I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
I propose a new PB rule: LEON IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING (usually a year ahead of everyone else) APART LIZ TRUSS AND WHAT3WORDS
That's more likely plain fraud, not sabotage. The companies sabotaged themselves by trying to cut corners.
As usual, you look for the more complicated explanation (classic midwit behaviour, to borrow the term you learned from your Twitter followings).
But, I’m right
I really do get an extraordinary number of long distance predictions exactly right and, to be polite, you never ever do
...
And what’s so tragic about @Leon ’s stupidity is that there’s a grain of truth within. There IS an issue here about some right wing anti-migration groundswell.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That is certainly true. He's given a huge amount of money to Democratic candidates via his own Super PAC.
And if the donations had been given by his PAC, that would be interesting. But 99% of those donations are just run of the mill giving money to candidates, in much the same way the Koch Brothers or Shelden or whoever gives lots of money to candidates they support.
The point I'm making is that journalists come out and say "CRAZY PERSON BACKED BY SOROS LINKED PAC", and it turns out that there was some piddling small donation from Soros that makes up a tiny proportion of their funding.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
Cleese has been all over the shop politically. He is a famous Lib Dem isn't he? But also notoriously non-PC and had a show on GBNews.
Is Putin "good at what he does" in invading Ukraine?
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".
I think you are overthinking it. It was clearly a trap and Farage realised it was, as Campbell will have had a awkward quote lined up, same with the Hitler / Nazis, they would have hit him with the Reform candidate forum postings about well they weren't all bad.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
Great question!
1. Labour 2. SDLP 3. Green 4. SNP 5. Sinn Fein 6. Plaid 7. APNI 8. Lib Dems 9. WPGB 10. UUP 11. Conservatives 12. DUP 13. Reform.
Hm. Easier to list the ones I really abhor than the ones I like. I'd go for: 13: SF 12: Green 11: WPGB 10: SNP
I have no view on APNI, UUP, DUP or SDLP apart from the fact that any of them are preferable to SF (or indeed Green, WPGB or SNP). I'd put Plaid in the same basket.
That leaves Lab, LD, Con or Reform, about whom it's hard to feel positive about any of. I would vote for any of them to keep any of the bottom four out though.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
I propose a new PB rule: LEON IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING (usually a year ahead of everyone else) APART LIZ TRUSS AND WHAT3WORDS
That's more likely plain fraud, not sabotage. The companies sabotaged themselves by trying to cut corners.
As usual, you look for the more complicated explanation (classic midwit behaviour, to borrow the term you learned from your Twitter followings).
But, I’m right
I really do get an extraordinary number of long distance predictions exactly right and, to be polite, you never ever do
...
And what’s so tragic about @Leon ’s stupidity is that there’s a grain of truth within. There IS an issue here about some right wing anti-migration groundswell.
Lol! In the spirit of admitting mistakes: I thought Truss would surprise on the upside, Theresa May would crush Corbyn, Corbyn would do surprisingly well against Boris, Trump would lose to Hilary, Ed Miliband would beat David Cameron. That's a pretty dreadful record!
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
Cleese has been all over the shop politically. He is a famous Lib Dem isn't he? But also notoriously non-PC and had a show on GBNews.
I presume its the get rid of the local Tory MP.
As I say, I was more taken about that the suggestion is he now lives in Weston-Super-Mare. I suspect that might not be true, rather that is where he is registered to vote as an overseas resident. But I might be wrong?
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
Great question!
1. Labour 2. SDLP 3. Green 4. SNP 5. Sinn Fein 6. Plaid 7. APNI 8. Lib Dems 9. WPGB 10. UUP 11. Conservatives 12. DUP 13. Reform.
Hm. Easier to list the ones I really abhor than the ones I like. I'd go for: 13: SF 12: Green 11: WPGB 10: SNP
I have no view on APNI, UUP, DUP or SDLP apart from the fact that any of them are preferable to SF (or indeed Green, WPGB or SNP). I'd put Plaid in the same basket.
That leaves Lab, LD, Con or Reform, about whom it's hard to feel positive about any of. I would vote for any of them to keep any of the bottom four out though.
1. Labour 2. LibDems 3. Green 4. SDLP 5. APNI 6. Sinn Fein 7. PC 8. SNP 9. WPGB 10. SDP 11. UUP 12. Conservatives 14. DUP 15. Reform
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
I propose a new PB rule: LEON IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING (usually a year ahead of everyone else) APART LIZ TRUSS AND WHAT3WORDS
That's more likely plain fraud, not sabotage. The companies sabotaged themselves by trying to cut corners.
As usual, you look for the more complicated explanation (classic midwit behaviour, to borrow the term you learned from your Twitter followings).
But, I’m right
I really do get an extraordinary number of long distance predictions exactly right and, to be polite, you never ever do
...
@Leon would love his right-wing conspiracy theories to be proven but it’s the usual tripe from him, as per these ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ridiculous comments about Great Saviour Liz TRUSS
A small percentage of young people may push right and equally a percentage will not. What does that thunderbrick do? He latches onto the small percentage as proof he’s right.
On Ukraine, I think the line from our leaders needs to be "we help Ukraine as much as we can for as long as they are fighting." It's very possible it ends in some form of negotiation, but we want Ukraine to be in as strong a position as possible should that happen.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Shall we follow the money?
I will be prepared to bet, if you like, that the PAC will take lots of donations, and that Soros will be a relatively small proprtion of it.
So the AP says that Soros donated $321,000 to a PAC promoting Alicia Walton in Arkansas.
Soros is a big donor to the Justice & Public Safety PAC, but he's not the only donor. I am unclear on whether he is basically the only big donor or how much the PAC gets money from other sources. I've seen one source saying the PAC gets most of its money from Soros, but most can mean anything from 51%-100%.
But, yes, Soros funded Walton's campaign to a large degree: not all of it, but a high proportion of it. I accept that. Given a choice between Walton and her opponent, personally I would happily have voted for Walton. I don't see anything showing Walton thinks rioting is fine.
(The US has mad crazy campaign finance laws. I don't think DAs should be elected, and I don't think elections should see so much money involved, but that's where the US is.)
