Military giving much more cash to Clinton than to Trump

Posted by | November 5, 2016 15:09 | Filed under: Politics


Active and retired military are ponying up more money for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.

Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense or major branches of the military, or who say they’re retired from one of those, have contributed a total of $972,709 to both nominees so far this year. Clinton has claimed $771,471 of the contributions, or nearly 80 percent.

All major branches of the armed forces – including the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have favored Clinton to a much greater degree than GOP nominee Donald Trump. Members of the Army have contributed more than other branches of the service this cycle, giving a total of $191,712 to the two presidential hopefuls, 72 percent of which went to Clinton.

 

 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

28 responses to Military giving much more cash to Clinton than to Trump

  1. Suzanne McFly November 5th, 2016 at 15:11

    Of course, the military are the last ones to want a President who will declare war for no purpose.

    • Larry Schmitt November 5th, 2016 at 15:20

      Or would order them to commit illegal acts, as he said he would do.

      • granpa.usthai November 5th, 2016 at 17:44

        well, (best reagan head shaking response)
        they didn’t have any problems when I did it!

        but then again, the GIULIANI CRIMINAL SYNDICATE hadn’t saturated the FBI so much as now.

    • nola878 November 5th, 2016 at 15:50

      “The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”

      Douglas MacArthur

  2. Mike November 5th, 2016 at 15:20

    Little tough to elect a cowardly draft-dodging candidate who belittled an American POW, a fallen officer and his Gold Star Family, and all the stupid “Generals” in the Pentagon.

    • granpa.usthai November 5th, 2016 at 17:49

      tough? – hell, I’d already voted against the orange colored savior of the NEW p*ssy grabbing conservative christian religion for that very reason, and that was BEFORE comey revealed the republican/FBI/Giuliani Crime Family Syndication.

      • Peggiembolduc1 November 6th, 2016 at 03:21

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj356d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !mj356d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash356DigitalTalkGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj356d:….,…..

  3. DRiggs November 5th, 2016 at 15:23

    This is misleading. “Individuals who listed their employers as the U.S. Department of Defense” could mean Federal Government Employees as well as military. And yeah, Government employees probably would donate to Clinton.

    • ChrisVosburg November 5th, 2016 at 15:38

      Any chance of your ever reading the second paragraph quoted?

      Right, why’d I ask.

      • DRiggs November 5th, 2016 at 17:45

        The criteria used is “Individuals who listed their employers as….”, etc.

        If someone donates to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and is asked to list an employer, they could put down Department of Defense, but that could mean they are a secretary or a janitor working at a military base. It doesn’t mean they are in the military. The military employs thousands of Government employees. Government employees frequently vote Democrat because Democrats believe in big government.

        Whoever wrote that article was extrapolating the data, incorrectly, to mean people in the military or retired from the military. I’d like to see where they get this data from, and how the data was collected (i.e., what question was specifically asked about the donor’s “employer,”) because I’m not buying it.

        Polls have shown that over 80% of the military favors Trump, so it makes no sense.

        • granpa.usthai November 5th, 2016 at 17:49

          pictures say a thousand words?

        • ChrisVosburg November 5th, 2016 at 18:07

          DRiggs writes: Polls have shown that over 80% of the military favors Trump

          Feel free to share your sources for these polls (hopefully recent, and please, no wingnut websites that routinely refer to the Democratic candidate as “Hitlery,” okay?).

          Also, I can see you still didn’t read what I asked you to read, ya dope. Here it is:

          All major branches of the armed forces – including the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard – have favored Clinton to a much greater degree than GOP nominee Donald Trump. Members of the Army have contributed more than other branches of the service this cycle, giving a total of $191,712 to the two presidential hopefuls, 72 percent of which went to Clinton.

          As you may notice, the paragraph specifically names “the armed forces,” but then again, some people just won’t be told.

          • DRiggs November 5th, 2016 at 18:11

            I posted a link to one of the polls.

            And, by the way, there is no need to resort to grade-school insults. It’s possible to disagree with someone without being nasty. You’ve done nothing to change my opinion because I still maintain whoever wrote that article was extrapolating from “individuals who listed their employers as” to actual members of the military, which is incorrect. The first paragraph is the only one that actually specifies the criteria that was used. The rest is just the author’s interpretation of the data, which is wrong.

