Conservative Group Accidentally Reveals Its Secret Donors. Some of Them Are Liberal Orgs.
Conservative Group Accidentally Reveals Its Secret Donors. Some of Them Are Liberal Orgs.
Another source: https://www.offthepress.com/conservative-group-accidentally-reveals-secret-donors-some-are-liberal-orgs/
Neo-liberals are conservatives.
Not all conservatives are neoliberal.
Hillary Clinton is very much not a conservative lol
You are lying. Her policies are in alignment with the definition of conservative by more than 30 of the the globe's 40 developed nations. Most of her fiscal policies are aligned with Reagan's.
The Overton window in the U.S. has shifted so far right, that anyone slightly left of fascist is considered a "liberal" by conservatives.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Never, ever trust the word of a conservative. Never.
Once again, George Carlin - The Big Club
(NSFW - language)
The personal foundations for the owners of the Omidyar Group and Hewlett Packard. (Commonly referred to as HP).
Yup totally not rich people bullshit.
Can we stop being surprised the wealthy back fascists?
If there's nobody fashionable doing anything right, then there's nobody to follow who's doing anything right. Therefore the whole world is gearing up for the apocalypse instead of bothering to take the simple steps that would prevent it. We get Elon Musk instead of another Tesla, who died penniless and robbed of his legacy. The apocalypse becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The world gets worse because no one is trying to make it better.
A world populated by nothing more than gorillas is a waste.
What do you mean no one is trying to make it better?
You're guilty of what you're accusing others of.
Elon Musk has virtually no influence on your life other than being a famous person.
Why don't you start following the Nobel Prize winners? Why don't you start following the people who are actively involved in politics or humanitarian projects?
You sit there and judge the world and the people in it becuse you are too lazy to actually move your head away from the trough of social media.
You think anything is going to stop the masses from indulging in convenience, instant gratification, and dopamine rushes when there's no incentive in their eyes to do anything else? Who do you think are behind the companies which promote such behavior for their own gains? It's working as designed and the average person cannot get their heads around it long enough to care.
"what can I do?"
Hopefully the strikes and protests around wages become more frequent. The only place to fight the greedy is by affecting their profit margins.
What makes something a "liberal org"?
Just because an organization donates to NPR doesn't mean it's a "liberal org" lol
Hot take:
This is the problem with the public not knowing what liberal means, or having some nebulous understanding that basically means "Democrat"
Came here to say this.
When you look at American politics from Europe, you only see two sides: Nazis and Nazis. Word "liberal" doesn't mean anything in US.
That's sad to hear. I have heard that our left wing politics are pretty much on the same spectrum as European right wing politics. That makes our right wing politics way farther right.. Basically fascists / Nazis, which makes sense considering the insurrection and the fact that Donald Trump may get elected again 🤮🤮🤮
Edit: I probably look like a communist compared to the right wing here in USA.
The US is more progressive than the EU on several issues though.
Yeah, these orgs fund both sides so they have a say no matter what side is in power.
The surprise.
I doubt I can burn them to the FUCKING ground on my own, but every day I start to wonder more and more if the cost of my personal freedom is a worthy price to pay to purge these aristocratic scum from our country...
world
They do this everywhere.
The Hewlett Foundation lists the grants they've given to American Compass, they list all their grants.
https://hewlett.org/grants/?keyword=American%20compass&sort=relevance¤t_page=1
Wow I'm so surprised -_-
That was basically my reaction.
Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.
There is no left or right in capital
It’s so true. I like David Graeber’s characterization of this phenomenon as ‘the communism of the rich’. Once you have broken into the club, it’s all ‘OUR expropriated labor, eh, comrade?’
So, we know which groups can't be trusted with donations.
And if we're looking to sow discord among Republicans, we know which recipient to repeatedly out as filthy RINOs who are beholden to librul donors.
Not for nothing, but these "groups" are really just oligarchs with too much money. They fund things to buy influence. One of them is the guy who founded eBay. He doesn't give a shit who is in the White House as long as they take his phone calls.
Not surprised that rich people support other rich people
What's max headroom got to do with it.
To the surprise of absolutely nobody who's not been uncritically supporting a private corporation masquerading as a public political party 🙄
The lesser evil is BY DEFINITION STILL EVIL.
Not sure how you're attempting to tie this to Dems in general.
It's specific organizations that often support sane (and left) causes also supporting Trump.
Naming those orgs is valuable reporting. Trying to tie it to Dems in general is weird.
Just because the article is focusing on specific orgs doesn't mean that it's not a systemic issue. Just like there being articles about specific cops being abusive doesn't mean there isn't a systemic problem.
