• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom