Tracking campaign financial backers is not a specialty of mine but, I am hoping someone around here could help to make list like the one described in the title.
I know that I would really like to boycott any company that is continuing support for those people, after what they said.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
Start by naming them:
Continue filling this out, summarize, and remove duplicates.
An AI would probably even do all the legwork for you.
Very nice. Thanks.
Ok, this is really getting crazy.
Why do people keep leaving out the word "illegal" when talking about the Democrats message about the military being able to refuse "illegal" orders.
Are you guys just completely unaware of what was actually said? Do you just not care that it's actually part of our laws that the military is supposed to not follow illegal orders?
Because neither one of those reflects well on us.
You can't just take the word "illegal" out of the quote without changing its entire context. And you can't get angry at someone for plainly stating our own laws.
So either this is flat out ignorance (which is not acceptable for an elite research board) or its 100% disingenuous, which again is not acceptable.
People need to step back, take a deep breath, look at what was actually said and figure out exactly what issue they have with that.
Simple. All.military members are to presume all orders given by seniors are lawful with the exception of those orders that any average person would know is illegal. Cant order me to murder. Take illegal drugs, violate the general orders etc. Kellynis a commissioned officer and he did this on orders from his leftist handlers. What private is equipped to know if the president is sending him somewhere illegally???? So the word illegal used or not is meaningless except so they could dive for cover behind it.
That’s not how lawful orders work, even in basic training. The presumption-of-legality rule only applies to routine orders, not presidential-level directives involving force, war powers, or domestic deployments. Those always require a legality review up the chain. A private doesn’t decide legality — the JAG corps, command staff, and DoD lawyers do. That’s why every operation has a legal sign-off. And the UCMJ is explicit: Article 90/91/92 require refusal of an unlawful order, not blind obedience to the man giving it. There’s no carve-out for ‘orders from the President.’ If the reminder that illegal orders aren’t to be followed triggers a sedition accusation, that just highlights exactly why the reminder was needed.
Here's the issue. The only thing that President Trump has to fear from the Democrats merely repeating this law that ALREADY exists is if he plans on issuing illegal orders.
Now, I don't believe he is planning on issuing illegal orders. Do you?
Simply pointing out the law that already exists should not create such crazy ass anger over it.
People that a) are ignorant of what they actually said or b) are aware that they specified illegal orders, and c) still wants to say they were in the wrong about it, by trying to reinvent what the law actually says and WHY WE HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE are the ones that need to step back and look at their own motives.
If it's, as I suspect, that you believe President Trump is somehow above the law, or that any law he makes is automatically a legal one, then you really need to go reread the US Constitution, and then you need to go look at the oaths that every single person in the military takes and notice that 1) it puts the Constitution first in the oath of allegiance, NOT the President and 2) for enlisted, is specifically includes "according to the regulations and the UCMJ.” That part about the UCMJ, that's where you can find the part about not having to obey illegal orders.
Because the more I see people respond to this with half-assed understanding of how basic military law works, the waving away of pertinent facts, like the word "illegal" being tossed in the trash as if it were meaningless, and the general mental gymnastics involved in trying to justify villifying anyone who points out "Hey, this law exists. And it exists for a reason is just so far away from where we're supposed to be, it's nauseating.
And you're behaving in exactly the way someone in a cult would behave. That doesn't really help in the whole "we're not a cult!" stance.
And here's another thing, it's really pissing off veterans who took that oath. Do you think they have no idea that they took that same oath? And that seeing President Trump calling the same oath they took as being seditious isn't causing issues?
Now here's the thing. I have NO fucking clue why he would lash out as he has over this. Just as I have NO fucking clue why he's done a lot of things, like first call for Epstein files to be released, and then chastise people for wanting the Epstein files to be released, then call for their release again. Or why he praises people, and then turn around and say they're some of the worst people on earth. I figure he has his own reasons. Hell, call it 5D chess if you want.
But here's the thing. We don't need to mindlessly parrot everything he says. I would even argue that he does NOT want that. What if, and go with me on this, because its nothing I haven't already seen theorized about on a multitude of other subjects, President Trump is trying to trick or trap people who would gleefully violate the Constitution and the oaths that servicemen take? Because, remember, unless there's some sort of truth to that whole "No Kings!" protest, this is going to be President Trump's last term in office. There's not going to be some sort of miracle that let's him legally serve a third (or would it be fourth now? Are we going with he was super secretly really the President when Biden was chief resident? Or not?) term. And eventually, there's going to be another Democrat president. Do you want to live in a world where a Democrat president can issue any orders to the military, and it has to obey, because, as you think it works, they are to operate on the impression that their seniors are always giving them legal orders? Because I sure as shit do not.
Here's my super simple way of determining my stance on things like this. As much as I would love to accept something that directly benefits Trump, and conservatives, and Republicans in general I ask myself "Would I be OK if liberals/democrats did this?" And if I'm 100% honest with myself, and would not support the exact same thing if liberals or democrats called for it, then I can not, in good conscious, support it when President Trump or any other conservative or republican calls for it.
Because I'm not a fucking hypocrite.
Oh really? Ive been Sent to war have you? If so did you believe the orders legal? Did you go out on patrol knowing orders came from a colonel who derived his authority from an oporder you have never had the ability to read? You cant question that shit our theyll pull you off the line make your life miserable. What kelly did is unacceptable. And yes you are to presume your orders legal period. Good order and discipline.
Yes, really. Combat experience doesn’t change what the law says. The oath you took binds you to the Constitution first, not to whatever any colonel, captain, or president feels like ordering on a given day.
You absolutely are required to follow routine orders without needing to see the entire oporder. Obviously. Nobody expects an E-3 on patrol to demand a JAG memo before stepping off.
But that has nothing to do with the legal standard.
The UCMJ says you must follow lawful orders, and refuse unlawful ones. That isn’t optional. That isn’t vibes. That’s Articles 90, 91, and 92.
Presumption of legality only applies to ordinary operational orders — not blanket presidential directives that would raise constitutional issues. Those are always reviewed up the chain by command and JAG. That’s why the system exists.
Kelly didn’t tell privates to second-guess battlefield instructions. He repeated a rule every service member gets drilled on:
You do not obey an illegal order.
That’s it.
If repeating the law is now ‘unacceptable,’ then the problem isn’t with Kelly. It’s with anyone who thinks the chain of command outranks the Constitution.
This site creates network webs and has all sorts of information. I use it to screenshot Soros and Epstein donations to campaigns and post as a reply on their social media.
https://littlesis.org/database
Little sis, as in opposite of big brother
opensecrets, accountable.us corporate anti-democracy donations database, quiver quantitative, maplight, trackingpoliticaldonations.org, fec
i imagine if you wanted to find the data, you could find everything you're looking for using those sites/orgs for research.
Excellent. Thank you.
Its probably high time to stop dealing with corporations all together. For some it will be more difficult than others. Im starting this Christmas by buying all gifts locally.