Time for for a long, hard and detailed look at George Soros

I make no accusations against Mr. Soros for the simple reason that I have no evidence of wrong-doing.  Even so, the eye-watering amount of money he possesses, some of which he shifts hither and thither via the offices of his so-called Open Society Foundations, needs to be looked at - in detail!  If, like Bill Gates' distribution of funds, Soros' 'zillions' go to charities then three cheers and give that man a Knighthood.  If, however, 'yuuuuuuuge' amounts are being pumped into political organisations then we need to know which ones - and why?

Jes' sayin'!

 

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

George Soros is an enemy financier. He funds militant groups and politicians and new district attorneys who are hostile to the rule of law, Western values, national borders. He is pro globalist, anti border, anti anything Anglo American. There is little difference between him funding anti Western agitation and wealthy Arabs funding radical Islam. He is just white European.

[missred]

and don't forget this: By September 16, 1992, the day of Black Wednesday, Soros's fund had sold short more than $10 billion in pounds,[62] profiting from the UK government's reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or float its currency.

Finally, the UK withdrew from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, devaluing the pound. Soros's profit on the bet was estimated at over $1 billion.[70] He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England".[71] The estimated cost of Black Wednesday to the UK Treasury was £3.4 billion.[72] Stanley Druckenmiller, who traded under Soros, originally saw the weakness in the pound and stated: "[Soros's] contribution was pushing him to take a gigantic position."[73][74]

[Whitewall]

Missred, I remember that well.

[Loz]

So do I. The girlf I was with at the time wept solidly for days when interest rates went up to 15% and her monthly mortgage payment wiped her disposal out and more.

By shorting the pound and hooking Blighty out of the ERM we have Soros to thank for us not entering the Euro. The benefit of not hitching your currency to the Deutschmark if you're a feckless, incompetent, negligent state was all too obvious everyone.

I was pleased with Soros's result too at the time. Free floating currencies, the economic darling of Libertarianism, 'n' all that.

But nowadays I wonder if being obliged to some degree of competence and Teutonic "System, System, System!" might have been a worthwhile disciplinary regime for Blighty to cling on to.

Like Ireland today, being obliged to keep up with the Jerries has served the Paddies rather well. Low tax, steep GDP growth, high income per capita, the very living evidence that the whinging of the PIGS about the impossibility of internal devaluation and austerity leading to growth and prosperity is BS.

Fact is Soros called out the truth and revealed to everyone what was obvious to many since 1945: that Blighty was (and still is) a negligently governed state that couldn't do through self-will what was required to compete with the Jerries. The market would have to do it to her.

Soros spared Blighty the more complete collapse and bankruptcy that would have ensued as Blighty failed to implement the necessary internal devaluation and austerity program - a good thing, but put Blighty on the path to Blairite "There's no money left" economics that culminated in the financial crisis of 2007/8 being an order of magnitude more painful than it should have been -a bad thing.

So, Soros bucking Blighty off out of the ERM / Euro: Good or bad thing? Dunno. We were rubber ducked either way, because no matter what mitigating tricks you employ, like free floating exchange rates, bad governance will get you in the end.

SoD

[Bob]

How terribly unfair that a billionaire finances liberal causes. He should by all means be investigated. And while we're at it, these billionaires that finance Republican and right wing causes should be investigated too:

The Koch family, Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Paul Singer, Robert Mercer, Woody Johnson, Norman Braman, Ken Langone, Joe Ricketts, Peter Thiel

[Whitewall]

Bob, if only those causes were "liberal" instead of anarchist leftist.

[Wigner’s Friend]

Duffers,

Watch it mate, you’re on his list now!

[Glesga]

Bob, do those people fund terrorist groups and or is the GOP a terrorist funder.

[David Duff]

It all depends, Bob, on what you mean by "liberal causes"!

[Bob]

Glesga,

Depends on your definition. An insanely biased person might say so. The Republicans certainly spend and take billions to defeat democracy and civil rights and to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone and everything else. They're also the current home of the War Party. For example, when Mattis stepped down as Secretary of Defense (he wasn't fired as Trump lied yesterday) a possible replacement was Tom Cotton:

"A familiar name is said to be on the short list: Sen. Tom Cotton. Cotton, a rigid ideologue and unreconstructed neoconservative, might be on an odd fit in certain ways. Trump just got done bickering with Mattis over the president’s desire to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. Cotton never met an intervention he didn’t like ..."

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2018/12/21/tom-cotton-mentioned-as-possible-new-secretary-of-defense

[Bob]

David,

Here's a list of Soros' projects:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros

Which ones do you think aren't liberal by the 21st century definition?