Hey look, another thing liberals will completely ignore while whining that anyone who doesn't VBNMH is a horrible person
With the pretty much two parties system the US has this is easy to happen.
You currently have a side that has profitted from your back, is being judged for it after getting kicked out, and is trying now to return and profit for even more personal gain disregarding what you want and need. Are you really sure you want to vote someone that has been shown to have no problem with commiting treason to his own country?
That is the current logic behind the no matter what. In the US you actually have a candidate that shouldn't run for president of any country.
If they are donating to Conservatives then they are no more liberal than Joe Manchin is Democrat.
Calling themselves liberal doesn’t make it true. It’s the actions that decide what group they fall into.
Liberalism, at least in the neoliberalism form governing the Democratic Party, is an economically conservative ideology that favors money, business "opportunity" and order over everything else whenever they're in conflict.
That and it's common practice amongst people who can afford it to bet on both horses so they'll have bribed their way to influence no matter what.
I agree with this in general, but it doesn't apply to this situation from what I can tell.
The American Compass isn't something I'm familiar with before this article, but the article says they are trying to leverage right wing populism to traditional conservatism which I read as social conservatism.
As such, both the liberal groups the article highlights donate because the American Compass is anti-corporate.
The other liberal group cites their pro-worker stance
Now, I think their pro-worker stance is short sighted and self serving at best and disingenuous at worst, but, for reasons I can't seem to glean, these organizations weren't able to see that clearly. Or they could, but it doesn't make sense with their other donations.
Just because you can find similarities between two parties doesnt make them the same.
This organization calling itself liberal is acting in the best interest of conservatives by donating to them. So that makes them conservative and not liberal no matter what they call themselves.
"economically conservative" is not a real thing. There is economic orthodoxy, and there is not. Modern economics no longer has schools of thought as distinct, competing identities.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Liberalism isn't the opposite of conservatism. When monarchy was the norm, liberalism was an extremely progressive, revolutionary philosophy. Today, with liberal democracies being the norm, liberalism is essentially conservative. That's not, in itself, a bad thing - I want to conserve the core ideals of liberalism myself, and we can have an anticapitalist, progressive form of liberalism, that keeps what's most important, the real heart of liberalism - individual liberty, equality under law, consent of the governed - while also moving ahead to end warfare and establish pro-social economics. However, we can also have a liberalism that protects generational wealth and funds the war machine. It's far past time for people to decide whether liberalism, alone, is enough.
Alright. Your definitions are fine, correct even. But…
In American press, liberal means left. Full stop. You’re a socialist? American press will call you “extremely liberal”. American readers will understand that.
I get that your would like to use the definition of the word that has global application. Doesn’t matter. In the us, liberal means left.
This article is about left leaning orgs donating to conservative causes and the comments are worrying what liberal means.
The article is claiming that an organization that is donating to conservatives is liberal.
Why do they claim this organization is liberal?
According to the article:
“Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.”
It’s because this organization donated to a couple charities.
How does that make them liberal? Answer: it doesn’t
So why is this article making that claim? What motives could they have to do that?
Maybe they're "cLaSSiCaL LiBeRaLs"
Although, there is a school of thought that Biden’s best chance for a second term is getting to run against Trump in the general. Hating Trump is great for turn out on the left.
Except that's probably not true.
Trump’s cult is absolutely fanatical and falsely believe they're saving the world by supporting their messiah. Nobody except the most ardent party soldiers with no ideological core is that excited about Biden.
Besides, a few tens of thousands TOTAL in swing states was the REAL difference between victory and defeat for Biden in 2020 just like it was for Trump in 2016. Biden actually lost the popular vote by a smaller margin than Hillary did. More in raw numbers, sure, but a smaller percentage of total votes cast.
Add in the fact that voters statistically have ridiculously short memories, making "I'm not the other guy" MUCH less effective for an incumbent than a challenger, as well as not having fully kept most of the more progressive promises, you'd have to be an absolute fool to think that it's not a risky strategy.
Don't get me wrong, I ABSOLUTELY would rather Biden win than any of the fascists likely to run on the other tickets, which is why I'm so worried about the prospect of him employing such a risky strategy.
Even if it is some 5D chess move (which doesn’t make sense since it can lead to conservatives winning), it’s still not something an organization that acts in line with liberal belief's, would do.
No, this is exactly what liberalism is all about. The DNC supported Trump because they thought he would be more likely to lose, a tactic I think they've done before and I know they've done since
No, that has nothing to do with liberalism. It's politicking.
What does the DNC have to do with this article? Or did you not read it?