            • ChrisVosburg November 5th, 2016 at 18:21

              DRiggs writes: I posted a link to one of the polls.

              Not here you didn’t. Perhaps [laughing] you should post a link to wherever the hell it is you posted your “link to one of the polls.”

              Or, you could just cut your losses and knock off the bullshit.

              • DRiggs November 5th, 2016 at 18:27

                Refresh the page. I edited my comment with a link at the bottom, just for you. Here it is again:
                http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/survey-says-troops-favor-trump-3-1/

                You and I are obviously not going to agree on this, which is fine. I personally would like to see how this data was collected, i.e., what question(s) was specifically asked about “employer,” and if the donors were even asked to specify their position with the employer or anything that could separate the employees of the DoD into categories — military and civilian. If this question was not asked, then there is no way to tell if these people are actually uniformed military, regardless of what the author is assuming. Until I see this data, I’m not buying this. You are perfectly free to disagree.

                • ChrisVosburg November 5th, 2016 at 18:45

                  DRiggs writes: Refresh the page. I edited my comment with a link at the bottom, just for you.

                  Thank you. At no point does this survey relate an “over 80%” figure to describe support for Trump, but more importantly, this is an unscientific survey which merely counted responses to a questionnaire posted online. The problems with this should be obvious, but to give you a glimpse of the obvious, Military.com itself says in the article describing the survey that only 1,313 of the 17,149 respondents are active duty personnel.

                  Further, you claimed that there were “surveys” plural. Where’s the rest of ’em?

                  • DRiggs November 5th, 2016 at 18:49

                    Here’s one that’s not quite as high, but taken several months earlier: http://www.westernjournalism.com/poll-of-veterans-and-military-show-overwhelming-support-for-trump/

                    Sadly, I have an appointment & need to leave now. If you write further responses I’ll check them when I return in a couple hours. TTYL.

                    • ChrisVosburg November 5th, 2016 at 18:59

                      DRiggs writes: Here’s one that’s not quite as high, but taken several months earlier:

                      Still nowhere near 80%, and yeah, it’s a bit aged, especially given Trump’s near-daily habit of saying something new and offensive to the military (most recently telling a group of veterans that he also was brave but just in a different way– financially).

                      We try not to poke fun at the cowardly, or the “differently brave”, as they prefer to be called, but it’s especially tough in this case, don’t you think?

                    • DRiggs November 5th, 2016 at 20:38

                      Here’s another poll at 89%:

                      https://sofrep.com/46244/sofrep-poll-says-veterans-active-duty-military-choose-trump-over-hillary/

                      I will concede these polls are all over the place and some may not be too accurate, but I have not seen one poll of military that didn’t show Trump with an overwhelming lead. So on the face of it, it makes no sense that these same people would be donating more heavily to Hillary Clinton.

                      But focusing on polls gets off the subject of my original comment.

                      My primary issue was with the way the data mentioned in this article was collected and interpreted. If the only criteria used, per the first paragraph, was “employer,” then it cannot be determined whether these donors were uniformed military or civilians. That was my point.

                      As far as poking fun, I’m not actually a huge fan of Trump, and I agree he has put his foot in his mouth more than a few times. I was actually a Marco Rubio supporter. But I plan to vote for Trump because I agree with more of his positions, and I believe he is the lesser of the two evils.

                    • ChrisVosburg November 6th, 2016 at 01:55

                      DRiggs writes: Here’s another poll at 89%:

                      Yet another online “poll” from a nonsense website which is actually not a scientifically valid poll.

                      That’s it, D, we’re done here. I called it bullshit for a reason– the term implies not only a lie but a phony basis and you’ve met that in spades, as Trump himself might say. “Big League.”

                    • DRiggs November 6th, 2016 at 08:20

                      The only thing you’ve proven is that you’re incapable of disagreeing with someone without being nasty and childish. You’ve not shown me one contradictory poll, and you’ve not refuted my original point, because you can’t. Instead, you start with the childish name calling, which proves nothing. So yeah, we’re done here I guess. Have a nice day.

          • Kathleen Akins November 6th, 2016 at 20:28

            I am a Marine and I voted Clinton, as did all on my USMC friends….

