You do allege crimes but cite none. Is taking advantage of congressional law a crime? Is it laws that need changing. Then change the laws.

Is being pro-American a crime?

We know you hate America, Willy. Is it not a crime to hate? While I express some distaste for a political ideology held by some powerful individuals and their destructive acts against the constitutional republic of the US, those that would dissolve it and replace it with a centralized global government, I only wish the exposure of those individuals.

@FrankZeleniuk These are the people who write the laws, I don't think I'm going to have much luck convincing them to change their ways!

@WilyRickWiles Incorrect. They lobby the people who write the laws. Unfortunately, some of the people we elect are corrupt or corruptible. When you are working in a den of thieves it is difficult to maintain a high ethical standard. Try and expose their crimes and they have ten ways to Sunday to come back at you.

And I'll agree with you, some of those crimes have been making laws that grant big corporations privilege they shouldn't have. Big Pharma being one of the worst culprits. Just look at where all the former government big execs are when they leave their government privileged posts.
Seems a lot are working consulting for MSM these days. Brennan(CIA), McCabe(FBI). Some go and lobby for the arms manufacturers. And the DNC seems to have a direct line into the social media giants.
The people you mention may or may not have committed financial crimes and/or lobbied for privilege to crush competition or get favored positioning for government contracts. But they remain within that realm. They are not intending to destroy the country.
I know you feel you are helping. Hopefully, someone will help you.

@FrankZeleniuk They are the primary clients of the largest corporate law firms, which operate like a cartel, who we can blame for most corporations incorporating in Delaware, who are central to the laws and policies written in our real government--the policy planning network--and whose alumni dominate the federal bureaucracy, supreme court, and much of the rest of the judiciary.

@FrankZeleniuk As for crimes, I mean the word in more of a mafia sense. When a cartel controls the law, and corporations are considered persons existing in perpetuity, with limited liability, and bound by no national borders, of course they will not be criminally prosecuted except in cases of massive fraud that destabilize the economy. But the fact is that their wealth comes from laundering money from drug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking, slavery, terrorism, and capital flight.

@WilyRickWiles Well, you're getting somewhere now.

The answer isn't a bigger, better government, I'm afraid.

@WilyRickWiles

But the fact is that their wealth comes from laundering money from drug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking, slavery, terrorism, and capital flight.

So he answer is to play their game even bigger by opening the border to human trafficking, drug smuggling, arms trafficking and FTX.

No, I think the "progressives" have been doing that all a long.

@FrankZeleniuk Whatever gets power in the hands of more people, but I have a hard time believing that a libertarian utopia will be achieved without some transitional state.

@WilyRickWiles How does centralizing power get more power into the hands of more people?

There is no such thing as a libertarian utopia? but you're right about the necessity for a transitional state to clean out the corruption. But I don't see anyone on the horizon with enough of a dictatorial personality to clean it up. The thing that has to b understood is that no compromises or concessions can be made. the socialists have to go.

@FrankZeleniuk Never suggested centralizing power.

@WilyRickWiles It's what socialists do best.

@FrankZeleniuk SBF secretly gave to both parties btw.

@WilyRickWiles LOL. He helped them so much!

It is amazing that you can justify your specious reasoning to yourself. Your hate runs deep. Hopefully, you can find a friend to truly help you when you need it. You'll have to fall a few rungs down the ladder before you know what a friend is though. Right now you would just tear him apart.
Good luck!

@FrankZeleniuk I don't know why you have to make this personal! Typical right-wing projection.

@WilyRickWiles You feel I am making this personal as you attack me personally? Who's calling the kettle black here? But I feel I hit a chord there since yo took it personally. Truth hurts sometimes.

Face it. You would prefer I call you a stupid, progressive, socialist dumbocrat because you can just laugh that off. Sigh! Hard to have a decent disagreeable rational discussion though. N'est-ce pas?

@FrankZeleniuk Now you're just gaslighting.

@WilyRickWiles You're in greater danger from your political associates than you know. They are supposed to be rational, intelligent, tolerant and inclusive. Look how they treat others. Burning down their own people's businesses, killing their own peeps, making sure they don't propagate. Dang! It's bad, Dude! The Democrats just keep egging you on and you keep fallin' for it.

@FrankZeleniuk That's just a bunch of presumptuous and racially charged cliches, devoid of any power analysis.

