That's where effective, possible, enduring change will . . . slowly . . . start.

We need a President who will protect and expand the Affordable Care Act. We need a President who won't start destructive, retrograde trade wars for politically feel good reasons. We need a President who, unlike every single Republican candidate, won't flood Syria with American troops. We need a President who won't advocate using the immense power of the state to tell women what they can do with their bodies, even when they've been raped. We need a President with the courage and vision and, yes, decent common sense to know that the US needs to lead the fight against climate change.

And, then, down the line, when we hopefully restrict the ungodly flow of secret money into politics at least somewhat, we can hopefully address, state by state, the gerrymandering that has helped make the priniciple of one man, one vote a lie..

Hey man, we're more on the same page than not, you know? So, ok on Kyle. However, as an adult who takes the fate of my republic seriously, I vastly prefer direct investigative news sources (just that facts, please) to talking heads piggybacking on the work of REAL reporters . . . unless those talking heads do so with the rigorous panache of a Rachel Maddow or the incisively biting humor of a John Oliver. Kyle doesn't come close, imho, but if he contributes to getting the word out, ok, good on him.

However, it is the lazy BS statements in your prior post that first impelled me to respond:

"Sites like Kyle's are about the only outlets around that will talk in depth about the influence of money in politics. He highlights the important news that the mainstream media doesn't give a shit about."

^^^ Nothing in either sentence above is true!

You then subsequently walked all that back by substituting this statement: "I am not seeing anywhere near the laser focus on this topic[in the mainstream media.]" Well, it's all there, man, in all the many mainstream sites and from all the many non-like-Kyle commentators I listed. You just have to, you know, read them.

And then you had to add that you know I don't like Bernie. WWKS? What would Kyle say?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Is he pissed off now that Democrats are opposing the Republican tax plan that would benefit him and his children greatly? It sure seems like it. Sorry dude, are the Democrats supposed to lie about what is in the tax plan?

Yeah, I'm not sure WTF he's wanting. Does he just want them to say they oppose it because Republicans are for it and not explain why or just say because it'll up taxes on the poor (which Republicans can easily spin)? He seems to be a decade or two out of touch with where the parties are. I'm not sure if its just that (he thinks the Dems can operate like centrists like in the past; its not because of Bernie that they had to change either, its because Republicans have made supporting corporations and the wealthy the entire focus of their platform, with lies and pushing religion and guns their method of duping Americans into supporting them), or if he's intentionally trying to undermine the Democrats. That seems plausible, he gives donations (large ones, but hardly anything that hits him too much) so that he's not just mouthing off, and then he goes on air to try and give Republicans fodder for saying that the Democrats are the same (or likely claim that its lies that Republicans are that way, its really the Democrats, see look at this billionaire saying exactly that!).

Any which way, the guy can go fuck himself.

If things doesn't change the US becomes Russia 2.0.

It's starting to look like the oligarchs are assembling in the Trump admin right now.

Er, they've been there much longer than Trump has been in politics. We've had oligarchs in the US for, well you could argue from the start, but it heavily started to turn that way around the turn of the 20th century. They'll do a good show of caring about the rest of America, but the reality is they do not exist in the reality of America. And Republicans used FUD to get them onboard their platform more and more with time. And then Republicans were able to spin tax cuts for the rich as though it would elevate all Americans, and things have firmly been oligarchical since. Same thing happened within business, where corporations gave way to conglomerates, and now most industries are dominated by a few massive companies.

 

[Maxima1]

Yeah, I'm not sure WTF he's wanting. Does he just want them to say they oppose it because Republicans are for it and not explain why or just say because it'll up taxes on the poor (which Republicans can easily spin)? He seems to be a decade or two out of touch with where the parties are. I'm not sure if its just that (he thinks the Dems can operate like centrists like in the past; its not because of Bernie that they had to change either, its because Republicans have made supporting corporations and the wealthy the entire focus of their platform, with lies and pushing religion and guns their method of duping Americans into supporting them), or if he's intentionally trying to undermine the Democrats. That seems plausible, he gives donations (large ones, but hardly anything that hits him too much) so that he's not just mouthing off, and then he goes on air to try and give Republicans fodder for saying that the Democrats are the same (or likely claim that its lies that Republicans are that way, its really the Democrats, see look at this billionaire saying exactly that!).

Any which way, the guy can go fuck himself.

Also, with the internet, it's not as easy for the pols to bullshit all the time.