Proponents of the great replacement theory in the United States claim that Democrats are attempting to "replace" white Americans with non-white immigrants.
This piece echoes the current immigration situation in DC: let’s impeach Mayorkas over policy differences, while torpedoeing a bill to solve the problem; so TFG can run on the problem, rather than solving it. R’s fundraised on guaranteed impeachment before they had evidence. The two-faced corporations are no different. Hypocrisy abounds!
That Tim Scott bleating on Fox about the "open borders" right after voting "no" on a solution, that idiot MTG and her on-going impeachment foolishness, that so-called-leader Mike Johnson, the Nixonian-headed molester Matt Gaetz, the list goes on!
Seems like there may be some quantum entanglement between then and now too. Manafort and Stone—who sports a Nixon tattoo and looks surprisingly like the Wicked Witch of the West.
Money talks louder than words. Shame on them. Thanks for outing they who speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Which one is it, big corporations? Or are you just covering your posteriors? DT and company will destroy you if they get a chance. Money won't be enough. MAGA will require that you do what they say. Bag bargain, that.
Again: Citizen’s United only serves to EXPONENTIALLY augment the influence of very wealthy donors—Corporations are NOT People—Corporations are tools to shield certain, personal liabilities in the course of conducting corporate policy. Citizens United is a bastardization of the law.
Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall when one of these racist Repugs presented their pitch for donations?
Little wonder the right wing is so keen to ban books: Just look at the drivel they do read and then turn to CRUSADING, as if one piece of fiction can be overgeneralized into valid “theory.” Even the terms “theory,” “philosophy,” “ideals and beliefs” are misused by radicals. Ignorance and turning our backs on teaching of humanities has led to a population that is one, small step from medieval “tests” for witches.
Patric, same here. I try to avoid these companies but it’s impossible to avoid them completely because of market monopolies they hold. After the re-election of Biden, our next job will be to make loud demands to undo the damage right wingers inflicted and never allow anyone to forget that the entire republican party…Republican members of Congress, supported a seditionist, rapist and con man as a leader for our country. They support Fascism and authoritarianism!
Although Richard Hudson is an unabashed racist, along with many other white Senators and Representative ( but probably including Tim Scott, who just loves Trump), I'm not so sure that all of these $15,000 donations to the NRCC are anything more than donations to the agency that keeps Republicans in office (and are friendly to big business). (And will incidentally accept lobbying bribes.) General Motors has donated $60,000 to the NRCC!--would love to know inside information about what motivates them so strongly. So instead of "putting their money where their mouth is" they are putting their money in a way that can harm what they say with those mouths (letters and declarations of support for Dreamers and DACA).
Agreed. All of those multiples. $5, $15K, $30K, $60K all seem like token contributions but... they shouldn't be "required" by current circumstances to give anything.
This excellent reporting only lacks the disclaimer that the penalty for corporate hypocrisy remains a maximum sentence of zero years in prison and a fine of zero dollars.
These corporations donate to Republicans to keep it that way. Talk is free but tax breaks go straight to the bottom line.
Damn! That does sound rather like the way it really works. Zero fines and zero time for advanced criminality. Similar to the dynamic our laws allow so a guy with a small bag of dope pays more in years thanks to our system of justice, than the guy who stole $Millions from Medicare and got probbtion.
Just wondering: Did these companies also contribute to the DNC and elected officials working in support of dreamers? Do they speak out of both sides of their mouths and wallets?
Actions speak louder than words. Money talks in politics and is the fuel for action. The replacement needed is of the shallow but also hollow Republicans in Congress who happily take the cash as validation of actions espoused by uber-criminal Trump. It is a straight line; no zig-zagging or shell game of "look over there." Take the money, it is payment for service rendered, even if lip service says otherwise.
Thank you for identifying major corporations that are engaged in doublespeak while they line the coffers of racists, misongynists and would-be authoritarians. It's an age old story and I suspect that most of them do it. The wealthy/priviledged always think they will stay in favor if they fawn and conspire and turn over riches.
Any information on the major engineering firms? We receive constant messaging on DEI, but I suspect they are engaged in the same financial dealings.
frankly i'm white and i can't wait for the great replacement.....my hope is they will do a much better job than what we and our ancestors did in regards to race in this country.
