Trump Funder Also Paid for Milo Yiannopoulos’ College Speaking Tour

How many political events have been funded by the AFL-CIO since say 1960? Or are they legitimate and a Super PAC illegitimate and if so why should that be so.

As far as I'm concerned eliminate both Super PACs and the ability of Unions to spend on political campaigns.

Aardvark154 said:

How many political events have been funded by the AFL-CIO since say 1960? Or are they legitimate and a Super PAC illegitimate and if so why should that be so.

As far as I'm concerned eliminate both Super PACs and the ability of Unions to spend on political campaigns.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that but your pals at Brietbart got the Citizens United case pushed through the SC so they could use their anti Clinton movie in an election campaign.

Aardvark154 said:

How many political events have been funded by the AFL-CIO since say 1960? Or are they legitimate and a Super PAC illegitimate and if so why should that be so.

As far as I'm concerned eliminate both Super PACs and the ability of Unions to spend on political campaigns.

Click to expand...

Add in Soros.

Booth sides have now and always have had wealthy patrons with an agenda.

fuji said:

I would agree with that but your pals at Brietbart got the Citizens United case pushed through the SC so they could use their anti Clinton movie in an election campaign.

Click to expand...

So what?

fuji said:

I would agree with that but your pals at Brietbart got the Citizens United case pushed through the SC so they could use their anti Clinton movie in an election campaign.

Click to expand...

Not surprising as the alt right consider Brietbart to be a "non-fake" media.

bver_hunter said:

Not surprising as the alt right consider Brietbart to be a "non-fake" media.

Click to expand...

I would put the film in the same category as anything put out by Michael Moore.

They tried to stop it due to the content, not the concept. And it came back and bit them on the ass.

Butler1000 said:

I would put the film in the same category as anything put out by Michael Moore.

They tried to stop it due to the content, not the concept. And it came back and bit them on the ass.

Click to expand...

Mike Moore reports it as he sees it. The alt right hate what he makes except the one or two documentaries that seem to favour Trump. He did not change anything in the elections.

bver_hunter said:

Mike Moore reports it as he sees it. The alt right hate what he makes except the one or two documentaries that seem to favour Trump. He did not change anything in the elections.

Click to expand...

And how he sees it is biased. Just like the Huffington Post and Vice on one side and Breitbart on the other.

It's all biased. You just choose to champion one side of it.

oagre said:

You're missing the point - which is that the same few names and entities keep coming up again and again on the Right and intermingling. More of a big, close, happy family than the AFL-CIO, Moore and Soros. Unless your idea of a healthy democracy is Milo, Breitbart, Bannon, Conway and their billionaire owners.

If those are the people you want running your country, the lineup starts over there, behind Canada-man.

Click to expand...

Actually that's one side of the "right". You also have the Koch bros Roger A and others working their own agenda.

And no doubt other quieter Democrats or the Hollywood crowd with their own as well.

Too much money. But remember Clinton raised far more money than Trump from rich sources.

Butler1000 said:

Actually that's one side of the "right". You also have the Koch bros Roger A and others working their own agenda.

And no doubt other quieter Democrats or the Hollywood crowd with their own as well.

Too much money. But remember Clinton raised far more money than Trump from rich sources.

Click to expand...

Some stats for you, MSM gave 95% funding to the Clinton Campaign and 5% to Trump. That should tell you everything u need to know about the biased left mainstream media.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

SuperCharge said:

Some stats for you, MSM gave 95% funding to the Clinton Campaign and 5% to Trump. That should tell you everything u need to know about the biased left mainstream media.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

Click to expand...

Is that from the journalists or the people who own the networks?
And with a total of about $400,000 that's about 0.03% of Clinton's donations, hardly anything in a $1.4 billion campaign.

The people who don't like Trump aren't necessarily just left wingers, they are also people who don't like rich, entitled, old white men who want to only lower their own taxes while they grab whatever pussy they can, running things.

Butler1000 said:

And how he sees it is biased. Just like the Huffington Post and Vice on one side and Breitbart on the other.

It's all biased. You just choose to champion one side of it.

Click to expand...

You seem to agree with the whole fake news conspiracy, when you accuse the non alt right of trying "to champion one side of it".

bver_hunter said:

You seem to agree with the whole fake news conspiracy, when you accuse the non alt right of trying "to champion one side of it".

Click to expand...

I think I stated clearly that both sources like Huffington and Breibart are the same. Clickbait pandering.

This new label alt right is thrown around way too much. Disagree with any stance that is considered liberal and you are labeled across the board. And automatically accused of all the isms and phobias on the menu.

I don't read either. Nor other extreme sites. I quote the G and M. The star. The NP. And several other MsM. The difference is I read and listen and don't always agree. But my shit is fact based. I read those whose opinions I hate.

Can you say the same?

I can say I've seen the Michael Moore stuff. Can you say the same about the Clinton film?

Frankfooter said:

Is that from the journalists or the people who own the networks?
And with a total of about $400,000 that's about 0.03% of Clinton's donations, hardly anything in a $1.4 billion campaign.

The people who don't like Trump aren't necessarily just left wingers, they are also people who don't like rich, entitled, old white men who want to only lower their own taxes while they grab whatever pussy they can, running things.

Click to expand...

I think the best part about this campaign was how the MsM hoisted themselves by their own petard this campaign in their coverage of Trump. They thought they had the power to shape opinion. All they did was help get Trump Elected.

oagre said:

I think you're confusing MSM with Putin on that one.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The volume of free coverage they gave him was worth billions. No one else could get their message out. The msm's need for ratings to drive advertising sales helped him.

And their continuing need for them is driving the present frenzy.

oagre said:

She sure did. The elite knew that Trump will screw up and destabilize the US. For one thing, he will actually make it harder for the GOP to get elected in 2018 and 2020 due to his abysmal approval rating and the negative coat tail effect. The wealthy are also bright enough to realize that his entire administration would be a dog and pony show.

Click to expand...

Sure. But at some point the elite have to acknowledge the poor unwashed masses. That's what happens in a democracy. The notion that they could just "leave behind" the rust belt states came back to bite them on the ass.

They too with limiting the press via ownership concentration and setting the agenda caused to rise of other news sources.

And the biggest dog and pony show has been congress for a couple of decades now. Trump is just another act in a big ol' Washington circus.