@FrankZeleniuk Not to mention it completely disregards how predatory and destructive capitalists are.

@WilyRickWiles It's historically accurate. Dictators are paranoid about coups. It's why Trotsky was killed, not to mention he was a little less of a Bolshevik.. It's why Stalin purged the party every now and again. It's why Mao had close associates rounded up every once in a while.

Predatory and destructive capitalists? Usually people have careers in capitalist companies and corporations or can change careers if they get a better offer. If you are talking about third world countries that Dictators run and use child labor or slave labor to enrich themselves from capitalist investment in their countries....well...what can I say...it isn't exactly capitalism.

I do understand there are some greedy capitalists though. JD Rockefeller for one, along with the Rothschilds. But who is more greedy than Klaus Schwab.
And look how Obama, Pelosi and Maxine Waters played the system to make themselves millionaires. Note how Bernie Sanders no longer complains about millionaires - because now he are one! He only complains about billionaires.

Note, as well, how instant social media billionaires ally themselves to a certain political party so they won't legislate against them to break up their companies and then they want to get in on the global engineering of civilization too. A little bit of power corrupts them. FDR had a lot of corporate input into his administration many of whom thought fascism was the wat to go for government. Yes the structure of a corporation is much like a dictatorial government in policy but the irrationality of government doesn't transfer well from the corporate world since it deals with law which is about force. People are forced to obey laws. Corporations have no such power. They just hire and fire people that willingly choose to work for them. The five dollars a day that Ford paid his assembly line workers was the best offer in the world at the time for people wanting work. But now I'm beating a dead horse here.

The point is you won't be able to avoid what's coming because you have put your trust in power hungry politicians. I won't either if they get out of hand. It looks worse every day as they get away with cheating, lying, being opaque about their objectives. Soon all opposition will be squelched at which point you will have no more use and you will have to watch your back, like we currently do.

@FrankZeleniuk The paranoia is justified when you are under siege by capitalists.

@FrankZeleniuk The precarity of public goods in capitalism makes the professions predatory on the poor.

@FrankZeleniuk Institutions and entrepreneurs exist in a capitalist dialectic, with the latter performing creative destruction to shore up profits. This ultimately leads to the collapse of the entire system and even risks extinction.

@FrankZeleniuk There's a big difference between a billionaire and a millionaire. Millionaires basically have enough money to provide public goods to themselves for the rest of their life. Billionaires monopolize political power.

@FrankZeleniuk Dictators are installed by capitalists and mafias provide them logistics.

@FrankZeleniuk Not sure what politicians you think I've put my trust in.

@WilyRickWiles

The paranoia is justified when you are under siege by capitalists.

So...that's a yes, they are paranoid. And they are dictators. Welcoming in capitalists to enrich themselves. You have no fear of Dictators. Trump would not have fit the bill for you?

The precarity of public goods in capitalism makes the professions predatory on the poor.

That's why there are supermarkets every five or ten blocks - the precarity of public goods? There's a Walmart in every neighborhood. The goods are there there is no precarity of public goods. Back in the fifties and sixties there were not that many poor and charity was able to care for them. Now that government handles welfare, charity is a lifestyle.

There's a big difference between a billionaire and a millionaire.

Doesn't take away from the fact Bernie railed against both until he became a millionaire.

Institutions and entrepreneurs exist in a capitalist dialectic, with the latter performing creative destruction to shore up profits. This ultimately leads to the collapse of the entire system and even risks extinction.

You mean Governmental institutions? Tell me what a capitalist dialectic is.
Getting government in there surely does lead to collapse.

Dictators are installed by capitalists and mafias provide them logistics.

I'll agree with you on this point. At least before the end of Bretton-Woods because capitalists basically had most of the money and governments couldn't create it out of thin air like they do today.
They aren't concerned about national currencies anymore with CBDCs in the works.

Lenin was funded by Kuhn-Leob. I don't know what capitalist installed Castro. I'll have to research that. Then there was Mao. Economically, he never did very well. The future of his citizens was very precarious. Especially during the cultural revolution of the early sixties where several million citizens perished from famine. I think I may have mentioned it before but it was the greatest man-made famine in history.

Not sure what politicians you think I've put my trust in.

I'm sure you voted for Obama since he promised to "fundamentally transform" America. We are seeing that in action right now as he runs his third term by proxy.

