What retaliation? What punishment? Provide specifics please, since you just asserted it again and have yet to offer anything to explain or back the assertion up. You keep using these words, presumably because they are loaded terms, but you refuse to back them up in any way. Calling someone a name is not retaliation or punishment. What, other than that, are you referring to? If that’s it, then the Republicans have been punishing and retaliating against Obama since he was elected, just for being elected I guess. Is there something else you’re trying to say with these terms? Are you just trying to muddy the debate here and make Democrats sound bad with your loaded terms, or will you actually explain yourself and defend your claims this time? I want you to explain what specific retaliation and punishment you are referring to, and let us know who it is that is doing it? If you are going to make accusations like this, you need to be able to at least explain what the hell it is you’re talking about. This whole making wild assertions and then backing down and changing the subject thing is really getting old. If you can’t defend your claim, then don’t make it in the first place.
I recall that when JOhn Ashcroft barely hinted that some people were un-American or unpatriotic the left nearly went into a seizure of outrage.
When Gabby Giffords was shot, many on the left tried to claim that it was the harsh rhetoric used against Democrats that led to it.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid actually directly calls the Kochs un-American and it’s nothing.
Get back to us when Harry Reid puts out literature showing the Koch brothers in gun-sight crosshairs.
Trying to steal elections by throwing money at them is un-American.
You have no sense of scale if you think calling someone a terrorist sympathizer or a dictator bent on wholesale murder of his political opponents is near the same.
Then Obama stole two elections by your logic. So the Birthers were right!
So, what retaliation, what punishment were you referring to?
Put up or shut up. You know how it works.
He’s probably including “economic retaliation” (ie: boycotts) in there. But all boycotts are is a further dissemination of the information as to who’s taking what position and asking consumers; “Do you really want to give your money to someone who thinks X and who will use it to push that?”
They are also just as likely to constitute free advertising to persons who think that X is perfectly fine and didn’t know that business Y favored that.
Iirc the Koch brothers got little or nothing for their superpac contributions last election. How money buys influence is by way of lobbying.
Lobbying is how they tell lawmakers what they want done, campaign contributions is how they get it. Of course, these are totally secret PACs, hush hush, on the QT. But a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse’s ass.
It used to be “special interest groups”. I must be getting old. That, or else the groups are changing their names.
Special interests are groups representing narrow interests. They can represent an awful lot of people, but if they are about one issue or represent the interests of a group, they are generally considered to be a special interests.
An outside group is one that spends independently to influence an election. It may represent a special interest, or it may not.