Is Putin "good at what he does" in invading Ukraine?
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".
The "good at what he does, even if he has evil intent" line is also essentially a demand that people respect a strongman. It's honour amongst thieves. Trump expresses almost identical opinions.
Farage is Britain Trump, much more so than Boris. I don't get the sense he's as much of a scoundrel in his private life as Trump is (or Boris?), but politically they play things in exactly the same way. Similar also to Wilders.
Very different from the serious, hard nosed females in the populist space: Meloni, Le Pen, Marion-Mareschal, our own Suella, the Americans' own MTG. They are much frownier but also you sense less charlatan, more ideologue.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That is certainly true. He's given a huge amount of money to Democratic candidates via his own Super PAC.
And if the donations had been given by his PAC, that would be interesting. But 99% of those donations are just run of the mill giving money to candidates, in much the same way the Koch Brothers or Shelden or whoever gives lots of money to candidates they support.
The point I'm making is that journalists come out and say "CRAZY PERSON BACKED BY SOROS LINKED PAC", and it turns out that there was some piddling small donation from Soros that makes up a tiny proportion of their funding.
Even if everything you say is true, and everything I say is wrong, why is Soros donating anything at all to the crazy people? Especially when these crazy people get elected as DAs and think shoplifting and vagrancy shouldn’t be criminal matters.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
Our Cary Grant really.
He was ours, too. (Archie Leach, born in Bristol.)
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
Is Putin "good at what he does" in invading Ukraine?
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".
The "good at what he does, even if he has evil intent" line is also essentially a demand that people respect a strongman. It's honour amongst thieves. Trump expresses almost identical opinions.
Farage is Britain Trump, much more so than Boris. I don't get the sense he's as much of a scoundrel in his private life as Trump is (or Boris?), but politically they play things in exactly the same way. Similar also to Wilders.
Very different from the serious, hard nosed females in the populist space: Meloni, Le Pen, Marion-Mareschal, our own Suella, the Americans' own MTG. They are much frownier but also you sense less charlatan, more ideologue.
This is a very interesting observation, and I think you're right. The men are licensed rogues, but women l seem to need to be seen as more ideological, responsible, mothers of the house.
Perhaps something connected to Rightwingers preferring their gender roles more traditional, possibly.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That is certainly true. He's given a huge amount of money to Democratic candidates via his own Super PAC.
And if the donations had been given by his PAC, that would be interesting. But 99% of those donations are just run of the mill giving money to candidates, in much the same way the Koch Brothers or Shelden or whoever gives lots of money to candidates they support.
The point I'm making is that journalists come out and say "CRAZY PERSON BACKED BY SOROS LINKED PAC", and it turns out that there was some piddling small donation from Soros that makes up a tiny proportion of their funding.
Even if everything you say is true, and everything I say is wrong, why is Soros donating anything at all to the crazy people? Especially when these crazy people get elected as DAs and think shoplifting and vagrancy shouldn’t be criminal matters.
Official Republican policy is pretty much that nothing untoward happened on 6 January and everyone involved should be let out of prison. If you don't want to select DAs who turn a blind eye to rioting, don't vote for Republicans. They're the crazy people.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
I propose a new PB rule: LEON IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING (usually a year ahead of everyone else) APART LIZ TRUSS AND WHAT3WORDS
That's more likely plain fraud, not sabotage. The companies sabotaged themselves by trying to cut corners.
As usual, you look for the more complicated explanation (classic midwit behaviour, to borrow the term you learned from your Twitter followings).
But, I’m right
I really do get an extraordinary number of long distance predictions exactly right and, to be polite, you never ever do
...
And what’s so tragic about @Leon ’s stupidity is that there’s a grain of truth within. There IS an issue here about some right wing anti-migration groundswell.
Lol! In the spirit of admitting mistakes: I thought Truss would surprise on the upside, Theresa May would crush Corbyn, Corbyn would do surprisingly well against Boris, Trump would lose to Hilary, Ed Miliband would beat David Cameron. That's a pretty dreadful record!
Admirable honesty. You don't hear about most people's bad calls.
Is Putin "good at what he does" in invading Ukraine?
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".
I think you are overthinking it. It was clearly a trap and Farage realised it was, as Campbell will have had a awkward quote lined up, same with the Hitler / Nazis, they would have hit him with the Reform candidate forum postings about well they weren't all bad.
Well done to him for just blasting through it. Most listening will have nodded.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
He made his money by being right in the markets. That's the point. The markets' view of Truss was not about woke politics. It was about predicting what would happen to prices correctly.
I’m old enough to remember when I said “I suspect the Chinese are trying to sabotage Boeing” and the usual PB midwits scoffed at my conspiracy theorising
Et voila
“F.A.A. Investigating How Counterfeit Titanium Got Into Boeing and Airbus Jets The material, which was purchased from a little-known Chinese company, was sold with falsified documents and used in parts that went into jets from both manufacturers.”
I propose a new PB rule: LEON IS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING (usually a year ahead of everyone else) APART LIZ TRUSS AND WHAT3WORDS
That's more likely plain fraud, not sabotage. The companies sabotaged themselves by trying to cut corners.
As usual, you look for the more complicated explanation (classic midwit behaviour, to borrow the term you learned from your Twitter followings).
But, I’m right
I really do get an extraordinary number of long distance predictions exactly right and, to be polite, you never ever do
...
And what’s so tragic about @Leon ’s stupidity is that there’s a grain of truth within. There IS an issue here about some right wing anti-migration groundswell.
Lol! In the spirit of admitting mistakes: I thought Truss would surprise on the upside, Theresa May would crush Corbyn, Corbyn would do surprisingly well against Boris, Trump would lose to Hilary, Ed Miliband would beat David Cameron. That's a pretty dreadful record!
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Maybe it's a "Labour are home and dry here, I can boost the green message I believe in"?
Very much doubt the Greens will get 6% on the day, but who knows? Maybe a little bit of a dalliance from Red-Greens in safe Labour seats. Decent poll for Labour.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
He made his money by being right in the markets. That's the point. The markets' view of Truss was not about woke politics. It was about predicting what would happen to prices correctly.