One way or another you are digging a hole for yourself. The people you are pretending to help so they will rebel against once they realize you only want them to be your personal army or your leaders will find no further use for you - and they are relentlessly and uncompromisingly vicious!

@FrankZeleniuk Institutions as in corporate institutions. And you do know capitalism tends toward monopoly because of its own internal contradictions--not some moral failure, no?

@FrankZeleniuk What does it matter if I voted for Obama--that was over a decade ago--people grow.

@WilyRickWiles

Institutions as in corporate institutions. And you do know capitalism tends toward monopoly because of its own internal contradictions--not some moral failure, no?

In a free market without government intervention a monopoly is difficult to attain. I can't say it could never be attained but the consumer is the main factor in that determination. In a socialist society, the State more or less monopolizes the entire economy. It seems you dislike monopolies so why should the government monopolize everything?

Marx only defined capitalism in pejorative terms. He was a philosopher not an economist, as one can easily see by reading about his "labor theory of value". It has so many flaws in it that people wind up owning nothing and are happy the State lets them live.

What does it matter if I voted for Obama--that was over a decade ago--people grow.

Obama is still a big influence in politics today. The Dems have adopted his create a crisis and when you can't use it any more create a new one. Its serves as a distraction from the old one and keeps the citizens in fear. One of his favorite things is to accuse others of immoral or criminal things that he is doing.

I get your concern for the little people. But in order for you to be important in the lives of the little people they must remain little people. Socialists get them to form a collective and lobby for big government and big bureaucracies. Supplying welfare for the little people, making state monopolies out of education, health care, free phones, this and that. It never makes the individual stronger or more self-sufficient because an individual who is strong and self-sufficient presents a danger to their morally superior position over them. Obama is a strong individual and likes to appear as morally superior but he only works to keep the little people in their place and he has certain proclivities to institute the "fundamental transformation of America" which he has never explained to Americans but it is becoming apparent it is the destruction of the current societal structure and is getting help from agencies like the UN and WEF to formulate the new global structure. As strong as he is as an individual though, in the grand scheme of things, he is still one of the little people, a useful tool to keep people weak and confused.

@FrankZeleniuk I dislike monopolization of power in few hands, not coordination of many. To the capitalist, corporate coordination (which is the former) is required to control overproduction and other risks and prevent the premature collapse of capitalism.

@WilyRickWiles Capitalism never collapses and never disappears. It has saved many a socialist regime, including China, which was on the brink of collapse just forty short years ago. The free market follows an economic course that develops out of natural, axiomatic economic laws. Socialism, of all stripes, Marxism, Maoism, Nazism, Fascism is just someone's idea of how he thinks an economy should work. You'll find that socialism's concern about economics mostly regards distribution but never considers that not everyone wants the same thing or may like to have two of something - that wouldn't be equitable.

How is monopolization in a socialist state a "co-ordination of many"? You have it exactly backwards. It is a coordination of a few. The people are not all scientists who know what is best for everyone and then tell their leaders what they want. Their participation as consumers does not factor into the production of goods whereas it is the consumer that drives the free market not the few who make the decisions of production and distribution at the top as in a socialist system. As I said previously, without government intervention, a monopoly is very difficult to attain and even more difficult to sustain in a free market.

The problems of waste, inefficiency and externalities are never so great as they are in a socialist system. It's the centralized control of the economy that means these things will be most likely ignored and never dealt with properly. A free market can, or will eventually be forced to, deal with them.

You should not be arguing about economics when you know so little about it.

@FrankZeleniuk I dunno, it kind of sounds like you're the one offering up an idealistic economic system that has never worked, not me. How can your version of capitalism work with or replace modern industrial supply chains?

@WilyRickWiles A free market is by no means "idealistic" But it is the only system that has created abundance and prosperity for the common people in a nation by allowing them to make their own choices. The abundance it creates is even enough to provide charity to those that are in need. The greedy socialists just can't leave it alone. Castro, Mao, Maduro. And then there were in the monarchy era; prior to the end of WWl Lenin, and the Tsar, the Kaiser, the whole European monarchy system was relegated to the scrap heap or became ceremonial relics after WWl. They were replaced with constitutional democratic republics that gave rise to people like Hitler and Mussolini. These people initially encouraged FDR to adopt some socialist principles. FDR had many corporate advisors that were pushing for greater socialist reforms but were restrained by the US Constitution that highlighted the liberty and freedom of the individual instead of engineering the collective.

