Let's talk about George

[crescent]

A case example:

Parkland paranoia: Why is the far right obsessed with George Soros?

many on the right swiftly turned to one of their perennial favorites: Billionaire George Soros.

CNN commentator Jack Kingston, a former Republican congressman, has repeatedly suggested that Soros is masterminding the protests, both in a Twitter post and on CNN, where he suggested that "organized groups that are out there, like George Soros, are always ready to take up the charge". He later doubled down when pressed by Anderson Cooper, suggesting the students are being paid to protest.

Former Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke, a prominent Donald Trump supporter, agreed, writing on Twitter, "The well ORGANIZED effort by Florida school students demanding gun control has GEORGE SOROS’ FINGERPRINTS all over it."

 

[Giz]

From a conservative stand point, the answer is simple. Soros has used his wealth to oppose conservative endorsed candidates like George Bush and to support conservative opponents like Hillary Clinton, and has used Super Pacs and propaganda mills like Media Matters to do it.

Bit baffled one even has to ask the question why the right does not like Soros

But why would anyone not like soros supporting Hilary, unless they were antisemitic?

Get with the 2 minute hate of conservatives, big dog!

 

[ahhell]

George Soros is behind every evil in the world. That's the idea you get when reading some conservative posters. But why is he being portrayed as such a boogeyman?

He's the right's version of the Koch Bros or Sheldon Adelsons.

Seriously, most often when I hear about Soros as a boogey man its in response to some progressive talking about the Koch Bros as boogey men.

An example from this thread.

Because any serious conservative candidate has to kiss Sheldon Adelson's ring, and a longtime GOP tactic is to preemptively blame the other party for doing whatever it is they're ashamed of doing themselves.

People who disagree with me are evil, especially when they have money.

From a conservative stand point, the answer is simple. Soros has used his wealth to oppose conservative endorsed candidates like George Bush and to support conservative opponents like Hillary Clinton, and has used Super Pacs and propaganda mills like Media Matters to do it.

Bit baffled one even has to ask the question why the right does not like Soros

This.

 

[lobosrul5]

From a conservative stand point, the answer is simple. Soros has used his wealth to oppose conservative endorsed candidates like George Bush and to support conservative opponents like Hillary Clinton, and has used Super Pacs and propaganda mills like Media Matters to do it.

Bit baffled one even has to ask the question why the right does not like Soros

Super pacs, and billionaire backers!!! The right would never stoop to making use of such things!

 

[The Big Dog]

Super pacs, and billionaire backers!!! The right would never stoop to making use of such things!

well that didn't take long to get a tu quoque.

let me make this simple, folks, I am just defending the right's view, I am not attempting to justify it, to claim that it is not cognitive dissonance, etc.

These are just well known basic facts.

You want to say that the right is wrong for not liking Soros because the right does it too, I will suggest that perhaps this thinking applies to the boogeymen on the left.

 

[ahhell]

It doesn't take cognitive dissonance to explain the rights dislike of prominent, powerful people who use there wealth and power to advance an agenda they dislike. Its not even hypocritical. It like asking why Patriots fans dislike the Eagles quarterback* and accusing them of hypocrisy because they like the Patriots quarterback.

Nick Foles, QB of the Eagles and MVP of the last superbowl in which the eagles defeated the Patriots.

Edit to add,

I guess the real question is, why to some folks on the left really focus on Soros so much. I think some folks just need a villain, but like I said, its not at all different from the way some folks on the left focus so much on the Koch's and to a lesser degree on Adelson.

 

[rdwight]

I knew before I posted the thread that we would get false equivalencies about the Koch brothers. That's why I'm asking conservatives to pin-point what is objectionable about what George Soros stands for.

Basically, I want to hear a conservative say "supporting democratic institutions is bad because..."

I don't see how it is a 'false equivalencies about the Koch brothers'. It seems a very apt comparison. Each has their own extreme detractors, based mainly on their financial backing of politicians and policies which go against the detractors beliefs.

The only thing I've seen more of in regards to Soros is claims of 'paid trolls' and 'paid protesters'. It seems to be the go to complaint in alt-right/right leaning online circles to claim anyone pushing an alternative narrative to what they believe to be a paid Soros bootlicker etc. There really isn't a Koch equivalent from the left, although the 'russian bot' accusation is gaining steam there.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't see how it is a 'false equivalencies about the Koch brothers'. It seems a very apt comparison. Each has their own extreme detractors, based mainly on their financial backing of politicians and policies which go against the detractors beliefs.

The only thing I've seen more of in regards to Soros is claims of 'paid trolls' and 'paid protesters'. It seems to be the go to complaint in alt-right/right leaning online circles to claim anyone pushing an alternative narrative to what they believe to be a paid Soros bootlicker etc. There really isn't a Koch equivalent from the left, although the 'russian bot' accusation is gaining steam there.

Actually, the paid trolls claims are based on the documented Soros/Clinton/Brand SuperPac Correct the Record, and the complaints were definitely not coming from the alt-right in 2016:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls

 

[Pterodactyl]

Because any serious conservative candidate has to kiss Sheldon Adelson's ring, and a longtime GOP tactic is to preemptively blame the other party for doing whatever it is they're ashamed of doing themselves.

