Tucker Carlson has unhinged profane meltdown after historian calls him a Koch/Murdoch puppet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has been spouting racist slurs (birtherism, for example) for years before he stole the 2016 election with the help of dark money, voter suppression, and Putin.

"Birtherism" isn't a racial slur.

Not the PP you are responding to but birtherism absolutely was racist, it was all about playing on Obama's race, no different than telling a black man born in the US he should "go back to Africa"

It's about his father being Kenyan. All else being the same, they would've still raised a stink if he were Polish or Chinese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dutchman's latest book is about global open borders, i.e. a wet dream for plutocrats. He's a ruling class toadie just like Tucker.

except Carlson takes money from plutocrats while talking crap about globalism, ie, he's a hypocrite which is what the Dutch guy called him out on.

Don't be so naive. Who published the Dutchman's book? Who greenlit the reviews and interviews for the Dutchman's book? Who invited the Dutchman to Davos?

Answer: The same ruling class that funds Tucker.

This is the rightwing talking point ('bothsides'!!!) that the right falls back upon when they are finally called out on their lies.

Fact: The majority of money spent by billionaires to influence media and politics is spent by rightwing billionaires on rightwing policies designed to enrich themselves (despite a few high profile exceptions like Bill Gates.)

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo29143391.html
Billionaires and Stealth Politics
BENJAMIN I. PAGE, JASON SEAWRIGHT, AND MATTHEW J. LACOMBE

It's not rightwing talking point, it's common knowledge that lots of money is thrown around by both sides. According to this the dems actually raised more and spent more in 2016. There's generally much less political variety in America when compared to other countries anyways.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-the-2016-election-its-a-doozy/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

It is a rightwing talking point. The truth is that rightwing billionaires are the problem.

First reason those articles don't apply: This is a liberal-majority country. So then why was equal money contributed to presidential races? (Answer: because rightwing billionaires and corporations bias us towards the right; otherwise Hillary would have raised more.)

Second reason your links are not persuasive: Most rightwing billionaires in 2016 spent money on downballot races, on the Senate, the House and state races.
And rightwing billionaires own Fox and fund Breitbart and Washington Examiner and IJR and EPPC and AEI and Cato. That is dirty money, just like the Dutch guy said.

The rightwing talking point is to say "there's equal money on both sides". That's just false. And the book above explains in DETAIL why there is far more money spent on the right for partisan political purposes.

[Anonymous]

First reason those articles don't apply: This is a liberal-majority country. So then why was equal money contributed to presidential races? (Answer: because rightwing billionaires and corporations bias us towards the right; otherwise Hillary would have raised more.)

She did raise more, about $1.4 billion to his $957.6 million. As for big money donors,

Clinton’s campaign received 16 percent of its money in donations of $200 or less. Trump’s campaign received 26 percent of its funds from small donations. In the 2012 election cycle, President Obama had raised 32 percent of his total in small donations and Republican Mitt Romney had raised 5 percent.

Of the $1.7 billion donated to support Democratic candidates, 13 percent was raised by super PACs and other independent groups.

Of the $621.4 million donated to support Republican candidates, 10 percent was raised by super PACs and other independent groups.

Her campaign also spent more;

Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by considerable margins.

I don't how this is rightwing to point out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Netherlands is 90% Euro Caucasians and the size of Pennsylvania. Easy for these foreigners to have all the solutions from their tiny utopias.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

First reason those articles don't apply: This is a liberal-majority country. So then why was equal money contributed to presidential races? (Answer: because rightwing billionaires and corporations bias us towards the right; otherwise Hillary would have raised more.)

She did raise more, about $1.4 billion to his $957.6 million. As for big money donors,

Clinton’s campaign received 16 percent of its money in donations of $200 or less. Trump’s campaign received 26 percent of its funds from small donations. In the 2012 election cycle, President Obama had raised 32 percent of his total in small donations and Republican Mitt Romney had raised 5 percent.

Of the $1.7 billion donated to support Democratic candidates, 13 percent was raised by super PACs and other independent groups.