This article seems a little one sided. Did these companies also give these or similar amounts to the DNC and democratic representatives? The hypocrisy is clear but are these companies truly one-sided?
Unfortunately we can't use the old "both sides" analogy any more. Even if they donate to the DNC and Dems - and I'm sure that most do - it doesn't excuse donating to what has become a fascist cult intent on the demise of representative democracy and believably threatening civil war (Abbot and his ilk). It would be like excusing a donation to Hitler because they also donated to the Weimar.
Judd, do you have any reporting on these Corporations making contributions to the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) as well? That would not be at all unusuall. It could be represented as hypocritical to posit that these companies have a corporate image esposing a stance, over one issue, then financially support a party with planks in the platform opposite of that issue, because the company feels there are other issues in the party platform that want to promote. Playing both sides is not unusual.
Another commenter brought this point up and I found this response to be excellent, so I'm going to just repost it here.
Marilee Beebe
Unfortunately we can't use the old "both sides" analogy any more. Even if they donate to the DNC and Dems - and I'm sure that most do - it doesn't excuse donating to what has become a fascist cult intent on the demise of representative democracy and believably threatening civil war (Abbot and his ilk). It would be like excusing a donation to Hitler because they also donated to the Weimar.
I understand your comparison " Excusing a donation to hitler, because they donated to the Weimar".
Its not relevant to my comment though. Here is why- I am not excusing the donation to "both sides" in itself. I asked if Popular Information had done any research regarding similar donations/Corporate giving to the DCCC and public statement contrary to DCCC planks. Popular information is reporting the NRCC donations as a negative mark against those Corporations due ot public statements made by those companies. They need to likewise report on those same companies donating to the DCCC. This article could have just as easily been a hit piece on companies donating to the DCCC but we dont know that because Popular Information isn't examining that at all. Popular Information needs to apply the same analysis to the corporate relationship to the DCCC. Otherwise this nothing more than a RNCC hit piece. Which is poor Journalism.
A "hit piece" by definition is inaccurate or false, which this is most certainly not. I understand your point that hypocrisy abounds in politics, but the direct, outward financial support of people preaching racist and xenophobic hate cannot be compared to donations to the DCCC. You can't "both sides" an issue when there isn't even a close comparison to what that money funds. Sorry, it's not a hit piece. They're facts. I'm sure if there's this kind of posturing done by corporations who donate to the DCCC, Judd and his team would be happy to report it.
You are correct "hit piece" was hyperbole. Your statement "I'm sure if there's this kind of posturing done by corporations who donate to the DCCC, Judd and his team would be happy to report it" is a valid opinion. I'm glad you think so highly of Popular informations desire to report on it. I do not. The reason I am not is because they haven't reported that it doesnt happen. That's all it would take is a simple statment in the article "we looked into the corporate relationships between the DCCC and those corporations making donations and the public statements of those coprorations, and we found no inconguences" Equal treatment is critical. If its NOT happening, Popular Information should say that. Anything less is sloppy, pandering journalism.
I suggest you go back to other reporting they've done because you're mistaken. Maybe not on this particular issue, but certainly others. Or, if you're really concerned with "sloppy, pandering journalism," answer one of their MANY requests for stories you want them to cover.
Amy, they have indeed looked at both sides of issues several times (I NEVER stated that they don't produce balanced journalism)- I can not recall which articles, but yes, they have. Not here though. This is not a balanced piece- thank you for agreeing with me. Because its not balanced, THIS piece is sloppy pandering Journalism. Whether or not I respond to their requests for stories has ZERO bearing on whether or not THIS peice is not balanced.
Judd:
Thank you!
This piece echoes the current immigration situation in DC: let’s impeach Mayorkas over policy differences, while torpedoeing a bill to solve the problem; so TFG can run on the problem, rather than solving it. R’s fundraised on guaranteed impeachment before they had evidence. The two-faced corporations are no different. Hypocrisy abounds!
That Tim Scott bleating on Fox about the "open borders" right after voting "no" on a solution, that idiot MTG and her on-going impeachment foolishness, that so-called-leader Mike Johnson, the Nixonian-headed molester Matt Gaetz, the list goes on!
I’ve always thought Gaetz looked like Butthead from the Beavis and Butthead cartoons.
