Is George Soros a Puppet Master? (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

For years I have heard allusions to George Soros, in the background, manipulating the US political process. Recently, this theme has begun once again to surface as a "hot topic" (at least on Fox News). Then, a few days ago, in the background, I was casually listening "Outnumbered". Newt Gingrich was talking. He mentioned George Soros. I was shocked to hear Marie Harth blurt out, in anger, you can't talk about him. Apparently, I missed part of the conversation, as according to the attached video, Malissa Francis first remarked: "I'm not sure we need to bring George Soros into this," Nevertheless, it is quite disturbing to hear that Newt Gingrich was being attacked for speaking freely. I was disappointed with the subsequent "apology" by Harris Faulkner, saying that she is an advocate for "free speech" and that people should not be "censored". I dismissed that incident as a "one-off".

Then last night; on Tucker Carlson, he devoted a segment to having having his twitter feed flagged for referencing George Soros. Obviously an attempt to discourage people under the guise of "dangerous content" from reading what he had to say.

The rioting/looting/protesting that has been occurring, has apparently re-surfaced the accusations that George Soros has been funding the election of prosecutors, who aren't neutral prosecutors, but are "left wing" political hacks "protecting" those inciting civil disobedience (either legally or illegally). Assuming that Soros is playing hidden puppet master, this far exceeds the significance of any claims by the Democratic Party of so-called Russian interference into the US political process. This is blatant manipulation.

Fox News host tells Newt Gingrich not to mention Soros’ funding of far-left DAs

 

[Pat Hartman]

I guess Glenn Beck wasn't so crazy after all. He was talking about George Soros trying to play puppet master years ago. Mick Bloomberg is joining the game. He couldn't buy the presidency for himself so now he's raising money in Florida to pay the fines for convicted felons so that they can get their right to vote back. Does that count as buying votes? Is he telling them, I'll pay your fine if you vote for Biden or is this just a wink-wink transaction? Are there tax implications for the felons? Do they have to declare the money as income. Will Bloomberg be be charged for trying to manipulate an election?

 

[Jon]

Alex Jones is constantly going on about George Soros on InfoWars. He has a bust of him with devils horns that he often shows at the start of his show.

 

[Isaac]

According to an article I read, Florida law makes it a felony to provide to someone anything of value that may affect them voting.
I mean, I haven't studied the law or any caselaw regarding it, and I'm sure Bloomberg is smart enough to have had good lawyers vet his plan somewhat (or perhaps he just sent a check to the Florida AG too!), but it sure would seem on its face that this qualifies as a violation.

I've mentioned before that I fear we Americans sometimes think ourselves much better than other nations on the 'corruption' aspect, but sometimes I wonder if we actually aren't ANY better at all - and maybe even worse - but we are much better at sanitizing how it looks & feels. It's not necessarily the "pay a bribe to open a business license", but when you look at the gigantic amounts of money poured into lobbying and (now) the very-creative & sometimes less direct social and political engineering (like this Bloomberg Florida thing), it makes you wonder...

Funny about Glenn Beck. Years ago, back when my opinion of him was not very good, I found myself in a thrift store and saw 2 of his novels and thought what the heck. I was in a reading mood that year. As totally cheesy and almost embarassing as this sounds, The Christmas Sweater and Snow Angel, in that order, were very enjoyable to me - and I have Snow Angel on my desk right now! Just because my house is a mess.

 

[moke123]

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49584157

 

[Isaac]

From the article

bold philanthropy in support of liberal, democratic causes

I've never been one who believed he is up to anything particularly more sinister or aggressive than any other extremely wealthy person who funds political causes, but I do believe he is that. Of course, most people who are extremely wealthy have enough resources to devote a percentage of them to the very act of distancing themselves from specific activities; they are usually several layers removed from the final actors who work for the beneficiaries of the donations. Common sense.

There is so much information out there about this man that, if I wanted to truly educate myself about him and form an opinion up to my standard of being able to generalize, I'd have to read a lot more than a single BBC article. That said, I'm willing to acknowledge that some portion of the overall sentiment against him is probably ill founded. And much of it is probably well founded.

 

[Pat Hartman]

@Isaac,
We have the best Congress money can buy. This is bi-partisan. I think the Democrats are slightly worse but maybe because there's just more of them in the news these days. What differentiates the US from banana republics is that our police and most local municipal officials don't require graft to perform their functions. With Soros funding the political campaigns of prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crimes they don't consider serious, our larger cities are becoming destabilized and magnets for the homeless and petty criminals. The reason America has been the beacon of hope for the poor and downtrodden is because our public institutions were essentially "fair". You didn't have to pay to play although money has always been a fine line between those who end up going free and those who end up in jail for the same crime. The left assumes it is "systemic racism" but it is much closer to class differences. People with money show up to court all shined up in suits and fresh haircuts represented by good lawyers whereas poor people show up disheveled with overworked public attorneys who may not even know their names. Perception is everything.

