Let's talk about George

Travis said:
Okay. Let me take you by the hand and walk you through it.

How does the Soros connection make it a "political hit job"?
Click to expand...

I think you meant, let me walk you through it, because it appears that you are baffled by the GOP statement?
 
another amusing thing is that our Soros fans supporters do not seem troubled by Soros using his outsize wealth to exploit campaign finance loopholes like Citizens United and by funding dark money pacs that worked directly with campaigns.
 
The Big Dog said:
another amusing thing is that our Soros fans supporters do not seem troubled by Soros using his outsize wealth to exploit campaign finance loopholes like Citizens United and by funding dark money pacs that worked directly with campaigns.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
The Big Dog said:
another amusing thing is that our Soros fans supporters do not seem troubled by Soros using his outsize wealth to exploit campaign finance loopholes like Citizens United and by funding dark money pacs that worked directly with campaigns.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with this?



Soon after the Citizens United decision (the same year this post was written) and other legal developments, the Koch brothers became very active at the center of a network of conservative, politically active 501(c) groups that aren’t required to disclose their donors. The groups, including Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, have collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars working for or against candidates and/or giving money to other groups doing that kind of work. Nobody knows how much money the Kochs themselves are providing to this network. George Soros, on the other hand, has been very generous to Democratic super PACs, such as Priorities USA Action, which must publicly list their donors. Because we don’t know how much money the Kochs are providing, it’s virtually impossible to compare them with Soros or anyone else. A list of top contributors is here — but again, the list doesn’t include the Kochs because many of their checks are written to groups that don’t have to tell us where their funds are coming from.
Click to expand...

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle-koch-brothers/
 
kellyb said:
Can you please just answer what you personally find objectionable about Soros in terms of policies he promotes?
Click to expand...
As I noted above, I don't really, I'm sure I could find something if I looked hard enough but I do know what conservatives find objectionable about him, he spends a lot of money for the other side.

My quick internet search indicates that he is likely much more progressive than I am but I'm not in the habit of demonizing my political opposition. He is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, who I'm no fan of but I did vote for her in the last election so there's that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
This strikes of whataboutism. Whether Soros uses publicly disclosing 501cs doesn't mean the left is not being hypocritical about supporting him.
Click to expand...

How can it be called "dark money" if it's disclosed?

Half the accusation about him was:

"...by funding dark money pacs..."
 
ahhell said:
As I noted above, I don't really, I'm sure I could find something if I looked hard enough but I do know what conservatives find objectionable about him, he spends a lot of money for the other side.

My quick internet search indicates that he is likely much more progressive than I am but I'm not in the habit of demonizing my political opposition. He is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, who I'm no fan of but I did vote for her in the last election so there's that.
Click to expand...

So, you really don't think people like me oppose the policy results the Koch bros are donating money to people to achieve?

It's the policy objectives (not increasing, lowering, or abolishing minimum wage, removing environmental regulations, the abolition of the New Deal, etc and so on) we're on the other side of them about.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
How can it be called "dark money" if it's disclosed?

Half the accusation about him was:

"...by funding dark money pacs..."
Click to expand...

Dark money is a nitpick. Broadly speaking, liberals oppose citizens united which didn't have anything to do with dark money. Soros gives to 501cs which generally the left opposes. The allegation TBD made is that the left support him doing that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Dark money is a nitpick. Broadly speaking, liberals oppose citizens united which didn't have anything to do with dark money. Soros gives to 501cs which generally the left opposes. The allegation TBD made is that the left support him doing that.
Click to expand...

Eh, fair enough. I'm not a huge Soros fan.

I am firmly anti-Koch, tho, because I think they have some dangerous misunderstandings about how the world works, at best. At worst, they know they're promoting political-economic woo, but they promote it strictly because it's woo that serves their class interests.
 
ahhell said:
All the research on human psychology, decision making, and ideology really suggests that you don't like the Kochs because they're on the other side and everything after that is just justification. The same is true of conservatives. So, asking "why do you hate Soros?" Will only give you rationalizations that are largely post hoc when the real answer is, "he's on the other side".

There's a great podcast called, "You are not so smart" who's latest episode 122, Psychology of Tribalism, as some bearing on this conversation. There's research that attacking someone's political party will make them more antagonistic than attacking their ideas even when those ideas are clearly associated with the party. All anyone needs to hate Soros is that he attacks their tribe.