Yes!
You know there is a marked resemblence. But Nixon had a big ole Butthead head too! Lol.
Oh, yes he did. He was also a crook!
Birds. Feathers. Flock. Something.
Seems like there may be some quantum entanglement between then and now too. Manafort and Stone—who sports a Nixon tattoo and looks surprisingly like the Wicked Witch of the West.
They are representative of the alternate facts machine intro'd by Trump in 2016. And 74 million voters fell for it.
They are representative of the alternate facts machine intro'd by Trump in 2016. And 74 million voters fell for it.
They still don’t have evidence.
"We don't NEED no stinkin evidence," they sneer.
"We got ALTERNATIVE facts!!!!!!!"
Money talks louder than words. Shame on them. Thanks for outing they who speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Which one is it, big corporations? Or are you just covering your posteriors? DT and company will destroy you if they get a chance. Money won't be enough. MAGA will require that you do what they say. Bag bargain, that.
Again: Citizen’s United only serves to EXPONENTIALLY augment the influence of very wealthy donors—Corporations are NOT People—Corporations are tools to shield certain, personal liabilities in the course of conducting corporate policy. Citizens United is a bastardization of the law.
Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall when one of these racist Repugs presented their pitch for donations?
Little wonder the right wing is so keen to ban books: Just look at the drivel they do read and then turn to CRUSADING, as if one piece of fiction can be overgeneralized into valid “theory.” Even the terms “theory,” “philosophy,” “ideals and beliefs” are misused by radicals. Ignorance and turning our backs on teaching of humanities has led to a population that is one, small step from medieval “tests” for witches.
I will act accordingly. When possible I will avoid these companies. Thank you for this info.
Patric, same here. I try to avoid these companies but it’s impossible to avoid them completely because of market monopolies they hold. After the re-election of Biden, our next job will be to make loud demands to undo the damage right wingers inflicted and never allow anyone to forget that the entire republican party…Republican members of Congress, supported a seditionist, rapist and con man as a leader for our country. They support Fascism and authoritarianism!
Although Richard Hudson is an unabashed racist, along with many other white Senators and Representative ( but probably including Tim Scott, who just loves Trump), I'm not so sure that all of these $15,000 donations to the NRCC are anything more than donations to the agency that keeps Republicans in office (and are friendly to big business). (And will incidentally accept lobbying bribes.) General Motors has donated $60,000 to the NRCC!--would love to know inside information about what motivates them so strongly. So instead of "putting their money where their mouth is" they are putting their money in a way that can harm what they say with those mouths (letters and declarations of support for Dreamers and DACA).
Agreed. All of those multiples. $5, $15K, $30K, $60K all seem like token contributions but... they shouldn't be "required" by current circumstances to give anything.
This excellent reporting only lacks the disclaimer that the penalty for corporate hypocrisy remains a maximum sentence of zero years in prison and a fine of zero dollars.
These corporations donate to Republicans to keep it that way. Talk is free but tax breaks go straight to the bottom line.
Damn! That does sound rather like the way it really works. Zero fines and zero time for advanced criminality. Similar to the dynamic our laws allow so a guy with a small bag of dope pays more in years thanks to our system of justice, than the guy who stole $Millions from Medicare and got probbtion.
Just wondering: Did these companies also contribute to the DNC and elected officials working in support of dreamers? Do they speak out of both sides of their mouths and wallets?
I was about to ask the same question. Wondering about a comparison.
I am absolutely sure of it!
I thought they said “Jews will not replace us”
They did. Anti-semitism is always lurking in right wing movements.
They did. Faux News tried to massage it as “You will not…”
But the conspiracy theory originated in France as a much broader plot claiming Jews were behind it & using other populations through immigration.
https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf
I commented also. It should be corrected. An anti-Semitic chant from which Jews have been expunged...wow.
Bam! Thanks for informing me
Actions speak louder than words. Money talks in politics and is the fuel for action. The replacement needed is of the shallow but also hollow Republicans in Congress who happily take the cash as validation of actions espoused by uber-criminal Trump. It is a straight line; no zig-zagging or shell game of "look over there." Take the money, it is payment for service rendered, even if lip service says otherwise.
