Fox’s News Corp Is a Major Donor to the Clinton (CAMPAIGNS)

Breitbart ^ | 29 Jan 16 | Patrick Howley

[Kaisersrsic]

"A couple hundred or few thousand each to the D’s in the list don’t leave me thinking Trunp is closet non-conservative."
The donations were not as small as you suggest and Trump was not a closet non-conservative. He was an openly pro-abortion, liberal. These were not small "good luck" donations:
3/28/08 $5,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D);
1/31/08 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D);
9/26/06 $7,500 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D);
6/19/06 $15,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D);
6/19/06 $20,000 Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte (D);
3/1/06 $5,000 National Leadership PAC (D);
4/6/05 $5,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D);
9/28/04 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D);
10/8/02 $25,000 DSCC/Non-Federal Unicorp Assoc (D);
11/13/00 $5,000 DSCC/Non-Federal Individual (D);
11/6/00 $5,000 DCCC/Non-Federal Account 5 (D).

[VerySadAmerican]

This fact should automatically disqualify Fox from holding ANY debates.

[Georgia Girl 2]

After the way Fox News treated the GOP candidates at the debacle last night raise your hand if you are shocked to learn they are left leaning.

[Anima Mundi]

Many assume there is a basis of values or philosophy when in reality the truth is more likely that we live in a world of mafia rules. People just want to make money and avoid fear/pain. It is about money (bribe) and fear, (threaten). It may take a lot of hardship for us to find our way back to serious founding values and away from the “show”.

[xzins]

Two issues with Trump that most keep forgetting to mention:

1. His conversion to conservatism began in 2011. Anything prior to that is part of the past.

2. He was running a business, and his donations to republicans far exceeded anything else, but businesses are asked for money by politicians. That is reality.

[itsahoot]

So what makes Rupert Murdoch's contributions to the Clintons so bad while Donald Trump's contributions to the Clintons is so good?

Maybe it has something t do with a 24/7 news channel whose storyline may be effected by the owners opinion. Naw probably not, because no one tells these talking heads what to say, I heard MeAgain say that, Bill too.

[itsahoot]

It may take a lot of hardship for us to find our way back to serious founding values and away from the "show."

We seem to totally ignore what the Founder, Adams said.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

Looks to me like he knew what he was talking about.

[P-Marlowe]

Business is business. Isn’t that the Trump mantra. Trump is running for president of the United States. His contribution history is far more relevant than a guy who owns a news outlet. Don’t try to tell me that Murdoch’s personal contributions to the Clintons was bad, but Trumps was good. They were both bad, Murdoch is trying to sell air time and Trump is seeking to rule over me. I can turn off Murdoch’s channel. If Trump is elected we can’t turn him off.

I cannot trust that anyone who gave a dime to the Clintons has a conservative bone in their body. That goes for Murdoch. That goes for Trump.

[Kaisersrsic]

I am glad that you believe Trump converted to conservatism at age 65, since that is far better than those who don’t care. As for myself, I don’t believe that he has converted to conservatism.

He had plenty of time to develop a political philosophy in the first 64 years of his life. Trump wants to be president and this is his only angle. I see no reason to believe he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who would limit taking the little people’s property through eminent domain or reign in Roe v. Wade.

Trump’s donations to Republicans only exceed donations to Democrats since 2012 — when he started working on his 2016 presidential campaign. If that is enough for you, you are selling the GOP nomination too cheaply.

[lentulusgracchus]

The MSM is owned by the liberal left. All these debates are about trying to make republicans look like clowns.

People on the Left used to complain that, when Old Man Murdoch was out there buying upscale, power-mongering fishwraps and TV stations, that he was a Rightist introducing conservative bias to Fox News coverage.

But now his sons are running the place, and he was made to take the hit in the London news-gathering scandals (as opposed to other people in the company who actually ran the phone games?), diminishing his influence over Fox editorial (and news-slanting!) policy.

Now they have people like Kelly in there.

[xzins]

Do you want Bush’s amnesty plan or Trump’s?

[lentulusgracchus]

[P-Marlowe] I cannot trust that anyone who gave a dime to the Clintons has a conservative bone in their body. That goes for Murdoch. That goes for Trump.

I think you all overlook another problem, which is that these "contributions" may in fact be extorted. "Rainmaking" is an old, old game in DC, participated in enthusiastically by everyone from homolobbyists to Green anti-people organizers to "community organizers" to the National Rifle Association ("the British are coming, the British are coming!").

Against such a background of genteel begathon-ing and arm-twisting by powerful recipients of private largesse, it's hard to weigh the meaning of donations to one or the other party by individuals whose real enthusiasms are reserved for their own enterprises -- people the Athenians once called "idiotic", from the word for "self".

[P-Marlowe]

I think you all overlook another problem, which is that these "contributions" may in fact be extorted.

If payments are made to an elected or appointed official in exchange for any favors from or to that person, that is a felony.

If Trump was getting favors for his contributions then both Trump and the person from whom he was getting his promised favors would be guilty of a felony.

We already have one felon running for president and awaiting indictment. We don't need another.

So unless Trump was giving to the Clintons out of the goodness of his heart and expecting nothing in exchange, then we was part of a criminal conspiracy.

So which was it?

Did Trump give money to the Clintons because he was being extorted or he was expecting some favor in return (i.e., criminal bribery) or did he contribute to the Clintons because he agreed with their politics (legitimate contributions).

I say it doesn't matter which one since both reasons are bad.

I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt. I would have to think that he gave to Pelosi, Reid, Hillary and Bill because he agreed with their politics and wanted them re-elected.