There are legitimate reasons for someone on the right to mention Soros, such as his funding of “Media Matters”.
Here is a list of projects funded by Soros, all progressive leaning
That is the legitimate context of mentioning his name, that and any other thing he funds. As you have mentioned, Koch is the alternative on the Repubiican end, or at least they were.
I can’t help with what far right groups might alleged because I don’t go to anything like that, or at least nothing further right or extreme than Breitbart.
Of recent the commonest way I have seen his name mentioned is by someone or group from the left claiming that whenever “Soro’s” name is mentioned, it really means “the Jews”. Which I consider nonsense and divisive to the extreme. When I hear Soro’s name mentioned in a funding type situation, it usually means “Soros”. And it is mentioned of recently not nearly as much by the right (or at least by the not extreme right) as it is by the left.
Hillary - She’s about as corrupt as it gets. The list is very long, no one needed to tell me to hate her, I hate her actions. I hate her arrogance. I hate her policy. I hate her getting away with something I would have been jailed for.
Pelosi - We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it… her voting record is horrific. He stance on gun control and the stupidity she promotes… again, didn’t have to tell me to hate her.
Waters - Again, great example. Let me tell you what this Liberal would be all about. THIS Liberal would be about Sociali–errr…— basically, taking over and the government running your companies… Yeah, kind of sells itself, no need to tell me to hate her… then the nonsense about find these people and confront them… yeah, that’s another easy way to get me to hate you…
These people created themselves. The fact that we hate them is a reasonable judgement on their character, not some sort of grand conspiracy.
The problem that I have with the phrase “Soros funded…” is that it is poisoning the well right off. The arguments of Media Matters should be met with the facts, not with the funding structure.
No one says “Koch funded economics graduate from George Mason” because they don’t want to sound like an insane person.
As far as the code for the Jews thing. I can see that you don’t see it. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
It is the same code in a lot of ways as bringing up the name Rothschild.
Now I understand the argument that this empowers Soros to be put into a place where he cannot be criticized and that is very fair… which is why I am astounded that the mainstream right has fallen so easily in repeating what I feel is an obvious dog whistle.
Meet on the political battlefield with facts and ideas… not speculation and theory.
My belief is that he is despised because he has influence. He can undermine national identities while he tries to promote a one world perspective. In a sense he is fighting the status quo like Trump except they want opposite outcomes.
some hate Trump and some hate Soros. Hate is it’s own reason
I have not seen anyone of the stature of the President’s lawyer retweeting anything that calls the Koch brothers the anti christ and that they should have their assets frozen.
It seems to me that Soros is treated as a class unto himself.
Yes the Kochs are a punching bag, but I haven’t seen any major political figures putting forth conspiracies that they are bringing down the country.
That is why I want you understand why Soros is so special.
You don’t have to respond but can you see how the phrase “Soros occupied State Department” and “Zionist occupied Government” can be rhetorical cousins?
I did a quick look up of “Soros occupied State Department”. Apparently that is somethng Lou Dobbs said and I have no idea what he was talking about. That he meant “Zionist” I have no idea one way or the other…I don’t follow Lou Dobbs so I don’t know or care what he meant…but it sounds stupid, off hand.
as you research each of these organizations you find nothing, that is surprising. You think you would find details of their work and objectives. Almost as if they are covert intelligence operations. which many of their leaders appear to be. the search continues.
Can you concede though that the two terms could be construed to have the same meaning by those who are attuned to hearing that meaning and that maybe more care should be taken?