But politics matters to a lot of people who are heavily invested in the UK economy. For example, Black Rock, who care enough about UK politics to retain George Osborne. Huge investors like that make the market weather, rather than merely respond to it.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Found it: it was not actually the Soros Foundation that gave money, but Soros Fund Mangement, and this electoral cycle it was...
Sorry: it's even more removed from Soros than you might think. That was $11,000 from individuals who worked for Soros Fund Management. So it literally might just be a couple of lawyers who turned up to a $5,000 a head dinner and paid for it with their own money.
So you mean that Viktor Orban, Ron De Santis, etc., etc. are full of shit?
Hardly news, is it.
By the way, note that RDS as ended his Mickey Mouse War with Disney. On turns similar to those offered Kaiser Bill & Co. in 1918.
Whole thing was just a dipshit political strategy. Like virtually the entire War on Woke.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That is certainly true. He's given a huge amount of money to Democratic candidates via his own Super PAC.
And if the donations had been given by his PAC, that would be interesting. But 99% of those donations are just run of the mill giving money to candidates, in much the same way the Koch Brothers or Shelden or whoever gives lots of money to candidates they support.
The point I'm making is that journalists come out and say "CRAZY PERSON BACKED BY SOROS LINKED PAC", and it turns out that there was some piddling small donation from Soros that makes up a tiny proportion of their funding.
Even if everything you say is true, and everything I say is wrong, why is Soros donating anything at all to the crazy people? Especially when these crazy people get elected as DAs and think shoplifting and vagrancy shouldn’t be criminal matters.
Official Republican policy is pretty much that nothing untoward happened on 6 January and everyone involved should be let out of prison. If you don't want to select DAs who turn a blind eye to rioting, don't vote for Republicans. They're the crazy people.
Err what?
The critism of Soros is that he’s funding people with very specific views, often in Democrat primaries against more moderate candidates, in safe Democrat cities.
It’s not Republican areas dealing with shoplifting and vagrancy, it’s San Francisco and Portland.
Anyway, it’s Friday night and the pub’s not going to drink itself dry.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Maybe it's a "Labour are home and dry here, I can boost the green message I believe in"?
Very much doubt the Greens will get 6% on the day, but who knows? Maybe a little bit of a dalliance from Red-Greens in safe Labour seats. Decent poll for Labour.
Tories now averaging below 20%. The death spiral continues.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That is certainly true. He's given a huge amount of money to Democratic candidates via his own Super PAC.
And if the donations had been given by his PAC, that would be interesting. But 99% of those donations are just run of the mill giving money to candidates, in much the same way the Koch Brothers or Shelden or whoever gives lots of money to candidates they support.
The point I'm making is that journalists come out and say "CRAZY PERSON BACKED BY SOROS LINKED PAC", and it turns out that there was some piddling small donation from Soros that makes up a tiny proportion of their funding.
Even if everything you say is true, and everything I say is wrong, why is Soros donating anything at all to the crazy people? Especially when these crazy people get elected as DAs and think shoplifting and vagrancy shouldn’t be criminal matters.
Official Republican policy is pretty much that nothing untoward happened on 6 January and everyone involved should be let out of prison. If you don't want to select DAs who turn a blind eye to rioting, don't vote for Republicans. They're the crazy people.
Err what?
The critism of Soris is that he’s funding people with very specific views, often in Democrat primaries against more moderate candidates, in safe Democrat cities.
It’s not Republican areas dealing with shoplifting and vagrancy, it’s San Francisco and Portland.
Much better to be a Republican area dealing with rural drug abuse and overdose epidemics...
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Maybe it's a "Labour are home and dry here, I can boost the green message I believe in"?
Very much doubt the Greens will get 6% on the day, but who knows? Maybe a little bit of a dalliance from Red-Greens in safe Labour seats. Decent poll for Labour.
Tories now averaging below 20%. The death spiral continues.
I’m now rooting for them to stay above the turquoise mob. It’s a bizarre feeling.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
Our Cary Grant really.
He was ours, too. (Archie Leach, born in Bristol.)
And rather more of a self-made man.
Yes indeed. Archibald Leach. Born into poverty in Bristol, ends up a mega star in golden age Hollywood playing smoothy romantic heroes. Talk about social mobility.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
He made his money by being right in the markets. That's the point. The markets' view of Truss was not about woke politics. It was about predicting what would happen to prices correctly.
But politics matters to a lot of people who are heavily invested in the UK economy. For example, Black Rock, who care enough about UK politics to retain George Osborne. Huge investors like that make the market weather, rather than merely respond to it.
Stand your ground. It’s absolutely valid to question soros’ integrity, probity and purpose. I find him quite sinister - and I actually had no idea he gave THAT much money to some quite cranky causes.
He got rich - or richer - tanking the British economy for a start. Nice. Not. And he just ahhhhh
[brilliant joke deleted here; you’ll just have to trust me]
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
He made his money by being right in the markets. That's the point. The markets' view of Truss was not about woke politics. It was about predicting what would happen to prices correctly.
More to the point, he isn't "one of the world's biggest investors". He's 93 and has given away most of his wealth.
Luckguy's logic gives a clue as to why he remains a Truss fan.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
He made his money by being right in the markets. That's the point. The markets' view of Truss was not about woke politics. It was about predicting what would happen to prices correctly.
But politics matters to a lot of people who are heavily invested in the UK economy. For example, Black Rock, who care enough about UK politics to retain George Osborne. Huge investors like that make the market weather, rather than merely respond to it.
Stand your ground. It’s absolutely valid to question soros’ integrity, probity and purpose. I find him quite sinister - and I actually had no idea he gave THAT much money to some quite cranky causes.
He got rich - or richer - tanking the British economy for a start. Nice. Not. And he just ahhhhh
[brilliant joke deleted here; you’ll just have to trust me]
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
Three Weddings? Was that the budget version?
Ha ha. I always found the wedding where he jilts Duck face at the altar very triggering, I've clearly erased it from my memory!
Is Putin "good at what he does" in invading Ukraine?
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".
If people wonder why you and I will leave the Tory Party if Farage joins this is why.
We're not letting that Putin enabling cuck represent us.