        • Obewon November 5th, 2016 at 18:08

          Gee. Could it be that Veterans actually read the policies, instead of having an ignorant GOP TV news reader baffle them with BS. Veterans Issues: A Nonpartisan 2016 Guide to the Candidate’s Platforms. Hillary Clinton, Democrat

          Former government positions:

          First Lady of the United States (1993-2001)
          Senator from New York (2001-2009)
          Secretary of State (2009-2013)
          Military connection: Her father was a Chief Petty Officer at Naval Station Great Lakes during World War II. As a senator, she sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee (along with four other committees) and was an honorary board member of the non-profit Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, which provides resources and support to the families of fallen service members.

          Presidential plans for veterans:

          • Fix the Veterans Administration: Clinton plans to fix the VA with access to timely, high-quality care and by preventing privatization. Her plan would make the VA into an integrated health care system and care coordinator. She would also work to improve access and services for women and LGBT veterans (where it is currently lacking). Clinton plans to help the VA and Department of Defense continue as leaders in veteran-specific health issues while expanding access to mental health services and treatment.

          • Implement a “New Bradley Plan”: Clinton wants to develop a plan which would create a “President’s Council on Veterans” to ensure the highest levels of government are involved to get veterans the benefits they earned. She believes this would help end the claims and appeals backlog and streamline the process and solutions so it doesn’t happen again. She plans to overhaul the VA governance to hold employees at all levels accountable and to create whistleblower protections.

          • Solidify services and programs that connect veterans to jobs when they separate or retire from the military: Clinton hopes her plan would expand and solidify educational benefits and programs that help veterans get jobs after separation. She also plans to strengthen measures to protect veterans from predatory schools and businesses.

          • Strengthen services and support for military families: Clinton wants to promote expanded access to child care, create initiatives to boost spouse employment and ensure access to benefits and support services needed for military spouses and their children.

          Veteran care record: Clinton lobbied against several installation closures. She introduced the Heroes at Home Act of 2006, which fought to establish new services for service members suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injury. She amended the 2007 Defense Appropriations Act to establish a TBI caregiver training curriculum for DoD and VA hospitals. She helped expand health care coverage for Reservists and National Guard members so they could still use military health care when not deployed. Clinton helped to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Act to protect family members of wounded service members. Clinton sponsored legislation that expanded benefits to surviving spouses. She also helped introduce a bill that increased the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000, which was enacted as part of the 2005 Supplemental Appropriations Act. She worked to personally raise money for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, which built a state-of-the-art center, designed to help seriously wounded service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. http://militaryoneclick.com/veterans-issues-a-nonpartisan-2016-guide-to-the-candidates-platforms/

    • fahvel November 5th, 2016 at 17:37

      dullard!!!

    • granpa.usthai November 5th, 2016 at 17:41

      government employees dress in military uniforms to have a photo with Mrs. Clinton?

      or maybe some of them can smell BETRAYAL OF THE REPUBLIC when they see it?

  4. granpa.usthai November 5th, 2016 at 17:38

    the Giuliani Crime Family Syndicate has it’s ways of having the ‘scaredy cats’ of the US MILITARY tremble in fear and pledge a blind obedience to donald also.

    just like in Nevada.

    only they ain’t gonna be allowed to have any live ammo until they do a test run first – just to assure the not a financial coward CIC first.

    BUTT!

    I’m sure there are some in the US Military know BETRAYAL OF THE REPUBLIC when they see it. and it sure as hell ain’t refusing to obey unlawful orders.

    seems like you Giuliani Associates might have a bit of a problem with this one?

    note to the US Military: do not trust or believe a damn thing the FBI say or show. They reek of criminal influence through and through.

  5. DogsRgoodpeople November 5th, 2016 at 17:54

    I wouldn’t want to be serving in the military under either one of them. If I had to…………………………….Hillary. Trump is a loose cannon. His mouth would have 80% of the world hating our guts.

  6. grandpatimbo November 7th, 2016 at 10:01

    But Wait, Wait! didn’t the wannabe dRumpfenfuhrer tell us that he knew more than the Generals about ISIS? Trump is a walking clusterf#ck.

Leave a Reply