Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 483 posts

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#391

Post by javagram »

5d749d7da7d5 wrote: post #242
eghad wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Koch's political funding goes far beyond just this one PAC fyi. Their funneling of millions into the Federalist Society and its individual causes serving as just one example that has had an outsized negative influence on the health of American democracy.

I recalled this story [0] where the Koch brothers said they would organize $1 billion to conservative groups for the 2016 election. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/koch-brothers-network-will-spen...

Important follow-up story the next year. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/the-koch-brother... “The Koch Brothers Were Supposed to Buy the 2016 Election: What happened?”

As the article notes, Trump (who was not Koch-backed) won with very little spending compared to his big-money backed conventional GOP opponents. They decided to step back and spend less in 2016 as a result, since they didn’t support either Trump or Hillary.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#392

Post by mindslight »

harimau777 wrote: post #295
CryptoPunk wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The problem is that the Libertarianism/free-market policies simply don't work. They've failed to address the growing inability to normal people to have financial security and a reasonable quality of life. At some point, continuing to advocate those policies in the face of their outcomes becomes negligence at best.

I agree about the negligence, but additionally it's dishonest to talk about libertarian free market policies (for or against) without acknowledging the central bank and its current mission of grossly inflating the currency supply to force most everybody to work continuously. If the middle and lower classes could benefit from increasing productivity with reduced consumer prices, and were allowed to build wealth by saving currency instead of having it eroded away and existing hand to mouth, then they'd have a fighting chance to wield some market power. As it is, they're stuck on the rent treadmill that extracts wealth upwards.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#393

Post by javagram »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #235

> At 85, the libertarian tycoon who spent decades funding conservative causes says he wants a final act building bridges across political divides Isn't that what all the republicans are saying now that their presidential candidate has lost? Now that they've lost a modicum of power, now is the time for partisanship and teamwork? Where was this spirit of cooperation before? This seems like a good way to spend money on…

> Isn't that what all the republicans are saying now that their presidential candidate has lost?

FYI, the Koch network did not actively support Trump in either 2016 or 2020. So calling Trump as “their presidential candidate” could be misleading.

Charles Koch talked about Trump vs Hillary in 2016 as cancer vs heart attack and said publicly hillary might be a better president.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#394

Post by zbyte64 »

missedthecue wrote: post #381
colinmhayes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that changes how much the Koch's donated to climate change deniers.

Do you have a quote where they deny it is changing?

The claim isn't that the Koch brothers deny climate change, but that they funded climate "skeptic" think tanks. They knew full well what they were doing.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#395

Post by aniro »

Miraste wrote: post #332
aniro wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gather all of that evidence was collected from Martian samples? Maybe Venus? Was it derived from DNA developed on the Moon? What does make Earth just right for you to have developed in order to be aware, gain such knowledge, share such knowledge? Untold eons of carefully controlled radiant energy emitted by our blessed Sun. The Sun and its ilk are massive emitters of radiant energy. Light is a form of radiation. He…

You know that we can measure and control for radiation in experiments, right? And that radiation levels are not constant across the planet?

I am not sure I understand your point.

The atmosphere does a reasonably good job protecting us from the ravages of open space. One of the positive (for us) results of the particular make-up of that atmosphere is to foster life. Absent that protection (or if we were to act to circumvent it) life struggles to find a foothold. Can't think of anywhere life flourishes other than here.

Places that lack this protection tend to get burnt to a crisp or freeze. Lack of energy is a problem. Too much energy is a problem. The wrong KIND of energy is a problem.

What we call "radioactive material" that is the effluent by-product of nuclear fission is all the wrong kind of energy. I won't recount all the reasons why, but the fact that it is the least likely source of scrambling heritable traits in DNA is actually kind of low on the list (especially given the speed with which it scrambles DNA in living entities).

I am suggesting we shouldn't act to circumvent the protection we have been graciously afforded by the atmosphere. Fucking about with fissile material inside the atmosphere and on the surface is stupid and short sighted.

There is nothing mystical about any of this, it is pure science.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#396

Post by crowf »

onelastjob wrote: post #362

The USA needs a law that limits individuals to only donating something like $5,000 per person to any political campaign entity such as PACs, Super PACs, and political campaigns. Companies should not be able to contribute anything, only citizens. CA Props should also have this limit. Otherwise, the USA will be defacto ruled by whichever entities are able to contribute the most to campaigns and advertising for politici…

such a rule would be very difficult to make. let's say that there is a NGO that advocates for the rights of illegal immigrants. can a fundraiser donate more than $5,000 to that NGO? if not, I doubt that many NGOs would survive, so let's assume so. if that NGO wants to endorse Biden, are they allowed? if not, can they hint that people should vote against the candidate who wants to build a wall? If they are allowed to endorse Biden and they want to place an ad on TV, the production and placement could cost itself over $5,000

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#397

Post by Daishiman »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #378
8note wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cuba would be an example otherwise? Despite having the nearby superpower trying their hardest to destroy Cuba, their communist system continues to work fine

Cuba is an abysmal failure. People have their occupations set by the government, depend on meager monthly state rations, and have almost no disposal income for consumer purchases. That's why people flee Cuba for the US and not the other way around.

Cuba is, compared to hellholes in the Caribbean line Haiti, actually not so bad.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#398

Post by TT3351 »

pjc50 wrote: post #251
aazaa wrote: post #191

The article would have been improved by giving some insight into what changed his mind. You don't just go from what he and his brother have done to the US to: > Boy, did we screw up! Without an inkling as to how or why they screwed up, there's no way to gauge what, if any, change to expect.

As I posted last time this came up, the problem to him is that the Tea Party they backed went out of their control. They wanted a nice biddable anti-government party. They got chaos. They've not come to Jesus on global warming, they're upset they lost.

Chaos leads to distracted government, which we've had 4 years of. Now we'll have at least 2 years of divided government. Government occupied elsewhere is always good for Koch's business. Chaos will do.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#399

Post by aniro »

forest_dweller wrote: post #386
aniro wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done.. missing the point entirely. Quite an art.

Not really. Maybe you shouldn't lead with an absolute that you can't possibly claim to know. > This line dismisses .. pretty much anyone advocating for change. "I proposed a solution that works for me. They don't like it. They must wish to protect the identity." Pure poppycock. I never claimed that applied for anyone that is advocating for change. In this case the nuclear power solution could be a viable solution (I…

Actually, what you wrote was "..activist groups will quite often ignore viable solutions. This is usually because they wish to keep on being activists and keep on continuing the fight."

You surmise in the text that the rejection of nuclear is just out of hand because solving the problem would end the fight. This is what you stated.

Nuclear may be a viable solution to the energy problem. Whether it is a viable solution to the humans altering the planet irrevocably so they can't inhabit it safely anymore problem is open to a bit more conjecture.

There is plenty of energy readily available on the planet without the necessity of continuing to burn off a billion years of carbon capture or splitting atoms, imho.

Post reply on HN