How can your version of capitalism work with or replace modern industrial supply chains?

There are versions of capitalism? Well, I suppose there are variations of mixed economies, there are monetarists, mercantilists, Keynesians, the Chicago school and Austrian economic proponents but there is only one free market capitalism and that hasn't been around since the traitorous socialist Woodrow Wilson and his great communist experiment that created the now failed USSR.

In answer to the question though. You must really get some economic knowledge before it is erased from history and the books are banned.

@FrankZeleniuk Are you arguing that your version of capitalism is compatible with supply chains as they exist today?

@WilyRickWiles What do you consider defines a supply chain today?

@FrankZeleniuk My thinking is there would be a lot of disruption moving from monopolies to free market. And consider all the minerals, capital expenditures, and dual use technology involved in smart phone production. Does it really make sense and can the environment, the economy, and global security afford proliferating all of that work?

@WilyRickWiles

Does it really make sense and can the environment, the economy, and global security afford proliferating all of that work?

I see. Well, extrapolating from those concerns the conclusion is that there are too many people in the world and the planets resources cannot sustain us all so either we live simpler lives at our current numbers or start a campaign of depopulation or both. Is that a correct assumption of your ultimate concern?

Hundreds of years ago, when the population was around a billion, intellectuals asked the same questions. We now number around 8 billion. We have much to learn is the only answer I can provide.
One thing is certain and that is we cannot stop learning. The globalist mindset is to curtail learning and keep things static. We have to stop ourselves. We need to stop using fossil fuels. We need to stop reproducing. We need to stop people who disagree with us, you know, the useless eaters, deplorables and consumers of the planets resources. There needs to only be a few people on the planet so it can heal.

In actuality, we need to press on and manage our growth. We need to find places to expand into. Be it going to other planets or finding how to travel through space or teleport ourselves or create the resources we currently can't create. Stopping ourselves altogether is out of the question. There are those, like the followers of the WEF, that consider humanity is now transitioning to a technocratic
species, part human and part technnology and humans alone should end. There is no need for humans. All work can be done by robots or machines. Listen to Yuval Noah Harari chief advisor to Karl Schwab, founder of the WEF. Why is it called the World ECONOMIC Forum? Controlling the global economy is the goal and that gives them control over everyone and everything. Ther is a reason that economics is labelled the dull science and it has transitioned to a system of econometrics. We are not taught economics anymore. Economists are taught symbology and abstract mathematics. Unworkable theories, like Modern Monetary Theory or Keynesian economics.
I don't think many people, even economists, understand what money is; why what is money is money. It is actually your return on your contribution to society that is exchangeable for other individual's contributions to society. It is a representation of your labor that contributes to society. The poor are thus those that are incapable of contributing to society, for whatever reason. They mat not have the mental capacity, they may be of a criminal mindset, they may be physically incapable or they may have suffered some temporary catastrophic loss. This is why abundance is an economic necessity. It is something that only an economy can provide. Government can only provide for those by taking it out of the economy first. Government, when it entitles itself to a portion of your money, is actually living off your labor and it's contribution to society. If the economy is bad it still takes its portion of your labor. Should that be fifty percent? Forty? Twenty five? Or closer to 10? One thing is certain it should always be your choice. If they hamper the economy they should suffer.

That's it for now. Gotta go.

@FrankZeleniuk You seem to think the overproduction and inequality of free market capitalism is self-justifying, even to the point of mass genocide. That's insane, sorry!

@WilyRickWiles You seem to think stopping production altogether is the solution. Right! That's insane, sorry.

Am I putting words in your mouth? Please don't put words in my mouth. Those extremes are insane.

I never said anything about overproduction or inequality. I said we must grow not just stop everything and die. Growing includes learning to manage growth correctly. We have to manage things, of course. Unfortunately, politicians are poor managers when they don't see the damage they are doing to a society, as they enrich themselves. The horrible thing is that they never correct their mistakes but generally double down on them creating bigger government and centralizing management in the hands of other ill-suited politicians only interested in creating their own legacies.

@FrankZeleniuk You were responding to this: "Does it really make sense and can the environment, the economy, and global security afford proliferating all of that work." I.e. the increasing of production required to transition from monopoly capitalism to free market capitalism and the externalities it would have.