But at some point, the balance tips and people get fed up with some crimes being prosecuted and others ignored and so society disintegrates. Do you want to live in a world like Seattle where hooligans deface buildings with graffiti and the prosecutor won't prosecute them because apparently defacing private property isn't a crime, so they go free but the property owners get fined if they don't clean that graffiti off their buildings in a timely manner because owning a building covered with graffiti is a crime????? Where are the thought police when you really need them? I need to take my meds.

 

[Isaac]

@Pat Hartman I can't find any particular portion of your post that I disagree with, so we are on the same page there.

This discussion (along with a lot of recent news), does "open my eyes" (not that I didn't know about this, but I had failed to categorize it as a major weaponized strategy to practice one's politics.....On both sides)--to the very relevant category of District Attorneys.

You have the cops that decide who to arrest, and sometimes charge.....You have judiciary appointments that often apply their unique constitutional and interpretive (and contextual) standards, etc. etc... But one thing that is coming to light from recent months' developments is the large role that District Attorneys play in applying their politics. So I appreciate you bringing it up - clearly it's a BIG one. Their decision of when and how to charge is a major expression of either conservative, liberal, or centrist views on all kinds of things from A to Z.

Lastly my view on systemic racism. I believe it exists in a few limited, specific contexts. Perhaps it has existed in the way people convicted for identical crimes have been sentenced. 80% of it (the way "it" is typically defined among those who preach its evils), is complete nonsense. One random example is "x-demographic has 50% the home ownership rate as y-demographic". Well geez, we all know how people qualify for a mortgage. Time/consistency on the job, income to support the mortgage, perhaps 2.5% saved as cash, and credit score. That's it! Period, end of story.

Thus, if x-demographic is failing to qualify at greater rates, x-demographic needs to understand it's because of time on the job, income to support the mortgage and credit score. The solution to the problem isn't to hand free houses to x-demographic, nor to regulate new mandates on mortgage lenders to give x "special privileges" or advantages over the rest of the population. It's to spend a while being consistent on a job, pay bills back on time for a while to increase credit score, save 2.5% cash, etc.

Progressives continue to focus on pushing laws that guarantee outcomes. I'm all for NGO programs that help a particular demographic achieve more.
In a hypothetical situation where x-demographic in a college is achieving lower grades in some class: For liberals, the solution to that "systemic differentiation in outcome" would be to require professors to give those students better grades. For conservatives, the solution would involve an inward-focused study on how those students can actually perform up to qualification for the grade--(most likely, a study sponsored and run by people WITHIN the group, since self-improvement is nobody's business but your own). This basic difference in worldview pretty much explains almost all of today's controversy.

Can you imagine how empowered and REALLY helped, groups who have consistently underachieved, would be, if people from WITHIN their own groups would finally tell them "This is a self inflicted wound, and we can heal it by learning how to qualify for whatever this outcome is!", and then work with them on accomplishing/improving that? And I know that there are some organizations who are doing just that. To those, I applaud you. In a non-communist society, THAT is the one, single way of achieving. Self-qualification for the thing you seek.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I recently ordered a book which just arrived this morning. "The Color of Law", Richard Rothstein, 2017. It seems to be well annotated and discuses systematic segregation in the US. It appears to be written by someone with a left leaning bent. I haven't actually read the book so I can't comment on it but what I want to know and can't seem to find out is WHO directed the segregation? Did Congress write laws segregating the races? Did state legislatures write these laws? Or was there some "ol' boys network" in the "deep state" that decided to implement segregation on their own? Integration seems to have been well under way in the US until Woodrow Wilson (d) brought segregation back with a vengeance.

A lot of well meaning policies pushed by the left to "help" blacks have had disastrous affects and hurt rather than helped poor black people. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the unintended consequences were not actually intentional. Somehow in government, no one ever thinks to include any provisions for actually measuring the effectiveness of laws or policies and include provisions to sunset them if they fail certain metrics.

 

[NauticalGent]

A well thought out and developed plan to keep us fighting with each other and divert out attention away from "them"

 

[Isaac]

A well thought out and developed plan to keep us fighting with each other and divert out attention away from "them"

Like which particular thing are you referring to when you say that? Trying to understand