Yet you supported Cameron who gave Putin the idea of holding a referendum in Crimea.
Desperate, even worse than your anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Biden.
I am embarrassed for you.
This is a direct quote from David Cameron offering up parts of Ukraine to Russia as long as it was legitimated by a referendum. You ought to be embarrassed for yourself:
I tried to persuade him that there was a way of negotiating a peaceful outcome, respecting Russia’s interests in Ukraine. ‘We are having a referendum to see if Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom,’ I said. ‘You can have a referendum on Crimea’s membership of Russia, but it’s got to be fair and legal. What you’ve done is basically subvert the territorial integrity of another nation state.’ But he just didn’t accept that. It was as if we were sitting at the same chessboard but playing two completely different games.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
Our Cary Grant really.
He was ours, too. (Archie Leach, born in Bristol.)
And rather more of a self-made man.
Yes indeed. Archibald Leach. Born into poverty in Bristol, ends up a mega star in golden age Hollywood playing smoothy romantic heroes. Talk about social mobility.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
Despite my recent bitter comments, the order would be:
1. Conservative (through gritted teeth) 2. UUP 3. Reform 4. Labour 5. DUP 6. SDLP 7. LIB DEM 8. APNI 9. Plaid 10. SNP 11. Green 12. WPGB 13. Sinn Fein
Is Putin "good at what he does" in invading Ukraine?
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".
If people wonder why you and I will leave the Tory Party if Farage joins this is why.
We're not letting that Putin enabling cuck represent us.
Yet you supported Cameron who gave Putin the idea of holding a referendum in Crimea.
Desperate, even worse than your anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Biden.
I am embarrassed for you.
This is a direct quote from David Cameron offering up parts of Ukraine to Russia as long as it was legitimated by a referendum. You ought to be embarrassed for yourself:
I tried to persuade him that there was a way of negotiating a peaceful outcome, respecting Russia’s interests in Ukraine. ‘We are having a referendum to see if Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom,’ I said. ‘You can have a referendum on Crimea’s membership of Russia, but it’s got to be fair and legal. What you’ve done is basically subvert the territorial integrity of another nation state.’ But he just didn’t accept that. It was as if we were sitting at the same chessboard but playing two completely different games.
Putin was playing Risk and Cameron was playing Monopoly
You are seriously comparing snotty private schools with the coal miners?
Jesus wept
Snotty?
I see your prejudices are showing.
As a child of the 80s who grew up in South Yorkshire....
You sure you weren't packed off to boarding school?
No, my mother wouldn't have been able to cope with that.
Good for her!
I appreciate you didn't make the suggestion, the headmistress quoted by the Telegraph did, but you can surely see the ridiculousness of the comparison.
You are seriously comparing snotty private schools with the coal miners?
Jesus wept
Snotty?
I see your prejudices are showing.
As a child of the 80s who grew up in South Yorkshire....
You sure you weren't packed off to boarding school?
No, my mother wouldn't have been able to cope with that.
Good for her!
I appreciate you didn't make the suggestion, the headmistress quoted by the Telegraph did, but you can surely see the ridiculousness of the comparison.
Indeed.
Private schools are brilliant, the NUM quasi terrorists.
Latest EMA shows: share/seats Con 20.7%/63 Lab 41.6%/305 Ref 15.3%/3 LD 11.0%/61
Extrapolating slightly:
Loving the fact that the LDs on 11% would probably get more seats than the Tories on 20%. No wonder the Tories have been campaigning for PR for so long!
You are seriously comparing snotty private schools with the coal miners?
Jesus wept
Snotty?
I see your prejudices are showing.
As a child of the 80s who grew up in South Yorkshire....
You sure you weren't packed off to boarding school?
No, my mother wouldn't have been able to cope with that.
Good for her!
I appreciate you didn't make the suggestion, the headmistress quoted by the Telegraph did, but you can surely see the ridiculousness of the comparison.
Indeed.
Private schools are brilliant, the NUM quasi terrorists.
As they are so brilliant, they'll have no problem absorbing / passing-on the 20% VAT.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
Our Cary Grant really.
Cary Grant was our Cary Grant; he was from Birmingham afaik.
Edit - someone above beat me to it, and was more accurate.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
He made his money by being right in the markets. That's the point. The markets' view of Truss was not about woke politics. It was about predicting what would happen to prices correctly.
But politics matters to a lot of people who are heavily invested in the UK economy. For example, Black Rock, who care enough about UK politics to retain George Osborne. Huge investors like that make the market weather, rather than merely respond to it.
Stand your ground. It’s absolutely valid to question soros’ integrity, probity and purpose. I find him quite sinister - and I actually had no idea he gave THAT much money to some quite cranky causes.
He got rich - or richer - tanking the British economy for a start. Nice. Not. And he just ahhhhh
[brilliant joke deleted here; you’ll just have to trust me]
Soros == Musk
I’ve seen anti semitic theories about musk. Who isn’t even Jewish and is about 1/16th Jewish by ancestry
When protestors are throwing red paint at their branches and Kristallnacht-ing their windows, its possibly a sign that the pro-Hamas mob aren't the good guys. It starts with broken windows. We've all seen where it so easily ends.
It’s just all part of a wider idiocy. Every few months there’s a kerfuffle in the Guardian where a bunch of somebodies demand that art gallery x or theatre y stop accepting sponsorship and funding from oil company A.
Oil company A withdraws, gives its money to a theatre in somewhere with fewer precious arseholes.
A month later a kerfuffle in the guardian demanding financial help for art galleries and theatres. From the public purse of course because no right thinking corporate wants to sponsor cultural events anymore as they will inevitably be cancelled for something - Barclays for example in today’s fun and games.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
The Reform manifesto comes out next week I think. An opportunity for them to increase their votes by looking serious - but also an opportunity for them to be torn apart as they get more than the usual amount of scrutiny.
The Tories can use the old anti-Tory attack line that they want to destroy the NHS. Etc.
John Cleese has backed his local Labour candidate because the Conservative government “is the worst of my lifetime”. The Monty Python and Fawlty Towers star backed Daniel Aldridge in his hometown of Weston-super-Mare.