Judd, the chant in Charlottesville was "Jews will not replace us." This matters. It should be corrected.
Thank you for identifying major corporations that are engaged in doublespeak while they line the coffers of racists, misongynists and would-be authoritarians. It's an age old story and I suspect that most of them do it. The wealthy/priviledged always think they will stay in favor if they fawn and conspire and turn over riches.
Any information on the major engineering firms? We receive constant messaging on DEI, but I suspect they are engaged in the same financial dealings.
frankly i'm white and i can't wait for the great replacement.....my hope is they will do a much better job than what we and our ancestors did in regards to race in this country.
This article seems a little one sided. Did these companies also give these or similar amounts to the DNC and democratic representatives? The hypocrisy is clear but are these companies truly one-sided?
Unfortunately we can't use the old "both sides" analogy any more. Even if they donate to the DNC and Dems - and I'm sure that most do - it doesn't excuse donating to what has become a fascist cult intent on the demise of representative democracy and believably threatening civil war (Abbot and his ilk). It would be like excusing a donation to Hitler because they also donated to the Weimar.
Corporations speak out if both sides of their mouth to protect profits. Morality is irrelevant to them.
Judd, do you have any reporting on these Corporations making contributions to the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) as well? That would not be at all unusuall. It could be represented as hypocritical to posit that these companies have a corporate image esposing a stance, over one issue, then financially support a party with planks in the platform opposite of that issue, because the company feels there are other issues in the party platform that want to promote. Playing both sides is not unusual.
Another commenter brought this point up and I found this response to be excellent, so I'm going to just repost it here.
Marilee Beebe
Unfortunately we can't use the old "both sides" analogy any more. Even if they donate to the DNC and Dems - and I'm sure that most do - it doesn't excuse donating to what has become a fascist cult intent on the demise of representative democracy and believably threatening civil war (Abbot and his ilk). It would be like excusing a donation to Hitler because they also donated to the Weimar.
I understand your comparison " Excusing a donation to hitler, because they donated to the Weimar".
Its not relevant to my comment though. Here is why- I am not excusing the donation to "both sides" in itself. I asked if Popular Information had done any research regarding similar donations/Corporate giving to the DCCC and public statement contrary to DCCC planks. Popular information is reporting the NRCC donations as a negative mark against those Corporations due ot public statements made by those companies. They need to likewise report on those same companies donating to the DCCC. This article could have just as easily been a hit piece on companies donating to the DCCC but we dont know that because Popular Information isn't examining that at all. Popular Information needs to apply the same analysis to the corporate relationship to the DCCC. Otherwise this nothing more than a RNCC hit piece. Which is poor Journalism.
A "hit piece" by definition is inaccurate or false, which this is most certainly not. I understand your point that hypocrisy abounds in politics, but the direct, outward financial support of people preaching racist and xenophobic hate cannot be compared to donations to the DCCC. You can't "both sides" an issue when there isn't even a close comparison to what that money funds. Sorry, it's not a hit piece. They're facts. I'm sure if there's this kind of posturing done by corporations who donate to the DCCC, Judd and his team would be happy to report it.
You are correct "hit piece" was hyperbole. Your statement "I'm sure if there's this kind of posturing done by corporations who donate to the DCCC, Judd and his team would be happy to report it" is a valid opinion. I'm glad you think so highly of Popular informations desire to report on it. I do not. The reason I am not is because they haven't reported that it doesnt happen. That's all it would take is a simple statment in the article "we looked into the corporate relationships between the DCCC and those corporations making donations and the public statements of those coprorations, and we found no inconguences" Equal treatment is critical. If its NOT happening, Popular Information should say that. Anything less is sloppy, pandering journalism.
I suggest you go back to other reporting they've done because you're mistaken. Maybe not on this particular issue, but certainly others. Or, if you're really concerned with "sloppy, pandering journalism," answer one of their MANY requests for stories you want them to cover.
Amy, they have indeed looked at both sides of issues several times (I NEVER stated that they don't produce balanced journalism)- I can not recall which articles, but yes, they have. Not here though. This is not a balanced piece- thank you for agreeing with me. Because its not balanced, THIS piece is sloppy pandering Journalism. Whether or not I respond to their requests for stories has ZERO bearing on whether or not THIS peice is not balanced.