Why Trump's Supporters Hate George Soros
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
I read your response, which I thank you for. But I was unable to understand it. The best thing I believe for anyone who wants to correctly understand Soros's Open Society Foundations is to read a book about them. There is a good one available on Amazon entitled "The Philanthropy of George Soros." I can recommend that one. There is in that book, if I remember correctly, it's been a long time since I read it, a long forward by George Soros himself.
Have you read any of Soros's books?. This is the only way to get an accurate picture of his philosophy and what his philantropic activities are all about. The social media, you tube, etc. are largely cluttered with misinformation when it comes to Soros. It may be that the original source of much of this are operatives in totalitarian governments that he opposes..
The article I linked to is accurate.
We don't need to read soros propaganda. We only need to know what he chooses to fund. It is a list of the most despicable organizations in the country.
George Soros Open Society is one where people are not allowed to disagree with Obama or it's racist and conservative speakers are prohibited on college campuses and trump rallies feature things being thrown at them by the antifa thugs.
I also can't forget that the media is in cahoots with the democratic party and offers behind the scenes strategy to them, clears stories with them, and carries water for them.
An 'authoritarian' society is one where people are protected from violent opposition when they speak and the press is called out for the fake news it is.
These are the main differences between george soros open society and trump's authoritarianism.
I also can't forget that the media is in cahoots with the democratic party and offers behind the scenes strategy to them, clears stories with them, and carries water for them.
An 'authoritarian' society is one where people are protected from violent opposition when they speak and the press is called out for the fake news it is.
These are the main differences between george soros open society and trump's authoritarianism.
The article fails as the author incorrectly presumes people make decisions with so few axis. They don't.
The refugees are coming from countries that western governments have destroyed .Sensible reasoning tells us these poor people may tend to be a little hostile and see us as the enemy ( who can blame them)and will provide terror attacks for years to come. Why should the innocent people of Europe put themselve's in ever increasing danger of criminality and terrorist attacks if they don't wish to be due to empiristic ambitions?(The French pm told the French people to get used to terror attacks).
All of which has lead to a police state. (to keep us safe of course)
Maybe the author should do a morally superior piece on the outcome of what Obama and Hillary (who soros has given millions to)did to Libya or how these humanitarian disasters are created? Here's one from the Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-public-slave-auctions-un-migration
Refugees require scarce resources and if the people of Europe don't wish their tax contributions to be used for that purpose then the state must engage in theft which is corruption and once a government and it’s citizens have different interests then the government must also engage in oppression - Totalitarianism.
Soros you say opposes totalitarianism but then is advocating totalitarianism at the same time in Europe.
If you meant for political campaigns, that's illegal isn't it? I mean if it is for political campaign purposes I think there is a strict limit. He can spend much more money under his own name but I think there are strict limits on contributions to specific candidates. Not that it matters. You can always give to the party. Or spend on your own TV ads or form a PAC.
We'd have a lot less crazy stuff being put out on ET and social media if people would take 5 minutes to check out their crazy statements.
http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#How_much_can_I_contribute
Last edited:
Anyone can make wild accusations, but if your going to expect anyone to believe them, shouldn't you support them in some way? A link perhaps. Or a quote from Soros in context would be nice. I have already called your attention to the many books that offer specific evidence for and official statements regarding the goals and activities of the Open Society foundations which Soros supports. In addition, as I have mentioned, you are free to inspect the annual reports of the foundations . That will tell you where the money goes and how much.
pie, take the red pill.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/soros-eu-refugees/
Soros: EU Should Accept One Million Refugees & Spend $17B Annually
Thank you for posting this. I have taken the liberty of appending Soros' article. Soros has done more for those ravaged by war than any other living person. Please read his article below. I may try and move this to the economics forum where it belongs.
By George Soros.
Rebuilding the Asylum System
NEW YORK – The European Union needs to accept responsibility for the lack of a common asylum policy, which has transformed this year’s growing influx of refugees from a manageable problem into yet another political crisis. Each member state has selfishly focused on its own interests, often acting against the interests of others. This precipitated panic among asylum seekers, the general public, and the authorities responsible for law and order. Asylum seekers have been the main victims.
The EU needs a comprehensive plan to respond to the crisis, one that reasserts effective governance over the flows of asylum-seekers so that they take place in a safe, orderly way, and at a pace that reflects Europe’s capacity to absorb them. To be comprehensive, the plan has to extend beyond the borders of Europe. It is less disruptive and much less expensive to maintain potential asylum-seekers in or close to their present location.
As the origin of the current crisis is Syria, the fate of the Syrian population has to be the first priority. But other asylum seekers and migrants must not be forgotten. Similarly, a European plan must be accompanied by a global response, under the authority of the United Nations and involving its member states. This would distribute the burden of the Syrian crisis over a larger number of states, while also establishing global standards for dealing with the problems of forced migration more generally.
Here are the six components of a comprehensive plan.
First, the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly – a principle that a qualified majority finally established at last Wednesday’s summit.
Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states. It can raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity, which will have the added benefit of providing a justified fiscal stimulus to the European economy.
It is equally important to allow both states and asylum-seekers to express their preferences, using the least possible coercion. Placing refugees where they want to go – and where they are wanted – is a sine qua non of success.
Second, the EU must lead the global effort to provide adequate funding to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey to support the four million refugees currently living in those countries.
Thus far, only a fraction of the funding needed for even basic care has been raised. If education, training, and other essential needs are included, the annual costs are at least €5,000 per refugee, or €20 billion. EU aid today to Turkey, though doubled last week, still amounts to just €1 billion. In addition, the EU also should help create special economic zones with preferred trade status in the region, including in Tunisia and Morocco, to attract investment and generate jobs for both locals and refugees.
The EU would need to make an annual commitment to frontline countries of at least €8-10 billion, with the balance coming from the United States and the rest of the world. This could be added to the amount of long-term bonds issued to support asylum-seekers in Europe.
Third, the EU must immediately start building a single EU Asylum and Migration Agency and eventually a single EU Border Guard. The current patchwork of 28 separate asylum systems does not work: it is expensive, inefficient, and produces wildly inconsistent results in determining who qualifies for asylum. The new agency would gradually streamline procedures; establish common rules for employment and entrepreneurship, as well as consistent benefits; and develop an effective, rights-respecting return policy for migrants who do not qualify for asylum.
Fourth, safe channels must be established for asylum-seekers, starting with getting them from Greece and Italy to their destination countries. This is very urgent in order to calm the panic. The next logical step is to extend safe avenues to the frontline region, thereby reducing the number of migrants who make the dangerous Mediterranean crossing. If asylum-seekers have a reasonable chance of ultimately reaching Europe, they are far more likely to stay where they are. This will require negotiating with frontline countries, in cooperation with the UN Refugee Agency, to establish processing centers there – with Turkey as the priority.
The operational and financial arrangements developed by the EU should be used to establish global standards for the treatment of asylum-seekers and migrants. This is the fifth piece of the comprehensive plan.
Finally, to absorb and integrate more than a million asylum seekers and migrants a year, the EU needs to mobilize the private sector – NGOs, church groups, and businesses – to act as sponsors. This will require not only sufficient funding, but also the human and IT capacity to match migrants and sponsors.
The exodus from war-torn Syria should never have become a crisis. It was long in the making, easy to foresee, and eminently manageable by Europe and the international community. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has now also produced a six-point plan to address the crisis. But his plan, which subordinates the human rights of asylum-seekers and migrants to the security of borders, threatens to divide and destroy the EU by renouncing the values on which it was built and violating the laws that are supposed to govern it.