[Glesga]

Bob, I was around when Kennedy escalated the Vietnam War in the interest of the USA. Trump is up front about the interests of the USA. So why is Kennedy the good guy and Trump the bad guy? Does Trump need a larger body count to get credibility. And Obama was hardly a liberal when it came to sending in the troops. Trump has not obtained the foreign body count that his predecessors obtained. Trump wants fair trade.

[Bob]

Glesga,

If you only consider military body count Trump might win, but his inaction in the pandemic killed more people than the total from the Vietnam War. And if you think he's got no military body count, you're wrong:

"As of July 27, 2018, there have been 2,372 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan. 1,856 of these deaths have been the result of hostile action. 20,320 American service members have also been wounded in action during the war. In addition, there were 1,720 U.S. civilian contractor fatalities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan

Trump, like Obama, inherited the mess in the ME from Bush II. I somewhat agree with Trump's positions on trade, at least as far as I can understand them. They are a bit uneven.

Trying to reduce presidents to good guys and bad guys is mostly meaningless. However, General Mattis did just call Trump divisive and a threat to the Constitution. As far as I know he's no bleeding heart liberal leftist.

[Loz]

As far as I know he's no bleeding heart liberal leftist.

Well I beg to differ, Bob, here's Mattis ...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/deroy-murdock-mattis-ignored-history-denouncing-trump

'We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers.'

Small number of lawbreakers?! Wtf?! The US is being shredded by thousands of rioters and looters and Mattis calls them "a small number of lawbreakers"!

And if a "small number of lawbreakers" should be ignored, why should anyone get fussed over one cop's misdemeanour (if it even was a misdemeanour)?

And then, with the commentator's response included here, Mattis says ...

'At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so on very rare occasions by state governors,' as opposed to federal governors, I suppose.

"This is the Insurrection Act of 1807. It's been used by 12 different presidents from Jefferson all the way to George H.W. Bush. One of those occasions was by the Democrat hero Lyndon Baines Johnson. He actually brought in the military -- guess what? -- to put down riots in Washington, D.C," he said.

"So General Mattis really should have picked up a couple of his history books."

So Mattis is somewhere to the left of Dem hero Lyndon Johnson.

SoD

[Bob]

SoD,

Mattis as lefty is as silly as the Libertarian police state you also believe in.

The criticism from the military and others continues to grow and now includes former Joint Chiefs:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Retired-generals-voice-grave-concerns-over-15318501.php

The idea the US is being "shredded" by rioters and vandals is melodramatic and shows how little you understand current events and the American experience.

[Glesga]

Bob, the difference between black and white criminals is the black criminals use the race card when caught. The whites have no opt out. It would be interesting to know how many whites are killed by black cops.

[Loz]

That very article you linked to quotes the generals saying they've never seen anything like this before. America is being shredded before our eyes.

The Insurrection Act has been used many times and for much less before, including by JFK and LJ ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

Jimmy's right, it's one rule for some and another for the rest in the Dem world, ain't it? Happy to instigate a "police state" when they're in charge, but not when others are.

SoD

[Loz]

Jimmy, probably not that many - they're probably too busy killing blacks ...

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

93% of black homicide victims are black.

When 93% of black killings are perpetrated by blacks and "Black Lives Matter" then shouldn't even more law enforcement be directed towards the black community since it is they who are taking nearly all the black lives?

If black lives matter, police blacks more.

SoD

[Whitewall]

SoD, Jimmy,
You are both catching on. Black Lives Matter is a slogan when useful but then point out the stats like above and then ask why and all of a sudden it is 'shut up racist'. BLM the organization is a Maoist organization bent on anarchy and control of all they can get in the name of power. The idea of non violent protest was winning hearts and minds back in the early 1960s which allowed the passage of the Civil Rights acts of 64-65. Many on the Left and in the black community wanted more action right now and that gave way to "riot ideology". So they ignored MLK's words before he died and more so after. We are repeating the late 1960s and "riot ideology". This time liberal Democrats have been in control of too many urban centers for way too long and like anything they take over, rot dysfunction and ruin follow. This is what we are seeing now. 1960s liberalism allowed to run its course and display its track record for the whole world to see. Systemic Racism? The Democrat run cities and states are the System.

Something is needed to change the narrative because Democrat style social liberalism can not be allowed to be a failure so there must be something else to point to for decades of promises made but only failure. Black voters must be kept on the Plantation. After all, these urban Democrats must hold on to their power no matter what.

What is the real problem then? Ah, white people, "White Privilege", cops, centuries of slavery, unequal public education, etc. The MSM networks are in tight with the protesters, rioters and looters. They are not only covering them, they are covering for them to their readers and viewers.