I thought he lived in the Caribbean?
I thought he was backing Reform?
I was told on here the other day that he backed the rump SDP.
Cleese was a big Liberal Party supporter back in the day, even appearing in an 'Alliance' PPB. Wonder what caused him to spurn the current Lib Dems.
Brexit.
At some point John Cleese and Basil Faulty became the same person.
Maybe they were always the one and the same?
I suspect to a significant extent, yes. The same perhaps with Coogan and Partridge. Perhaps as young men they created a parody of the thing they feared they would turn into.
Not sure that is true about Coogan. At the height of his fame was an arrogant man who thought he could do what he wanted, when he wanted and demanded the media to cover up all his bad behaviour. He used to phone up Andy Coulson and shout at him to write a particular version of a story. His whole vendetta came out of when Rebecca Brookes came in and said why do we keep spiking these stories of drink, drugs, hookers, bloody tell him to piss off and go big with the scandal.
Hugh Grant and the characters he now plays, I can believe that. He is a lot more cunning than the floppy haired plonker he always played in early days of his career.
Grant has always been a sublime actor. He's got better parts to get his teeth into now but he played the dashing leading man characters incredibly well, too. He made it look so easy one can miss how good he is in Three Weddings, Notting Hill etc.
Three Weddings? Was that the budget version?
Ha ha. I always found the wedding where he jilts Duck face at the altar very triggering, I've clearly erased it from my memory!
And he also rejects Kristin Scott Thomas. I console myself with the fact that he was acting.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
Those figures give Reform just 3 seats when Baxtered, but must be close to that hypothetical point where they start to net gains in large numbers.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That fact makes it deeply dubious to try to shut down any mention of Soros' activities by smearing those discussing them publicly as indulging in anti-semitical dog-whistling. Far better to discuss their merits and demerits openly and not give oxygen to the dog-whistlers.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
He made his money by being right in the markets. That's the point. The markets' view of Truss was not about woke politics. It was about predicting what would happen to prices correctly.
But politics matters to a lot of people who are heavily invested in the UK economy. For example, Black Rock, who care enough about UK politics to retain George Osborne. Huge investors like that make the market weather, rather than merely respond to it.
Stand your ground. It’s absolutely valid to question soros’ integrity, probity and purpose. I find him quite sinister - and I actually had no idea he gave THAT much money to some quite cranky causes.
He got rich - or richer - tanking the British economy for a start. Nice. Not. And he just ahhhhh
[brilliant joke deleted here; you’ll just have to trust me]
Soros == Musk
I’ve seen anti semitic theories about musk. Who isn’t even Jewish and is about 1/16th Jewish by ancestry
Mmmm, I don't really care whether he's Jewish or not. It was in response to It’s absolutely valid to question [his] integrity, probity and purpose. I find him quite sinister - and I actually had no idea he gave THAT much money to some quite cranky causes. and the fact that you are a reflexive Musk stan.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
The Reform manifesto comes out next week I think. An opportunity for them to increase their votes by looking serious - but also an opportunity for them to be torn apart as they get more than the usual amount of scrutiny.
The Tories can use the old anti-Tory attack line that they want to destroy the NHS. Etc.
Can they? Its not working under the Tories anyway.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
Those figures give Reform just 3 seats when Baxtered, but must be close to that hypothetical point where they start to net gains in large numbers.
Yes, agreed. The key thing is where those votes are distributed, and I’m not sure models like Baxter are going to really pick up on that.
High teens-low 20s, I’d say they must be on for about 20-50 seats.
I wonder what it first was about the Putinist racist Nigel Farage that first attracted Putinguy into supporting him?
I reckon it might be to do with Nige dabbling with the Jew hatred.
Nigel Farage has been condemned by the UK’s main Jewish groups and MPs for repeatedly using language and themes associated with far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories, something for which he has been previously criticised.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Farage’s airing of claims about plots to undermine national governments, and his references to Goldman Sachs and the financier George Soros, showed he was seeking to “trade in dog whistles”.
The Brexit party leader, who has been criticised for agreeing to interviews with openly antisemitic US media personalities, was also condemned by the MPs who co-chair the all-party group against antisemitism.
Nigel Farage has been criticised for referring to “a powerful Jewish lobby” operating in America.
Mr Farage, who was presenting his phone-in show on the LBC network yesterday, took a call from someone identifying himself as “Ahmed” during a debate on Russian influence in last year’s US presidential election.
“How come there’s such an issue with Russia, and no one really highlighting AIPAC and the Israeli lobby and their involvement in American politics and elections”, the caller asked.
It is possible to reject anti-Semitism while also noting that the Jewish lobby has an unhealthy influence over Washington politics, making a free debate about Israel almost impossible for ambitious politicians, especially those on the right
This is not a critique of American Jews as some devious cabal. They are just very good at organising and influencing and have been doing it for decades. Many others could learn from them
It’s definitely not anti-Semetic to point out that George Soros is, through the Open Society Foundations, funding a lot of the woke nonsense in the US in recent years, including the District Attourneys who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM.
That link, nor https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/what-we-do/themes/justice , doesn't support your claim that Soros is funding "District Attourneys [sic] who refuse to prosecute shoplifting and phone theft, and who think that rioting is fine if it’s for a ‘noble cause’ like BLM."
Except that he did indeed fund the campaigns of a whole load of DAs who act like I said in practice.
Feel free to provide some details using reliable sources.
Soros has donated some money. To say he funded the campaigns exaggerates his input. To describe the DAs in the terms you did is often propaganda, not a fair summary of their actions. But without details, it is difficult to comment.
That last article: “ PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A local district attorney’s race in Maine wasn’t generating much attention until a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor with international name recognition suddenly took an interest.
A super PAC funded by George Soros, the billionaire investor, philanthropist and conspiracy-theory target, dropped $300,000 on behalf of the challenger, dwarfing the $70,000 combined that had been raised by both candidates until then.
The cash infusion — a stunning sum for a local race in Maine — shows how national groups are seeking to influence district attorney’s contests across the country. The spending highlights a mostly under-the-radar jostling for control of an office that some see as being on the front lines of the movement for criminal justice reforms.