There's also some interesting research discussed in the episodes that folks assigned to random groups will almost immediately start disliking another random group. Tribalism seems deeply ingrained in us.

For the record, I don't really hate either Soros or the Kochs, I'm more amused and confused by the irrationality surrounding them than anything.
Click to expand...

Could you try to answer the question you quoted?

I've already explained to you why your explanation doesn't fit reality.
 
kellyb said:
So, you really don't think people like me oppose the policy results the Koch bros are donating money to people to achieve?

It's the policy objectives (opposing minimum wage, removing environmental regulations, the abolition of the New Deal, etc and so on) we're on the other side of them about.
Click to expand...
You may be unusual but the evidence really is that we come to a political conclusion first and look for evidence later.
 
kellyb said:
So, you really don't think people like me oppose the policy results the Koch bros are donating money to people to achieve?

It's the policy objectives (opposing minimum wage, removing environmental regulations, the abolition of the New Deal, etc and so on) we're on the other side of them about.
Click to expand...

This is the point of this whole thread, and we have yet to see a conservavtive poster even attempt to adress it. Thus far, it's all been about creating false equivalencies between Soros and the Koch brothers, while forgetting to adress why people are critical about either. Hint: It's not about who they are donating money to, at least not with the Koch brothers. Instead, it's about why they are donating money.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
You may be unusual but the evidence really is that we come to a political conclusion first and look for evidence later.
Click to expand...

But the evidence has been found, and as you are engaging in this thread, it's encumbent upon you to relate to it, no matter which of the evidence or the political conclusion came first.
 
uke2se said:
This is the point of this whole thread, and we have yet to see a conservavtive poster even attempt to adress it. Thus far, it's all been about creating false equivalencies between Soros and the Koch brothers, while forgetting to adress why people are critical about either. Hint: It's not about who they are donating money to, at least not with the Koch brothers. Instead, it's about why they are donating money.
Click to expand...

I really hate to speculate like this, but what the hell...
Do you think it's possible that for some people, supporting 'the other side' is reason enough?
That what they're doing and why isn't as important as which team they support while doing it?
 
Porpoise of Life said:
I really hate to speculate like this, but what the hell...
Do you think it's possible that for some people, supporting 'the other side' is reason enough?
That what they're doing and why isn't as important as which team they support while doing it?
Click to expand...

No. I don't think that's enough for the amount of hatred Soros in particular is getting directed at him. Roughly half of the US population "supports the other side", many of them in very public positions with a huge platform. And yet, Soros has been selected as the ultimate evil, and it just so happens to be the very same Soros who has long been a target for similar conspiracy theories coming from European populist right parties and especially the extreme right and Nazis. I do not believe this is a coincidence.

It should be noted that Soros isn't "supporting the other side" in Europe. He's, as I noted in the OP, supporting democratic institutions and civil and human rights.

At the very least conservatives should be able to answer the question of what specific policies that Soros is promoting that they disagree with. Nobody has even tried.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
You may be unusual but the evidence really is that we come to a political conclusion first and look for evidence later.
Click to expand...

I think the research might be oversimplifying the phenomenon. Most of our opinions aren't our own - we "outsource" fact-gathering to our preferred "experts".

For example, when I fist encountered Matt Taibbi's journalism, I fact checked him thoroughly (thinking what he was saying was too weird to be true), and eventually concluded he's reliable. After that, I've just sort of generally taken him at his word.

When there's a consensus among your preferred experts that so-and-so is "one of the bad guys", you'll probably believe it first and verify it later independently if necessary.
 
uke2se said:
No. I don't think that's enough for the amount of hatred Soros in particular is getting directed at him. Roughly half of the US population "supports the other side", many of them in very public positions with a huge platform. And yet, Soros has been selected as the ultimate evil, and it just so happens to be the very same Soros who has long been a target for similar conspiracy theories coming from European populist right parties and especially the extreme right and Nazis. I do not believe this is a coincidence.

It should be noted that Soros isn't "supporting the other side" in Europe. He's, as I noted in the OP, supporting democratic institutions and civil and human rights.
Click to expand...

But you're never going to get any members here to say that they don't mind anti-Soros conspiracy theories because they've (the members) got similar goals and ideals as the extreme right.

