I missed this before. So do you also believe that Soros is actually interested in stopping permawar?
Do you think questioning the motives of financiers, philanthropists and think tank funders is ever warranted? What do you think about the role that Soros played in the Ukraine or is that all right-wing propaganda? If Soros was involved in installing Western backed puppets in the Ukraine wouldn't that be a leftwing idea?

Cliffs: if you aren't an islamophobe then you are an antisemite. Guest appearance by this is wookie (named Soros).

Well_named gave pretty clear instructions, so this debate is over for my part.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ndowment_value

Here is a list of the wealthiest charitable foundations. I'm not familiar with all of the ones on the list including some of the top ones, but we find Open Society at #7.
Some other foundations that I might wish to single out would be Ford Foundation (CIA front group during cold war), or the Rockefeller Foundation. But given what you can assume that I think about the way that foundations and think tanks are used to push elite policy preferences--why should Open Society be excluded from that critique. Because the way that the money goes towards seemingly left/liberal places from Open Society makes for a really interesting question and sort of a "problem" for my worldview if you think about it.

Funny how no one knows like 5 of the top 6 and everyone knows about Soros.

What about those of us that are labelled as both (normally after being told we hold positions that we don't)

I don't think WN instructed you to call me a nazi follower because I question the motives of a guy throwing billions of dollars around the world "promoting democracy" and then not defend yourself.

When the US government claims it is promoting democracy almost everyone understands that that is a joke and that promoting democracy is not the motive.
So why is it that when individuals and think tanks do this that their motives are not questioned, especially when those motives seem to align with that of the government like in Ukraine?

I'd be fine at this point if I could get a leftist here just to say "yes, governments/elite do use NGOs to advance their aims". Then we can drop the discussion.

This is why Bernie Sanders when asked about open borders famously said "open borders? That's a Koch brothers proposal". Clip below

Why not? Democracies are fairly stable, predictable, dependable in agreements, good trade partners and generally have a favorable disposition towards the US.

Even from a standpoint of pure realpolitik and absolutely zero idealism, promoting democracy is an excellent idea.

Do you think that there haven't been times when the US has supported dictators over democratically elected governments and other popular movements? Of course they have. This is why the claims of supporting democracy a joke. They are entirely hypocritical about and will support it or not support it depending on the circumstances.

What has this got to do with what I wrote?

I merely said that from a perspective of realpolitik and zero idealism, promoting democracy is still an excellent idea.

Yes, I know that. I'm not really sure about the Koch immigration position, but if they want open borders I like their policy idea better than Bernie's. But, that doesn't make their reasons for immigration policy better than Bernie's.

Bernie wants a compassionate policy towards migrants seeking a better life, but he's also protectionist about the American workers, especially union workers. The Kochs may just want open borders because they want more labor available and expect it to lower wages and expect that to benefit them personally. The Kochs being raised as Birchers makes me skeptical that they want open immigration for any reason other than self-interest.

Everyone at least hopes that everything they do advances their aims. That's not saying anything.

Honestly I'm not keeping a scorecard of your viewpoints because I don't intentionally participate in ad hominem unless someone consistently attacks and talks over me. The OP seems to be framing the left view of Israel through the most narrow and ultracritical lens, one that the right would almost certainly be considered super Racist and unfair if I was evenly applied to their viewpoints. Therefore, balderdash!

It would say that given that Soros heads the 7th largest foundation in the world (and perhaps in terms of political activity it is #1?), that questioning the aims of him/it is not out of bounds or evidence of nazi influence.

There's a question that is relevant to this thread.

When someone focuses a lot of attention on the supposed evils of a group of which they aren't a member, is it because of animus?

The answer, both for Soros and the State of Israel, is: sometimes.

I've come around to open-borders as the moral thing even if I think it would be disastrous. The fact that it's what the elites want doesn't really change the morality. It's for similar reasons that Maduro needs to go.

But luckbox, is it really a moral position, as opposed to something else, if noone on the left is even asking for open borders? Noone on the left is suggesting eradication of the Jews is a reasonable thing but we are here having a conversation about anti-Semitism in the left. Meanwhile large groups of people Republican whites are marching en mass with tikitorches and you want to act like we are at the big boys table having a serious discussion. I don't really think you personally are debating in poor faith based on my limited interactions with you, but this thread is ultrafarsical.

I'd expect that if someone were an open-borders anti-war humanist-leftist they'd be supporting Bernie or Liz right now. But, anyway, you probably think they work for the CIA.

I don't know why you would think this is directed at you. I'm just naming the strategy that smudger is trying to employ. If you're singling out Israel you're antisemitic. It's pretty obvious that's what he was trying for because he kept trying to get to that conclusion each step of the process.

So first it was that Mayor Pete only mentioned Israel which turned out not to be true. Then it was mentioning Israel plus saying something about it, again not true. Then it was mentioning Israel and some negative policy proposal. You get the idea. The goal is to filter everything out except Israel and then say, why are you only saying this about Israel and no one else? Hummmmm...

You could imagine a situation where someone was singling out Israel or focusing on Israel for anti semitic reasons but when you have to take so many steps to get there and theres no other anti semetic things going on but the conclusion that's trying to be forced then we can probably safely assume that anti semetism isn't going on.

Hue,
This was why. I thought you were maybe commenting on that post where I call Israel a boogeyman.

Seems apropros to this thread:

Idk about Bernie.* Liz I've got money on to win Iowa and am going to put some more on. Gabbard I'll still go with.
*Amy Goodmanesque truth to power. Pretty establishment friendly overall.