Of the $621.4 million donated to support Republican candidates, 10 percent was raised by super PACs and other independent groups.

Her campaign also spent more;

Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1. The Democratic National Committee and left-leaning outside groups also outspent their Republican counterparts by considerable margins.

I don't how this is rightwing to point out.

You failed to take into account the money Russia spent on his behalf. He spent a lot more money. A lot.

[Anonymous]

You also failed to take into account the free media support he got from Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, etc.

[Anonymous]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/30/billionaire-stealth-politics-america-100-richest-what-they-want

Since the conservatives seem to be changing the subject away from the book on billionaire money, here is an excerpt:

Our new, systematic study of the 100 wealthiest Americans indicates that Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg et al are not at all typical. Most of the wealthiest US billionaires – who are much less visible and less reported on – more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes – which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions – programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits.

How can this be so? If it is true, why aren’t voters aware and angry about it?

The answer is simple: billionaires who favor unpopular, ultraconservative economic policies, and work actively to advance them (that is, most politically active billionaires) stay almost entirely silent about those issues in public. This is a deliberate choice. Billionaires have plenty of media access, but most of them choose not to say anything at all about the policy issues of the day. They deliberately pursue a strategy of what we call “stealth politics”.

PP, that's why you don't think rightwing billionaires are a problem: because they are deliberately secretive about their big-money spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You failed to take into account the money Russia spent on his behalf. He spent a lot more money. A lot.

No one knows exactly what they spent. Mueller said the Internet Research Agency spent something like $1.25 per month on facebook ads.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troll-farm-spent-millions-on-election-interference-2018-2

Anonymous wrote:You also failed to take into account the free media support he got from Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, etc

He received far more media attention across the board due to his flamboyant and bizarre/unconventional antics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/

Anonymous wrote:PP, that's why you don't think rightwing billionaires are a problem: because they are deliberately secretive about their big-money spending.

I never said billionaires weren't a problem, I just said it's not as skewed as you think. And democrats aren't immune to this either, they're capitalists after all.

According this, of the 10 largest individual contributors in the 2018 elections 6 donated to the dems. Of the 100 examined overall, 52 leaned democrat. Organizational contributors, in addition to overall outsider spending was roughly similar but slightly leaned democrat as well.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

[Anonymous]

Carlson is such a whiner. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Whiner, angry and a cuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whiner, angry and a cuck.

Alt right posts here now?

[Anonymous]

PPs who are counting donations to politicians:

These numbers are skewed because these are the PUBLIC donations.
Ever since the GOP bought Citizens United by installing Fed Soc partisans, there has been a flood of dark money into politics. Many of the donors are unknown.

Also, rightwing billionaires fund propaganda - you need to count that too. Breitbart, Daily Caller would not exist without rightwing billionaire money. There is no equivalent propaganda outlet on the left. Cato, AEI would not exist without rightwing billionaires - heck, Cato started saying conservatism was going off the rails and the Koches launched a coup in 2012 and kicked out anyone left who didn’t agree with them. That’s not a think tank, that’s a propaganda outlet. There is no equivalent on the left unless you count something like Data for Progress - two 20yr olds doing it for free. On the right there is a sluice of billionaire money supporting lies and paying the salary of liars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You also failed to take into account the free media support he got from Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, etc.

Similar to Clinton's free media support from CNN, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You also failed to take into account the free media support he got from Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, etc.

Similar to Clinton's free media support from CNN, etc?

LOL. You clearly didn't watch CNN. They attacked her on a daily basis over her emails et cetera.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has been spouting racist slurs (birtherism, for example) for years before he stole the 2016 election with the help of dark money, voter suppression, and Putin.

"Birtherism" isn't a racial slur.

Not the PP you are responding to but birtherism absolutely was racist, it was all about playing on Obama's race, no different than telling a black man born in the US he should "go back to Africa"

It's about his father being Kenyan. All else being the same, they would've still raised a stink if he were Polish or Chinese.

Nonsense as to whether they still would have raised a stink if Obama's father were Polish. Trump's mother was foreign born and nobody said a thing about that. It was all about Obama's race.