Left-leaning groups have stepped in to fund candidates who support those reforms, while conservatives are pushing back amid concerns that crime in America’s cities is out of control.”
So, the issue I have with this is that some of Soros's foundations spend money very widely, and give a *lot* of very small (i.e. $2,000 or less) sums.
That means that there are a lot of PACs who get their primary funding from - say - Illinois Teachers, and who get a small sum from one of Soros's various bodies. And then suddenly the PAC is characterized as "a political action committee linked to a deep-pocketed liberal donor."
So, for example, Soros has given very liberally to Jewish charities. They've also (indirectly) given money to people who gave money to Hamas. Do we really believe Soros is backing Hamas?
When one gives out thousands - or perhaps tens of thousands - of these small donations, ones hand can be seen in anything.
This is the right wing equivalent of the left wing Facebook posts I get about how a Conservative donor gave money to a political party, and then a company owned by their fund got a contract. And I'm thinking... are you crazy? This is a man with an investment fund and hundreds of holdings... statistically, one of his companies is going to get a government contract at some point.
That AP article talks about a $300k donation from Soros to a single DA campaign.
Of all the US news outlets, I’d expect the AP (like the BBC) to avoid over-editorialising and stick to the facts.
No, it doesn't.
It talks about a PAC that received funding from Soros.
The Justice & Public Safety PAC is a big money raiser in progressive judicial circuits. They do $5,000 a plate dinners where wealthy attorneys donate money.
Now, I don't know exactly what proportion of money comes from one of Soros's Foundations, but I can certainly find out, because the Soros Foundations all publish their donation amounts (which makes them unusually open). PACs themselves almost never publish full donor lists.
Quote: “ In Arkansas, some $321,000 from Soros flowed through a PAC in a failed attempt to help Alicia Walton beat Will Jones in a race last month for prosecutor in a judicial district that includes Little Rock, the state capital. Special interest money cut both ways in the race to fill an open seat, with a pair of Republican billionaires spending $316,000 to support Jones.”
$321,000 from Soros.
Annoyingly, the article doesn't mention the name of the PAC in Arkansas, so we can't pull the details ourselves. But there is a general habit of journalists of assuming that a PAC that recieved money from Soros recieved all, or even most, of its money from Soros.
If you go to OpenSecrets, they catalog all the Soros donations by amount and by year (because Soros publishes all that information), and you can see that the sums are often trivially small.
Okay:
Newsweek FactCheck 2022.
“Campaign finance data from the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), compiled by OpenSecrets, shows that George Soros is indeed the single largest individual donor in the 2022 elections.
Soros contributed $128,485,971, all of it going to Democrats. Most of that funding went to the the super PAC Democracy II, which supports Democrats and liberal causes, according to CNBC's report.”
He’s unquestionably the single biggest political donor in the US. He’s not giving a few thousand here and there by turning up to dinners, he’s giving more than a hundred million dollars to a mid-season campaign.
That is certainly true. He's given a huge amount of money to Democratic candidates via his own Super PAC.
And if the donations had been given by his PAC, that would be interesting. But 99% of those donations are just run of the mill giving money to candidates, in much the same way the Koch Brothers or Shelden or whoever gives lots of money to candidates they support.
The point I'm making is that journalists come out and say "CRAZY PERSON BACKED BY SOROS LINKED PAC", and it turns out that there was some piddling small donation from Soros that makes up a tiny proportion of their funding.
Even if everything you say is true, and everything I say is wrong, why is Soros donating anything at all to the crazy people? Especially when these crazy people get elected as DAs and think shoplifting and vagrancy shouldn’t be criminal matters.
Well, in the case of the Maine DA race, he wasn't.
Employees of Soros Fund Management made a donation. Which we only know about because Soros imposes extremely strict disclosure requirements on its staff. They made a donation to a PAC (or paid for seats at a dinner), and then that PAC made a donation to the crazy people.
That is several degrees of separation. Unless you believe Soros instructed his employees to donate to a PAC, and then called the PAC to demand they spent 30x the donation on the race with the crazy person.
This whole issue happens because journalists chase clicks: and "Soros backed PAC" gets lots of clicks and outrage. Even when the connection to Soros is extremely tangential.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
I struggle a bit with ranking in a couple of places but I think I would do:
1. Lib Dems 2. APNI 3. Labour 4. SDLP 5. Plaid 6. Green 7. Conservative 8. SNP 9. UUP 10. Reform 11. DUP 12. SF 13. WPGB
I struggle most with the order of 6, 7 and 8. In another mood they might be the opposite way round.
Despite my recent bitter comments, the order would be:
1. Conservative (through gritted teeth) 2. UUP 3. Reform 4. Labour 5. DUP 6. SDLP 7. LIB DEM 8. APNI 9. Plaid 10. SNP 11. Green 12. WPGB 13. Sinn Fein
Hmmmm. Really hard one. At THIS election, ignoring second order things like preserving an opposition and a choice next time:
1. Labour 2. Conservative 3. Reform 4. UUP 5. LibDem 6. APNI 7. DUP 8. SDLP 9. SNP 10. Plaid 11. WPGB 12. Green 13. Shinners.
Is Putin "good at what he does" in invading Ukraine?
On any level, it would seem the answer is "he is shite, Nigel".
I think you are overthinking it. It was clearly a trap and Farage realised it was, as Campbell will have had a awkward quote lined up, same with the Hitler / Nazis, they would have hit him with the Reform candidate forum postings about well they weren't all bad.
It's only an awkward trap if you have praised the murderous tyrant in the past of course.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
Those figures give Reform just 3 seats when Baxtered, but must be close to that hypothetical point where they start to net gains in large numbers.
Which is why I am not selling Reform on the spreads.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
The Reform manifesto comes out next week I think. An opportunity for them to increase their votes by looking serious - but also an opportunity for them to be torn apart as they get more than the usual amount of scrutiny.
The Tories can use the old anti-Tory attack line that they want to destroy the NHS. Etc.
I think we will have to get a run of “Reform candidate tweeted something naughty” stories in the next week or so. It just feels like their rise cannot come without a bit of journalistic digging/scrutiny. Whether that has an impact or not, who knows. Probably might make some of the more traditional Tory voters wary of switching.
