Yeah. Your opinons of the Koch brothers are a lot like other peoples opions of Soros, arent’ they? That’s ok. It didn’t instill fear in me or make me want to do anything violent that you would be responsible for.
It was Giuliani. America’s Mayor who retweeted that Soros is the Antichrist.
Sure the reporter said Soros’s name but the President responded that he wouldn’t be surprised and lots of people are saying it and such.
An easily avoidable land mine.
Not too much of an excuse for the President of the United States to throw acceptance to an uncomfirmed rumor.
I’m not in favor of accusing people of things you can’t prove, whether its funding a caravan of would be illegals or colluding with Russians. Gaetz should be ashamed of himself.
Do you think anyone would say “Koch Occupied State Department” ever?
They also benefit from anti-climate change convos which is often promoted by the Republican party.
For the record, I don’t think Soros is the antichrist. More like a billionaire who is open to fair criticism by conservatives because he likes to spend his money defeating their causes.
And no immunity is due to him, as he gives none himself.
People shouldnt retweet garbage.
Clearly those who want immunity from criticism for Soros want none for the Koch brothers.
Glad to hear your opinion on this.
Do you understand why some would find the rhetoric that surrounds him alarming and anti semetic?
When did this become about you?
1 Like
What in the world are you talking about?
for some reason this is not on Google
sorry it is.
and here comes buffet
A list that is without specifics.
Specifics please.
That article shows that Warren Buffet gives more that Soros.
Why is the headline about Soros?
This is what I am talking about. The clickbait is George Soros is evil but the article is mostly about Warren Buffet.
Why is that?
Here’s a pretty good summary.
I like how the NR makes a move toward avoiding Soros’s childhood story, as though it’s unnecessary to Soros’s villainy, and then spends a good part of the article . . . parsing the history of Soro’s childhood. Anyway, I don’t really find any of these views that the magazine calls “shocking” all that “shocking,” in context. For example:
It is not an exaggeration to characterize Soros’s views as radical, particularly compared to the American mainstream.
Among their examples:
In 2010, he declared that China has “a better functioning government than the United States.”
In 2010, this was not a shocking statement at all, as even the FP article that the National Review cites suggests (“Soros’s statement is similar to the frequent “China-for-a-day” musings of columnist Tom Friedman.”) And it especially wouldn’t be shocking to people on the right, given who was president at the time.
Back in 2010, Niall Ferguson was saying the same thing on Glenn Beck’s show: the US government was gridlocked, gummed-up, wrecked by Obama, etc. China was miraculous, unstoppable, beating the US at its own game, with its authoritarian form of state capitalism. Even Donald Trump expresses admiration for the “power” and “strength” of China’s government. My right wing mom and dad—Trump supporters, Fox watchers, and a.m. radio listeners—have a deep admiration for Vladimir Putin. You think they would have found Soro’s statement about China shocking in 2010, when Barack Obama was destroying the country? They would have agreed.
3 Likes
I will address the points in that article piece by piece.
The Nazi stuff is just dumb on its face. The article tries to hedge its bets in my opinion, talking to both sides of the story… but no matter how one tries to boil it down, he as a kid surviving the Holocaust and if he got caught not only would he likely be killed, but his family and those who were harboring them would be killed also.
So let us take that silliness off of the table.
The next section says this.
“Soros was flatly opposed to the War on Terror after 9/11 and declared the U.S. response to al Qaeda ”
Yeah… there is a very good argument that the US response after 9/11 was not good and has further caused harm to the US and our foreign interests. To me that opinion isn’t very damning.
The next damning thing presented is a quite form this article. Soros on American Fallibility “the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States”
He was speaking of the war on terror. Remember this was in 2006 that this interview was given and he was talking about the War on terror being an endless war and the destabilizing effects that that has on the Middle East and the world. Hindsight is 20/20 and I think that it is hard to argue that he is completely wrong.
The next thing is about China from an article found here. Economic power shifting from U.S. to China, Soros says - The Globe and Mail
The quote used is this. “ In 2010, he declared that China has a better functioning government than the United States.”
If you read the article you can see that it was a lament. He was taking of the disfunction in Washington and how the lack of compromise is hurting the nation. Hardly a radical idea.
The next part is about Israel. He doesn’t like Israel’s government and he doesn’t like the treatment of the Palestinians. He thinks that the treatment of the Palestinians is ultimately harmful to Israel and the Jewish people. Also… hardly a radical view.
The next part is about his criticism of Viktor Orban. This is where we go back a bit. Remember back in the article where Soros was portrayed as bad for saying that the US was destabilizing the Middle East? Well… here is one of the products of the that destabilization. The argument is how to deal with it. And I think that it is fair to say that the EU failed in handling the crises adequately and the resentment towards the refugees is completely rational. That said, Orban believes in the “Great Replacement Theory” and that is just complete nonsense.
The article ends with this. “The truth about George Soros today, and the agenda he seeks to enact, is bad enough.”
But all the article talks about is how he wasn’t really a Nazi but maybe his involvement was more than he let on, how he was against a never ending War on Terror because it is destabilizing to the Middle Eaat, the domestic policies of Israel being against his values, how China is emerging as a global power and the US better get its act together, how that never ending war on terror has caused destabilization in the Middle East and the EUs inadequate response and then something something Koch brothers.
None of that to me rises to the level that would engender the complete vilification of someone. None of that rises to the level where it is reasonable for the Lawyer for the President of the Untied States to retweet that he is the anti christ and should have his assets frozen.
In my opinion he is a good bogieman for the CEC and the right but their criticisms are light on specifics and lacking.
1 Like
Why do people on the right hate Soros,
Maybe hate is too strong a word. More properly stated we mistrust Soros. Why?
It is not an equitable analogy to compare Soros to the Koch brothers. Soros is a global player with operations in many countries. Soros is a devout Globalist in the fact that he wants the same policies enacted all over the globe. Ostensibly he is for transparent and accountable government and liberty for people. Yet his own organizations do not demonstrate transparency or equality. Watch what I say not what I do.
His network promotes an agenda with grandiose objectives, what you cannot ascertain is by what methodology. How does he intend to impose his vision on all of humanity? If his intentions are noble he should be transparent, he is not.
We have learned that his operatives have a playbook for an organized resistance.
WE have learned he is networked with many high-powered billionaires. We have learned which politicians he supports including Obama and Clinton. We have learned that he has spent over 30 billion on implementing his agenda. We have learned that he has influence at Twitter, Facebook, Google and a large influence on the media with outfits such as media matters. He can control the narrative and he has, in a stealth manner. Just compare CNN to the Brock playbook.
We have learned of his role is shaping the Arab Spring, causing a tidal wave of refugees into Europe, simply to further his own interests. More disturbing is his impact on policy in America. He is the champion of open borders and an enemy of nationalism. His nation is the Globe, virtually his Reich. He is influential but unelected. He operates without regard to law or borders. He is not above the law he changes law. He controls his servants yet remains in the shadows.
For example, look at immigration policy of 2006 for the democrats and look today. Build a wall versus open borders. Other than Soros what changed the priorities. This is a man with substantial influence that lurks in the shadows, plays with economics and has no reservations in causing suffering. He is not a dictator wanna be, he is the man who controls the dictators.
Any person that believes in limited government, culture, freedom and self determination should fear a person that has not only the ability, the desire and the platform to impact humanity on a global basis.
I hope this provides your answer.
Out of all of that… because I have discussed most of it already… let us focus on the Arab Spring part.
What do you mean by furthering his own interests?