Your response to those "limits to growth" (which are only limits insomuch as we dogmatically insist on a system) seemed to involve population control, but on a reread you seem to be summarizing the monopoly capitalist position rather than offering your own beyond the equivocation of "we need to manage our growth." That could mean anything! And space colonization, really?

Anyway, my point was that free market capitalism has GREATER limits to growth than monopoly capitalism. Those limits are what necessitated "globalism" in the first place, so your proposal seems counterproductive toward your ends.

@FrankZeleniuk Putting aside that we live on a planet uniquely suited to human life and literally worth preserving, I think you ignore that the vehicle for space colonization would be the military that has always been an engine of monopolization.

@WilyRickWiles

You were responding to this: "Does it really make sense and can the environment, the economy, and global security afford proliferating all of that work." I.e. the increasing of production required to transition from monopoly capitalism to free market capitalism and the externalities it would have.

Do people do anything in your vision of a society? Is it a vibrant, active functioning place or do they just mull around and do as you tell them to do? Do you pass out goods to everyone overseeing there is equity for all? Are you the hero to the masses? Do you wear a uniform?

I have told you that monopolies in a free market are difficult to achieve mostly due to the fickle nature of the consumer who if he is in the least bit not satisfied with the product or services of a company or corporation he will turn to his competitor. The other danger to monopolies are government who knows where the money is and loves nothing more than a quid pro quo.
They can make or break a monopoly. Those who play ball with the government get to thrive and become giant corporate entities that buy out or get the government to protect their monopoly from competitors. We have giant corporate social media monopolies right now with government infiltration directing their operations. We know for sure the FBI works with Facebook and tells them what to allow and Musk has revealed Twitter, as suspected by conspiracy theorists, had a whole list of ex-FBI working there on security. The large legacy media corporations all mouth what government tells them is the news and what the narrative is to be, it is a pretense that there is some kind of competition there.
This is a form of fascism and you think this comfortable relationship is a "necessity" that requires further government controls and "globalism", the latest communist putsch.

The military is "an engine of monopolization"? What does that mean? The military is an arm of government. A socialist government is the biggest monopoly. Do you like a monopoly or not? Why would a government monopoly be our best choice? The bigger a government the more oppressive they are. Democrats, hanging onto power by their teeth have called half the voting public terrorists and if they are not calling them extremists they are deplorables. It doesn't sound like they have any interest in people at all, especially any thinking people that express any diversity of thought.

Have I said anything that makes any sense to you at all in this thread? I don't think you have made any effort to understand how economics works. So we are just about done here, I think.

@FrankZeleniuk "Do people do anything in your vision of a society? Is it a vibrant, active functioning place...?"

Yes, they have agency in my vision of a society.

@FrankZeleniuk You completely ignored my questions about how your vision of a society would work. What's your road to space colonization without a centralized military? How do you otherwise deal with the fact that your vision will cause even more stress from growth than a status quo that precipitated "globalism" and monopoly? How can "free market" capitalism overcome its foundational contradiction in private property rentierism? And again, "we need to manage our growth" could mean anything.

@WilyRickWiles

they have agency in my vision of a society.

Agency from whose prerogative?

I don't have a vision of how a society would work other than through co-operation and not coercion. You should read a little essay called "I, Pencil" for the basic understanding of how economics in a free market works to produce goods.
[fee.org]

What's your road to space colonization without a centralized military?

SpaceX. The military doesn't have to be involved but I know it will want to be. Just like private enterprise wanted to find a westerly route to India and it appealed to Kings interested in expanding their Kingdoms or their ability to trade. Upon the discovery of the New World Kings sent their own military men to claim the territory.

How do you otherwise deal with the fact that your vision will cause even more stress from growth than a status quo that precipitated "globalism" and monopoly?

It it shouldn't do that if there is cooperation. What's the status quo that precipitated globalism and monopoly? It is the intervention of government into the economy that precipitates more intervention resulting in globalism and monopoly.

How can "free market" capitalism overcome its foundational contradiction in private property rentierism?

What's the contradiction?

And again, "we need to manage our growth" could mean anything.

Yes. it could, couldn't it. Notice it is not I that makes the decisions or decides what is best in managing growth. It's an open book of possibilities that is more a concern of those most involved in the processes and consults the understanding and cooperation of others. Politicians like to inject themselves into the equation to ensure they derive some benefit. Generally, it is not helpful.