You'd have an easier time getting people to admit they think Soros is evil because his name looks too much like Sauron.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
But you're never going to get any members here to say that they don't mind anti-Soros conspiracy theories because they've (the members) got similar goals and ideals as the extreme right.

You'd have an easier time getting people to admit they think Soros is evil because his name looks too much like Sauron.
Click to expand...

I know that. Maybe, eventually, they will admit it to themselves tho. Maybe it'll start a small spark of self-awareness that breaks them out of the spell that right wing populism has cast on them.

The clearer it becomes that they can't even engage with the issue of the thread for fear of having their pre-conceived conclusions challenged, the likelier it becomes for at least an average thinker to snap out of their ideological rut.
 
Just to sum up this silly thread.

the question was asked why conservatives don't like Soros.

Simple clear answers were given, which have been rejected as either conspiracy theories or Koch is worse, the former which is false, the latter, an irrelevant fallacy.

The contention that Soros does not contribute to dark money groups is silly, particularly as he contributes to groups that get money from dark money groups.

Here is an analysis from https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19528/inside-hillary-clintons-big-money-cavalry, which ironically gets money from Soros!

But I know. Maybe, eventually, they will admit it to themselves tho. Maybe it'll start a small spark of self-awareness that breaks them out of the spell that the left wing echo chamber has cast on them.

The clearer it becomes that they can't even engage with the issue of the thread for fear of having their pre-conceived conclusions challenged, the likelier it becomes for at least an average thinker to snap out of their ideological rut.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
The simple clear answers I gave why conservatives do not like Soros, namely funding Kerry and Clinton
Click to expand...

I asked what was rejected as a conspiracy theory.

You did say some of the answers were "rejected as conspiracy theories", correct?
 
kellyb said:
I think the research might be oversimplifying the phenomenon. Most of our opinions aren't our own - we "outsource" fact-gathering to our preferred "experts".

For example, when I fist encountered Matt Taibbi's journalism, I fact checked him thoroughly (thinking what he was saying was too weird to be true), and eventually concluded he's reliable. After that, I've just sort of generally taken him at his word.

When there's a consensus among your preferred experts that so-and-so is "one of the bad guys", you'll probably believe it first and verify it later independently if necessary.
Click to expand...
I think you have too high an opinion of your fellow man. I've more or less given up strong opinions about politics because I know I can't be trusted. About the only strong opinion regarding politics I currently have is that those with strong opinions about politics just don't understand how strongly bias effects us or what the science really says about how we come to conclusions.


uke2se said:
But the evidence has been found, and as you are engaging in this thread, it's encumbent upon you to relate to it, no matter which of the evidence or the political conclusion came first.
Click to expand...
I have.

The questions was, "Why to American Conservatives hate Soros"
The answer is, "he supports American Liberals/Democrats with his money"
I'd argue that the goal post was later moved to, what specific policy he supports but I really don't think that's important. Its not how humans think.

An American conservative will likely have some rationalization beyond that but it is all just rationalization. There might actually be something of merit to some of it but that's really not important to the Soros hater, it an after thought, same as most of us most of the time.
 
xjx388 said:
Do American liberals think supporting American business and encouraging personal responsibility is a bad thing? 'Cause that's what the Koch's organizations are doing...
Click to expand...

For whom? Are they encouraging personal responsibility on the part of the groups they fund that want to try to 'prove' climate change is a hoax and/or that any of it is caused or exacerbated by greenhouse gas emissions? By rolling back environmental laws that protect all of us? By repeatedly breaking the law?

The story below ran in the Seattle Times in 2011, under the headline: "Koch Industries has pattern of violating ethics, environmental laws."
A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries has a long history of being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East. Koch Industries units have also rigged prices with competitors, lied to regulators and repeatedly run afoul of environmental regulations, resulting in five criminal convictions since 1999 in the U.S. and Canada.

From 1999 through 2003, Koch Industries was assessed more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments. In December 1999, a civil jury found that Koch Industries had taken oil it didn’t pay for from federal land by mismeasuring the amount of crude it was extracting. Koch paid a $25 million settlement to the U.S. Link
Click to expand...

No wonder conservatives, with allies like the Koch brothers, are trying to divert attention to George Soros. What are the same types of substantiated crimes Soros has committed?
 