If Farage is savvy he’ll shelve any scary NHS policies and play it safe with Streeting-esque pledges to “involve the private sector” in clearing the backlog rather than going full radical privatise etc.
When will people ever learn, you give the extremists an inch, they take a mile...it is never enough, never, until the whole system has to be torn down.
All its doing is making ticket prices even more expensive.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
The Reform manifesto comes out next week I think. An opportunity for them to increase their votes by looking serious - but also an opportunity for them to be torn apart as they get more than the usual amount of scrutiny.
The Tories can use the old anti-Tory attack line that they want to destroy the NHS. Etc.
I saw a brief excerpt of Farage being interviewed on breakfast TV this morning. IIRC the Reform manifesto is out on Monday, and one of the key policies is an enormous raise in the personal allowance for income tax and/or NI. I can't remember quite which, but regardless it has a cost of £50bn. The idea is that it will mostly pay for itself by increasing the take home pay of working age people and getting a lot of them off benefits, and it will surely make a lot of right wing libertarians cream themselves, but I imagine that the other parties will question the maths...
Leeds band Pest Control wrote: “We cannot sacrifice the principles held by this band and by the scene we come from and represent, just for personal gain.”
As a result of their boycott, punk bands Speed, Scowl and Zulu also pulled out of the festival over the Barclays sponsorship, criticising the bank for the financial services it provides.
British metalcore band Ithaca joined the boycott on Tuesday evening.
As we idly speculate on the destruction and rebuilding of the party political system in the UK courtesy of Reform having a good opinion poll, a question.
Imagine the whole election were decided by everyone having a forced rank-choice vote for all parties, from best to worst. Keeping this to UK parties with at least one seat, how would you vote?
Coincidentally our eight-year old has been posing exactly the same question, usually in the form "if (X) party didn't exist, who would you vote for?" Followed by "but if (Y) party didn't exist...?".
We usually get about three parties down the list before saying "well, at that point I'd start my own party".
Would love to know which banks the artists use that don’t have any exposure to arms manufacturers who supply Israel directly or indirectly. They should get together and promote those banks. There are banks like that yes? The artists do use banks?
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Interesting that the Tories just keep plunging though.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
Those figures give Reform just 3 seats when Baxtered, but must be close to that hypothetical point where they start to net gains in large numbers.
Which is why I am not selling Reform on the spreads.
Yes, it would be like edging close to a cliff edge. You know its unlikely it will crumble and you'll fall but if it does.....
Would love to know which banks the artists use that don’t have any exposure to arms manufacturers who supply Israel directly or indirectly. They should get together and promote those banks. There are banks like that yes? The artists do use banks?
Of course, the record labels they are all ultimately signed to.
Remember the extremely funny, f##k Simon Cowell and him making Christmas #1, back RATM....who are signed with Sony, who Cowell got a stake in when they bought into his record label.
Comments
He didn’t win the Bad Sex Writer’s Award for nowt y’know.
And if the donations had been given by his PAC, that would be interesting. But 99% of those donations are just run of the mill giving money to candidates, in much the same way the Koch Brothers or Shelden or whoever gives lots of money to candidates they support.
The point I'm making is that journalists come out and say "CRAZY PERSON BACKED BY SOROS LINKED PAC", and it turns out that there was some piddling small donation from Soros that makes up a tiny proportion of their funding.
I'd go for:
13: SF
12: Green
11: WPGB
10: SNP
I have no view on APNI, UUP, DUP or SDLP apart from the fact that any of them are preferable to SF (or indeed Green, WPGB or SNP).
I'd put Plaid in the same basket.
That leaves Lab, LD, Con or Reform, about whom it's hard to feel positive about any of. I would vote for any of them to keep any of the bottom four out though.
In the spirit of admitting mistakes:
I thought Truss would surprise on the upside, Theresa May would crush Corbyn, Corbyn would do surprisingly well against Boris, Trump would lose to Hilary, Ed Miliband would beat David Cameron. That's a pretty dreadful record!
As I say, I was more taken about that the suggestion is he now lives in Weston-Super-Mare. I suspect that might not be true, rather that is where he is registered to vote as an overseas resident. But I might be wrong?
2. LibDems
3. Green
4. SDLP
5. APNI
6. Sinn Fein
7. PC
8. SNP
9. WPGB
10. SDP
11. UUP
12. Conservatives
14. DUP
15. Reform
Soros is a big donor to the Justice & Public Safety PAC, but he's not the only donor. I am unclear on whether he is basically the only big donor or how much the PAC gets money from other sources. I've seen one source saying the PAC gets most of its money from Soros, but most can mean anything from 51%-100%.
But, yes, Soros funded Walton's campaign to a large degree: not all of it, but a high proportion of it. I accept that. Given a choice between Walton and her opponent, personally I would happily have voted for Walton. I don't see anything showing Walton thinks rioting is fine.
(The US has mad crazy campaign finance laws. I don't think DAs should be elected, and I don't think elections should see so much money involved, but that's where the US is.)
Farage is Britain Trump, much more so than Boris. I don't get the sense he's as much of a scoundrel in his private life as Trump is (or Boris?), but politically they play things in exactly the same way. Similar also to Wilders.
Very different from the serious, hard nosed females in the populist space: Meloni, Le Pen, Marion-Mareschal, our own Suella, the Americans' own MTG. They are much frownier but also you sense less charlatan, more ideologue.
(Archie Leach, born in Bristol.)
And rather more of a self-made man.
I would also reiterate that those of us who supported the principles behind Liz Truss's reforms were widely mocked for suggesting that the market reaction to UK bonds after the mini-budget was anything more than investors acting as impartial drones, and that if these investors had opinions, they would be Trussite opinions. 'Woke markets' was the hilarious phrase. Yet it would appear that one of the world's biggest investors is also one of the world's biggest donators to woke political activity.
We're not letting that Putin enabling cuck represent us.
