What exactly is the difference between the Kochs funding the GOP and Soros funding the Dems?

[natstew]

Biggest difference is Soros family collaboration with the Nazis, as far as I can see.

I thought that Soros was a Hungarian Jew who was sent to America by his father so that he wouldn't be murdered? Not that what his family may or may not have done necessarily means anything about the man himself, but do you have an original source for this claim?

George Soros, "I have no regrets for collaborating with the NAZI;s".
George Soros Says He Feels No Remorse For Collaborating With Nazis During WWII to Send His Fellow Jews to the Death Camps Steal Their Property

 

[OKTexas]

They can fund anything they like, as long as it isn't unlimited funds for elections, PACs, candidates, or political parties. That being allowed is a huge mistake, obviously.

They're both small potatoes compared to Unions yet I don't remember you criticizing them.

 

[mudwhistle]

The difference is that the Kochs spend a whole lot more than Soros does.

There's no moral difference, though.

Bullshit.

The Koch brothers gave $40 million to political candidates while Soros has supported Democrats and progressive groups with $5 billion, not to mention supporting Occupy-Wallstreet, the Ferguson riots, owns MoveOn.org, and Social Investment Fund Networks. Not to mention his Open Borders Society.

Links
Michelle Malkin The Democrat Party platform s hidden Soros Slush Fund

George Soros - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

George Soros The Man The Mind And The Money Behind MoveOn - Investors.com

 

[MisterBeale]

They can fund anything they like, as long as it isn't elections, candidates, or politics parties. That being allowed is a huge mistake, obviously.

I agree. The system can't work as intended if a few rich people are buying the outcome of the election before it's even held. Unfortunately, it's undeniable that this is what we're coming to. I commend liberals for condemning this. That's part of the reason why I also condemn their willingness to turn a blind eye to it so long as it supports their own agenda. I don't really support either the Kochs or Soros. I just think it's a bit hypocritical to say we need to get money out of politics while one has one's hand out for another hit of campaign funds.

What the Koch brothers do, and what Soros do are distractions. They fund partisan media, public interest groups, prop up PACs and donate to campaigns. All of these are done to influence elections. This is what "new" money does.

This is a convenient distraction for the serfs and the proletariat to argue about, as we can see in this thread. We can research on the internet, go to "OpenSecerets" and find out what their supposed influence is, etc. None of it makes much of a difference. If you study interest groups, the theory is, what ever one interest does, it will be countered by a different interest. Likewise, the voters, "supposedly" will make up their own minds.

There really isn't much difference. They are both piñatas for the blind partisans to whack with sticks.

This is basically the case with any public figure or public interest group. When we know where the funding is coming from, or what the interest group motivation is, it makes its influence null and void. This, in effect, makes this whole discussion in this thread, academic. All of us are aware of these aspects, even the partisans.

So the question is, why do ANY of us take Soros funded interest groups, OR Koch funded interest groups seriously? You have some in this thread defending or demonizing Soros, and others doing the same, defending or lambasting the Koch brothers. Hadn't it occurred to you, that these "new money" billionaires, are pretty much the same as you? They are still under the mistaken impression that elections matter.



However, there is SOME indication that Soros at least, has been invited at long last into the "old money" club.

Why? Because his views most closely mirror those of the old money philosophy. Those are reflected in Agenda 21.

How do the members of the ruling class manipulate and mold policy of the United States? They KNOW elections don't matter. They don't bother with trying to sway elections. What they do, is make sure that the candidates of BOTH parties will support and pass policies that are in line with a global new world order.

At the next election cycle, if a Republican President should take office, if you think that the ACA will be repealed, you are delusional. If you think a Republican President will resist Climate Change initiatives at the UN, again, you don't know the Agenda on the plate of the UN.

 

[MisterBeale]

How does old money control our government? They GIVE AWAY their money.

When billionaires give away their money, it can't be taxed. Look at Bill Gates, he's giving it all away. And Warren Buffet, the same. Why? Because politics is the game of rich men. Global politics? The game of kings. To play in the US, you have to pay the ultimate admission price.

Then they live lives of very modest means. Well, they still live very lavish lives, but their money works to radically change the political landscape. Not just nationally, but globally.

It does more than just influence elections, it changes the actual character of the nation.

It has done this in every sector of our national life. It has changed how we view the media, health care, education, crime prevention, EVERY SINGLE sector of society.

EVEN HOW YOU VIEW YOURSELF AND YOUR WORLD, has been changed by things called NON-PROFIT FOUNDATIONS.

United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations
United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"In the Dodd report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, he gave a definition of the word "subversive", saying that the term referred to "Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means." He then argued that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism. He stated, "The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the techniques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a premature effort to reduce our meager knowledge of social phenomena to the level of an applied science." He stated that his research staff had discovered that in "1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a "revolution". They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this "revolution" had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate." He stated that this revolution "could not have occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it ."[6]"



And this is still going on today. How we think about government, history, science and news has been twisted and warped by elites. Some of us instinctively get it, some of us don't.

Tax Exempt Foundations and Think Tanks: The Process of Invisible Power
Tax Exempt Foundations and Think Tanks The Process of Invisible Power Old-Thinker News

Foundations Today

In May of 2009 several top philanthropists met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University. David Rockefeller Jr, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey were all in attendance. According to the London Times, the meeting was so secret that, “…some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at ‘security briefings'”. The Times reports, “Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.” The Times interviewed a guest at the meeting, who said that the group wanted to meet in secret because they didn’t want their statements ending up in the media, “painting them as an alternative world government.”

A brief overview of the activities of these groups will show that they have been acting as an alternative world government, and that they have been for decades. Through their grant-making power and immense wealth, they can effectively choose which scientific research projects are funded, what education reforms are initiated, and in turn the entire direction of society at large.

 

[MisterBeale]

Here is just one example of the results of foundation influence. Foundations don't like the power of Churches and religious institutions over the thinking of Americans. Religious institutions, and religious affiliation was a great predictor of how someone would vote. So you see, if they can CREATE voters, they don't need to sway votes, or run candidates on particular issues, they can mold society the way they want by changing people.

If they can get government schools and media to control folks thinking, they have more power. So they had launched a concentrated campaign to create more agnostics and atheists. Here are the results. Pretty effective, eh?

I'd say your mind is not your own.

 

[hangover]

What exactly is the difference between the Kochs funding the GOP and Soros funding the Dems?

That's easy....the Kochs fund morons.

 

[paulitician]

Just depends on which political agenda you prefer. If you're a Communist/Progressive, you obviously enjoy seeing Soros' massive cash going to the Democratic Party. If you're Conservative-leaning, you obviously enjoy the Koch Brothers' cash going to the Republican Party. So, the only difference is in which political agenda you prefer.

Personally, the Koch Brothers' political beliefs are basically in line with my own. So i have no problem with them spending their own money on advancing their political beliefs. But i despise Soros and his Communist/Progressive agenda. So i don't like him having so much influence. It is what it is.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What exactly is the difference between the Kochs funding the GOP and Soros funding the Dems?


The Kochs are funding programs that largely obey the Constitution.

Soros is funding programs that mostly violate it.

 

[paulitician]

What exactly is the difference between the Kochs funding the GOP and Soros funding the Dems?


The Kochs are funding programs that largely obey the Constitution.

Soros is funding programs that mostly violate it.

Nominated for 'Post of the Year.' Thanks.

 

[Stephanie]

The difference for the Democrat base is:

Dirty Harry Reid said the Koch brothers is bad. and that's all they need to judge them..

no thinking required