Soros

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/05/bankroller-of-democratic-voting-rights-cases-george-soros/?google_editors_picks=true

There are so many side stories of people connected to the Democrats and Republicans. I always hear about the Koch brothers and George Soros. So I decided to see if there is an article out there that compares their so called shenanigans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle-koch-brothers/

Just a side story on the financing of Dems and Reps.

Regarding voting, I feel if you want to vote you can and will vote. No matter where you live. Sure, maybe some issues in some precincts but it's not from "shore to shore."

I really am trying to get past the hype of the media and the hype of parties - neither have the issues of the American public at heart. It's all about money and power.

We all need a good sifter...

There's a major difference... soros wishes to diminish america. He wants to see the dollar decline, the borders open, capitalism supplanted with socialism... etc. He was a nazi sympathizer, crashed sovereign foreign currencies for profit (uk) and to ruin their ability to counter russian domination. He is strongly anti-american... he should be striped of his citizenship and deported imo.

“Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”

And that type of talk always takes me back to G. H. W. Bush and his New World Order.  

I think there are backers on both sides for this to happen.  We just knee jerk to someone like Soros who is so vocal about it.

Don't take that I'm calling you a knee jerker. Just saying it CAN be that type of reaction - such is politics.

" I think you put your finger on a very important flaw in the current world order,and that is that only Americans have a vote in Congress. And yet,it is the United States that basically determines policy for the world. That is a flaw in the current set up."

"Managed decline of the dollar" http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uYtdxpLr9Rw

at 0:15 he talks about a the creation of a new world financial order at 3:28 he says “an orderly decline of the dollar is actually desirable” at 3:39 he talks about the need for a new global currency at 4:16 he says he thinks it is “ill considered on the part of the United States to resist” at 7:31 he says “it’s in our interest as well to reform the system” as a “healthy, painful adjustment that the world has to move through” at 8:19 he begins to talk about how the dollar’s “use will decline” at 9:05 he says “certainly a decline in the value of the dollar is necessary in order to compensate for the fact that the US economy will remain rather weak” at 10:06 his conclusion to all of this is that “there will be a slow decline in the value of the dollar. A managed decline. And that would be the adjustment that needs to be accomplished”

There's no need for a knee jerk... he makes himself perfectly clear.

“I Fancied Myself As Some Kind Of God. I have always harboured an exaggerated view of my self-importance. To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein. My sense of reality was strong enough to make me realise that these expectations were excessive, and I kept them hidden as a guilty secret. This was a source of considerable unhappiness through much of my adult life. As I made my way in the world, reality came close enough to my fantasy to allow me to admit my secret, at least to myself. Needless to say, I feel much happier as a result. I have had these illusions, or perhaps delusions, of grandeur and they have driven me. My goal is to become the conscience of the world. So That’s What I’m All About. I Am A Kind Of Nut."

Soros Wrote That September 11 th Terrorist Attacks “Could Not Have Been More Spectacular.” “Hijacking fully fueled airliners and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and its execution could not have been more spectacular.”

Can one man with money have that much influence? Or two brothers with money?

Linda wrote:

Can one man with money have that much influence? Or two brothers with money?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237

And when we look at the Koch Brothers' list of influence?

It may not be dollar for dollar or influence for influence but I'd would step out on a limb and say both sides are equally working fast toward their own idea of what America should or should not be.

Do you see any difference between their agendas? I may be wasting my time.

Sure there is a difference in agenda. One wants socialism and the other for America to remain business minded.

I think it is abhorrent that the Koch brothers will spend more on the upcoming election than the Republicans spent in the last general election.

What is worse is George Soros. He spends butt-loads of money and his intentions (in my opinion) are insidious.

Hypothetically speaking, if I was tasked to kill either the Kochs or Soros, hands-down it would be Soros.

He already looks like evils dead body. What makes a man so hateful ? What fate makes him so powerful.

People who are beyond the political system make him powerful. They meet in obscure places and smoke cigars and plan the takeover of the world.

That's cool Eric that way I get to take out 2

Linda wrote:

Can one man with money have that much influence?  Or two brothers with money?

Again....Mr Soros a democratic financier and supporter... reported that he and his PAC are $7.3 Billion behind in taxes and yet continues to fund his party of choice...Just a little truth....if the Koch Brothers [not a supporter] were behind in their taxes would it be handled the same and would the candidates accepting their donations not be raked over the coals?...Yes all can be viewed as wrong for the amounts of money that they spend on candidates/lobbying etc., but research just what Mr Soros is and has been up to and it becomes clear of his intentions....

Conservatives defend the Koch Brothers because they are on the conservatives "side."

So blinded by partisan politics folks can't see the evil exists on both yet only rail against one side. Seems hypocritical to me.

We need something different. Like honesty but then that doesn't deliver world power.

Linda wrote:

Conservatives defend the Koch Brothers because they are on the conservatives "side."  

So blinded by partisan politics folks can't see the evil exists on both yet only rail against one side.  Seems hypocritical to me.

We need something different.  Like honesty but then that doesn't deliver world power.  

   In the post indicated that not a supporter of the Koch brothers but should they be identified as attempting to hijack democracy for socialism then their level of involvement should also be questioned/scrutinized but doubt it could be increased any higher in the media...They get roasted and Soros gets toasted in the media...Soros makes no attempt to hide his agenda and his desires and again should a lawbreaker/tax fraud be afforded with so much influence?...Doubt the IRS will go after his PAC and himself anytime soon...Not a problem if he wants to spend his money but he should not be allowed to do so until he is in compliance with the tax code...

Big money influencing elections is a major problem. Part of the problem are apathetic voters who won't bother trying to research issues before deciding who to vote for. Another is the cost of media advertising for national elections. Getting a message out is enormously expensive which is why the elected ones spend the majority of their time begging for donations instead of legislating. Rich folks don't hand over piles of money to politicians without an agenda - they want something. Both R's and D's are guilty of influence peddling but when the head of the FEC makes a public statement like this the only solution is to change campaign finance laws.

"WASHINGTON — The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?_r=0

nochain wrote:

Big money influencing elections is a major problem. Part of the problem are apathetic voters who won't bother trying to research issues before deciding who to vote for. Another is the cost of media advertising for national elections. Getting a message out is enormously expensive which is why the elected ones spend the majority of their time begging for donations instead of legislating. Rich folks don't hand over piles of money to politicians without an agenda - they want something. Both R's and D's are guilty of influence peddling but when the head of the FEC makes a public statement like this the only solution is to change campaign finance laws.

"WASHINGTON — The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?_r=0

mediawatcher wrote:

Linda wrote:

Conservatives defend the Koch Brothers because they are on the conservatives "side."  

So blinded by partisan politics folks can't see the evil exists on both yet only rail against one side.  Seems hypocritical to me.

We need something different.  Like honesty but then that doesn't deliver world power.  

   In the post indicated that not a supporter of the Koch brothers but should they be identified as attempting to hijack democracy for socialism then their level of involvement should also be questioned/scrutinized but doubt it could be increased any higher in the media...They get roasted and Soros gets toasted in the media...Soros makes no attempt to hide his agenda and his desires and again should a lawbreaker/tax fraud be afforded with so much influence?...Doubt the IRS will go after his PAC and himself anytime soon...Not a problem if he wants to spend his money but he should not be allowed to do so until he is in compliance with the tax code...

So you think the same laws that apply to us [havenots] apply to Soros/Koch.
''COME ON MAN''