"The left is run by rich Jews" is not a new idea. Soros is only the latest manifestation of it.

I don't think Soros' being jewish is a major factor. Otherwise, how do we reconcile these last two posts I quoted?

Plus republicans generally support Israeli interests, don't they?


I think it's as simple as Soros financially backs causes republicans dont support. His wealth makes him an easy target as a villain.

 

[Trebuchet]

I don't think Soros' being jewish is a major factor. Otherwise, how do we reconcile these last two posts I quoted?

Plus republicans generally support Israeli interests, don't they?


I think it's as simple as Soros financially backs causes republicans dont support. His wealth makes him an easy target as a villain.

Republicans support Israel, and in particular Bibi, because the fundies are eagerly awaiting a catastrophic war that will bring about the end times. Actual Jews, who are going straight to Hell anyhow, they can do without.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Republicans support Israel, and in particular Bibi, because the fundies are eagerly awaiting a catastrophic war that will bring about the end times. Actual Jews, who are going straight to Hell anyhow, they can do without.

?.

 

[rdwight]

Actually, the paid trolls claims are based on the documented Soros/Clinton/Brand SuperPac Correct the Record, and the complaints were definitely not coming from the alt-right in 2016:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls

Not sure what your specifically implying here. If you view right-leaning publications, this is a common tactic used by posters. Whether it is has been used in the past and to what degree does not negate the current actions of people. Are you saying you believe all positive or alternative views actually are paid trolls, or saying that in some cases they could be? To what degree?

I find it to be an issue that diminishes discourse between people with opposing views. And I find no equivalence in scope to the left currently in regards to the Koch's or any such right leaning prominent proponent, although as I mentioned, 'russian bot' is becoming more common, which i find equally problematic.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not sure what your specifically implying here. If you view right-leaning publications, this is a common tactic used by posters. Whether it is has been used in the past and to what degree does not negate the current actions of people. Are you saying you believe all positive or alternative views actually are paid trolls, or saying that in some cases they could be? To what degree?

I am saying that the right (and others) take a negative view of Soros because he actually supported paid trolls in Correct the Record.

 

[dudalb]

Republicans support Israel, and in particular Bibi, because the fundies are eagerly awaiting a catastrophic war that will bring about the end times. Actual Jews, who are going straight to Hell anyhow, they can do without.

It's possible to support Israel and not like Bibi very much.....
I think a number of Israeli polcies are really stupid (the settlements in the lands won in 1967 in particular) but I do support it's right to defend itself.

 

[lobosrul5]

It's possible to support Israel and not like Bibi very much.....
I think a number of Israeli polcies are really stupid (the settlements in the lands won in 1967 in particular) but I do support it's right to defend itself.

Yes exactly. I can say that I neither support Palestinian suicide bombings or Israel's policy of bulldozing entire apartment buildings if an attacker lived there.

 

[ahhell]

I don't think Soros' being jewish is a major factor. Otherwise, how do we reconcile these last two posts I quoted?

Plus republicans generally support Israeli interests, don't they?


I think it's as simple as Soros financially backs causes republicans dont support. His wealth makes him an easy target as a villain.

It also doesn't explain why republicans/conservatives don't view Adelson as such a boogey man either. If being a rich Jew is all that it takes.

Republicans support Israel, and in particular Bibi, because the fundies are eagerly awaiting a catastrophic war that will bring about the end times. Actual Jews, who are going straight to Hell anyhow, they can do without.

?.

Its simple, conservatives are anti-semites so any evidence to the contrary is despite the antiemitism not evidence against it.

 

[Belz...]

Who?

 

[Ron Swanson]

I thought it was going to be George Costanza

 

[Polaris]

I don't see how it is a 'false equivalencies about the Koch brothers'. It seems a very apt comparison. Each has their own extreme detractors, based mainly on their financial backing of politicians and policies which go against the detractors beliefs.

The only thing I've seen more of in regards to Soros is claims of 'paid trolls' and 'paid protesters'. It seems to be the go to complaint in alt-right/right leaning online circles to claim anyone pushing an alternative narrative to what they believe to be a paid Soros bootlicker etc. There really isn't a Koch equivalent from the left, although the 'russian bot' accusation is gaining steam there.

This has been my experience. When I want to know what the right wing talking points on something are, I call my dad. The old hippie has been glued to Fox News and right-wing talk radio for more than a decade now. The last time I talked politics with him (period) was just after that brawl in Berkeley between Antifa and Trump supporters. When he said that the Antifa were a bunch of liberals, and I corrected him, saying that they were anarchists from out of town, then obviously, he said, they were brought in by George Soros.

It's conspiratorial circular thinking. He's evil because he supports anti-right-wing action. Why does he support anti-right-wing action? Because he's evil, that's why! Hannity and Limbaugh said so!

I thought it was going to be George Costanza

I was thinking Bush.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Actually, the paid trolls claims are based on the documented Soros/Clinton/Brand SuperPac Correct the Record, and the complaints were definitely not coming from the alt-right in 2016:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls

Normally, troll means misrepresenting their position or their identity. No one ever confirmed if that was happening. CTR asserted that the people they financially supported were Clinton supporters. And it wouldn't be hard to find supporters and pay them to comment more.