Headmistress warns Starmer domestic staff, gardeners, caterers and others could lose their jobs due to forced cost-cutting
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/14/labour-vat-plan-could-hit-rural-areas-like-pit-closures/
2. Ailtirí na hAiséirghe
3. The Black Hundreds
4. Oprichny Dvor
5. The Lib Dems
6. Unidad Falangista Montañesa
7. Nasjonal Samling
8. Labour
9. Ustase
10. Binface
New poll by
@WStoneInsight
for The Mirror shows Tory support falling - and lead over Reform slashed.
🔴Labour - 41% (-1)
🔵Conservative - 19% (-3)
🟣Reform - 17% (+1)
🟡Lib Dem - 11% (+2)
🟢Green - 6% (+1)
From 12-13 June/changes with 7th June
https://x.com/ashcowburn/status/1801645774322942003
LLG 58 (+2), RefCon 36 (-2). Blocs fairly stable, intra-bloc churn.
Quite how the Greens manage to be going UP at this stage of a campaign defeats me. They must be due a slide soon.
Perhaps something connected to Rightwingers preferring their gender roles more traditional, possibly.
I really wonder if we might get a Faragasm (I shuddered typing that) and further Tory collapse next week. It feels like the circumstances are right for it - if it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen soon.
https://news.sky.com/story/supermarket-sandwich-maker-recalls-products-over-e-coli-risk-13153070
Hardly news, is it.
By the way, note that RDS as ended his Mickey Mouse War with Disney. On turns similar to those offered Kaiser Bill & Co. in 1918.
Whole thing was just a dipshit political strategy. Like virtually the entire War on Woke.
You are seriously comparing snotty private schools with the coal miners?
Jesus wept
The critism of Soros is that he’s funding people with very specific views, often in Democrat primaries against more moderate candidates, in safe Democrat cities.
It’s not Republican areas dealing with shoplifting and vagrancy, it’s San Francisco and Portland.
Anyway, it’s Friday night and the pub’s not going to drink itself dry.
I see your prejudices are showing.
As a child of the 80s who grew up in South Yorkshire....
I am embarrassed for you.
He got rich - or richer - tanking the British economy for a start. Nice. Not. And he just ahhhhh
[brilliant joke deleted here; you’ll just have to trust me]
He's 93 and has given away most of his wealth.
Luckguy's logic gives a clue as to why he remains a Truss fan.
I tried to persuade him that there was a way of negotiating a peaceful outcome, respecting Russia’s interests in Ukraine. ‘We are having a referendum to see if Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom,’ I said. ‘You can have a referendum on Crimea’s membership of Russia, but it’s got to be fair and legal. What you’ve done is basically subvert the territorial integrity of another nation state.’ But he just didn’t accept that. It was as if we were sitting at the same chessboard but playing two completely different games.
1. Conservative (through gritted teeth)
2. UUP
3. Reform
4. Labour
5. DUP
6. SDLP
7. LIB DEM
8. APNI
9. Plaid
10. SNP
11. Green
12. WPGB
13. Sinn Fein
https://x.com/skynews/status/1801621690645954839?s=61
It’s not like a miner who were on decent wages
I appreciate you didn't make the suggestion, the headmistress quoted by the Telegraph did, but you can surely see the ridiculousness of the comparison.
share/seats
Con 20.7%/63
Lab 41.6%/305
Ref 15.3%/3
LD 11.0%/61
Private schools are brilliant, the NUM quasi terrorists.
Loving the fact that the LDs on 11% would probably get more seats than the Tories on 20%. No wonder the Tories have been campaigning for PR for so long!
Edit - someone above beat me to it, and was more accurate.
They say the claims were "within IPSA's rules and no further action is required".
They add travel with a "diversion" back to their constituency - for non-parly purposes such as a party event or family visit - is a legitimate claim
Max claim is a "standard open fare" for the direct journey between Westminster and their constituency
https://x.com/conor_matchett/status/1801648447579201909
Oil company A withdraws, gives its money to a theatre in somewhere with fewer precious arseholes.
A month later a kerfuffle in the guardian demanding financial help for art galleries and theatres. From the public purse of course because no right thinking corporate wants to sponsor cultural events anymore as they will inevitably be cancelled for something - Barclays for example in today’s fun and games.
The Tories can use the old anti-Tory attack line that they want to destroy the NHS. Etc.
It’s absolutely valid to question [his] integrity, probity and purpose. I find him quite sinister - and I actually had no idea he gave THAT much money to some quite cranky causes.
and the fact that you are a reflexive Musk stan.
High teens-low 20s, I’d say they must be on for about 20-50 seats.
Employees of Soros Fund Management made a donation. Which we only know about because Soros imposes extremely strict disclosure requirements on its staff. They made a donation to a PAC (or paid for seats at a dinner), and then that PAC made a donation to the crazy people.
That is several degrees of separation. Unless you believe Soros instructed his employees to donate to a PAC, and then called the PAC to demand they spent 30x the donation on the race with the crazy person.
This whole issue happens because journalists chase clicks: and "Soros backed PAC" gets lots of clicks and outrage. Even when the connection to Soros is extremely tangential.
https://x.com/femi_sorry/status/1801638843407315129?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Probably better than the shite that was headlining anyway.
1. Labour
2. Conservative
3. Reform
4. UUP
5. LibDem
6. APNI
7. DUP
8. SDLP
9. SNP
10. Plaid
11. WPGB
12. Green
13. Shinners.
If Farage is savvy he’ll shelve any scary NHS policies and play it safe with Streeting-esque pledges to “involve the private sector” in clearing the backlog rather than going full radical privatise etc.
All its doing is making ticket prices even more expensive.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/jun/12/multiple-bands-pull-out-of-download-festival-over-barclays-israel-ties
Leeds band Pest Control wrote: “We cannot sacrifice the principles held by this band and by the scene we come from and represent, just for personal gain.”
As a result of their boycott, punk bands Speed, Scowl and Zulu also pulled out of the festival over the Barclays sponsorship, criticising the bank for the financial services it provides.
British metalcore band Ithaca joined the boycott on Tuesday evening.
We usually get about three parties down the list before saying "well, at that point I'd start my own party".
Remember the extremely funny, f##k Simon Cowell and him making Christmas #1, back RATM....who are signed with Sony, who Cowell got a stake in when they bought into his record label.