@FrankZeleniuk "I don't have a vision of how a society would work other than through co-operation and not coercion."

This is why I accused you of idealism. You responded with some hand waving about what has worked historically (as opposed to socialism). You can't have it both ways. Either concede idealism or explain how we would materially transition from the monopoly status quo to a "free market."

"SpaceX."

SpaceX is a government contractor linked to NASA and the CIA. Ever heard of Mike Griffin?

"It it shouldn't do that if there is cooperation."

Again that could mean anything. And "free market" capitalism means a lot less cooperation.

"What's the status quo that precipitated globalism and monopoly?"

That was before industrialization.

"What's the contradiction? "

Rentiership is a monopoly relationship. There is no free market of housing.

"Yes. it could, couldn't it. Notice it is not I that makes the decisions or decides what is best in managing growth."

This is a cop out. You are using your influence to encourage a shift to a "free market." You haven't denied that that transition will be disruptive and cause even more stress from growth. You are fine letting the cards fall where they may, because you just like small government and "free markets."

@WilyRickWiles Read that essay.

you just like small government and "free markets."

Yep.

@FrankZeleniuk Private property aside, I don't suppose you have any problem with that other root of monopoly: the family trust.

@WilyRickWiles It's a protection against government greed. There's no other reason for them. They are laws crafted by politicians in league with corporations to shield the wealth of the very rich. So I guess I do have a problem with them. The first thing I would do, If I came into some sort of windfall, would be to source out a corporate lawyer and a tax accountant, to form a family trust. The way Maxine Watters fawns over Sam Bankman-Fried is an illustration of why I would make sure I made a meaningful and significant donation to select politicians and their parties. What do You think will happen to SBF? Probably nothing more than waggling a finger at him and a slap on the wrist. Why was he arrested a day before he was to testify before the congressional finance committee? so the truth will not come out about where his money went besides the Democrat party. Face the facts, it was a huge money siphoning project for the Dems.

@FrankZeleniuk He gave to both parties. I do think he will go down, though. Someone has to be the fall guy when the fallout from a fraud or controlled demolition is so extensive.

@WilyRickWiles Blow him a kiss for good luck.

Oh... He gave to both parties. Good one! wouldn't him to appear biased at all. It's like, you get a dollar and you get a shiny penny. For someone who believes in equity you sure lose the equation easily. I've noticed in discussions with socialists that the right's crimes, or even the allegations of crimes before any evidences of a crime, are horrendous and the left's are not really worth mentioning. The MSM is well noted for this.

@FrankZeleniuk He allegedly gave equally to both parties. It's OK though, liberals and Republicans are both on the right.
[theguardian.com]

@FrankZeleniuk Regardless, I do think any consequences will be reversed by the FedSoc Supreme Court within a few years just like with Enron.

@WilyRickWiles

He allegedly gave equally to both parties.

LOL. Hardly. He was the Dems second largest contributor. Democrats were donating to Republicans running in the primaries that they thought were unelectable. That money probably came from SBF. What a sham! Due to your partisanship you are incredibly gullible.

Enron was a takedown spearheaded by Andrew Weissman. It's a good example of why family trusts are so important. Nyuk Nyuk.

@FrankZeleniuk Take it up with my source above.

@FrankZeleniuk Here's a source with some detail if you doubt he gave to Republicans at all. [unusualwhales.com]

@FrankZeleniuk Note, I'm not even defending the Democrats. I'm not one. Just trying to establish the facts. You're projecting.

@WilyRickWiles

Take it up with my source above.

From your source above:

But Bankman-Fried’s public donations went largely to Democrats. The FTX founder gave more than $990,000 to candidates in the last election cycle, according to OpenSecrets, and another $38.8m to outside groups. Only about $235,000 of his public political giving went toward Republican candidates.

Granted he told a reporter that his Dark money contributions were equal between the parties has no supporting information. He contributed to some RINOs and some Republican's slated to legislate on cryptocurrency. His business partner Ryan Salome whose wife was running as a Republican for congress in a NY district got a donation as well.

Here's a source with some detail if you doubt he gave to Republicans at all. [unusualwhales.com]

Good source. Proves my point, "a dollar for Democrats and a nice shiny penny for Republicans".
Mostly for Rinos and cryptocurrency legislators - like John Boozeman and Collins, Murkowski and the like.