The Big Dog said:
Just to sum up this silly thread.

the question was asked why conservatives don't like Soros.

Simple clear answers were given, which have been rejected as either conspiracy theories or Koch is worse, the former which is false, the latter, an irrelevant fallacy.

The contention that Soros does not contribute to dark money groups is silly, particularly as he contributes to groups that get money from dark money groups.

Here is an analysis from https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19528/inside-hillary-clintons-big-money-cavalry, which ironically gets money from Soros!

But I know. Maybe, eventually, they will admit it to themselves tho. Maybe it'll start a small spark of self-awareness that breaks them out of the spell that the left wing echo chamber has cast on them.

The clearer it becomes that they can't even engage with the issue of the thread for fear of having their pre-conceived conclusions challenged, the likelier it becomes for at least an average thinker to snap out of their ideological rut.
Click to expand...

For the most part,o agree. But you left out the huge issue of accusing Soros of thinngs he simply hasn't done.
 
BobTheCoward said:
For the most part,o agree. But you left out the huge issue of accusing Soros of thinngs he simply hasn't done.
Click to expand...

well, because that is because the OP specifically asks for what do conservatives believe that Soros has done bad, without getting into conspiracy theories.
 
The Big Dog said:
I think you meant, let me walk you through it, because it appears that you are baffled by the GOP statement?
Click to expand...

I am baffled. He did take her picture without her consent. He did threaten to release it as retaliation.

She also got money from Soros to fund her unrelated justice reform initiative.

So how does one relate to the other?
 
Travis said:
I am baffled. He did take her picture without her consent. He did threaten to release it as retaliation.

She also got money from Soros to fund her unrelated justice reform initiative.

So how does one relate to the other?
Click to expand...

through the politically motivated criminal prosecution.

Nice.
 
Travis said:
I am baffled. He did take her picture without her consent. He did threaten to release it as retaliation.

She also got money from Soros to fund her unrelated justice reform initiative.

So how does one relate to the other?
Click to expand...

No. Someone else got money from Soros and opposes the perv politically, so it's all Soro's fault. The victim didn't. But they are both filthy liberal wimmins.
 
Travis said:
What makes it politically motivated and what does Soros have to do with it?
Click to expand...

Soros gave money to her and the gop used that information and other to declare it is politically motivated.

Travis I am literally explaining to you the gop’s press release

I am not saying it is correct, I am explaining why they used Soros in the press release.
 
By giving "money to her" are we talking about this?
Kimberly Gardner, one of four Democrats running for St. Louis circuit attorney in the Aug. 2 primary, is taking heat for a new political ad paid for with money from a national super PAC that is at least partly funded by liberal billionaire George Soros. Link
Click to expand...


Or is there more to this?

By the way, guess who received the biggest political contribution of any candidate in Missouri history as of 2016? Right, the man Kim Gardner is prosecuting.
A federally registered campaign committee called “SEALs for Truth” this week donated $1.975 million to Missouri gubernatorial candidate Eric Greitens, a former SEAL. It is, by far, the single largest political contribution in Missouri history to an individual candidate. Link
Click to expand...

Greitens said at the time he was proud to have the support "of his fellow Navy SEALs.” Only the money wasn't really from Navy SEALs.
According to a disclosure form filed with the Federal Elections Commission, all of the group’s money came from a Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit called the American Policy Coalition Inc. The American Policy Coalition website contains no information about the group at all, and it appears to have filed no paperwork with either the FEC or the Missouri Ethics Commission. But the group is connected to an Ohio attorney who the Center for Public Integrity labeled the “nexus of one of the nation’s most mysterious networks pouring secret money into elections.” Link
Click to expand...
 
newyorkguy said:
By giving "money to her" are we talking about this?



Or is there more to this?

By the way, guess who received the biggest political contribution of any candidate in Missouri history as of 2016? Right, the man Kim Gardner is prosecuting.


Greitens said at the time he was proud to have the support "of his fellow Navy SEALs.” Only the money wasn't really from Navy SEALs.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism

You are comparing a gubernatorial candidate to a county prosecutor. Lol

Tell you what, when the governor misuses a statute to prosecute his political enemies, we will all concede the merit of your whataboutism. Until then, it is a dumpster fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom