Globalist too.
…how exactly is "“The main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States” an “anti US” statement?
I know what he said. But stating “the main reason that the world is not stable and just is due to the US government and its policies” is not an “anti-US” statement: especially if that statement happens to be true.
Thank you for that quote from 15 years back, but I believe the question pertains to his current actions.
We had literally just started two wars, one on totally false pretenses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You may hear that and think “Damn right”, but are you really mystified at how someone would hear that quote and perceive it as “anti-US”? Would it really be a surprise to you if many American voters perceived the quote as “anti-US”?
…I well aware of how it would might be “perceived” by some people. The events of the last few days make that pretty fucking clear. And it is pretty fucking clear how the statement was perceived by senoy. I’m asking senoy to explain their perception: because both the words, the sentiment and the statement in context are not anti-US at all.
Keep in mind that many Americans - and especially Republicans - cling to a pseudo-religious belief in American exceptionalism. They believe that God created America to be the the greatest, freest, bestest, and most perfect country that ever existed. This manifests itself in things like gun ownership and the Iraq War. To suggest that America would be destructive or counterproductive is treason in their minds.
Well, “rich” and “Jewish” may be debatable, but it seems pretty hard to argue that him being a liberal isn’t a big part of why conservatives don’t like him. Somehow, I don’t think he’d have gotten a whole lot of right-wing push back if he’d said he’d give up all his money to keep Obama from getting elected.
If someone were to say “the main obstacle to a stable and just world is Banquet Bear and his/her policies”, would you consider that statement to be pro-Banquet Bear, anti-Banquet Bear, or neutral on the subject of Banquet Bear?
…if someone were to say that: I would look at the objective evidence in support and against that proposition and determine whether or not the statement was true or not. If the statement was true: then it isn’t “anti-Banquet Bear”: its merely a statement of fact.
OMG! let’s bomb Banquet Bear instead of listening to what s/he might have to say about improving the lives of people in Banquet Bearia/world!
…I concede: after lengthy investigation, its all my fault. 
Everything. Me. I did it. Let the bombing commence.
Thanks for explaining your thinking. I don’t quite share your view, but at least I understand it better. I think there are lots of true things that can be said that are still correctly perceived as anti-(the subject of the statement).
…if it turned out that I am the main obstacle to a stable and just world, then my reaction would be “I need to fix this.” I don’t want to be the main obstacle to a stable and just world, so what do I need to do to change that? The person who told me that I’m the main obstacle to a stable and just world isn’t telling me this to hurt me, but to help me. I would be appreciative of the critique.
The Pittsburgh shooter turned out to hate Trump because he wasn’t sufficiently racist and because he wasn’t a nationalist. A few days ago Trump announced in a campaign rally that he was a nationalist rather than a globalist.
So, does that make it likely that Trump [del]reads Gab[/del] has someone read Gab to him to pick up talking points for his base?
We all understand that the right condemns any criticism of the U.S. and its policies, no matter how justified or whether proffered as something the country should do that would make the world better, as anti-US. We all also understand the the right is incapable of placing words in context, and that they would far rather rip statements out of context to present them as red flags. As for the right and nuance… I’m laughing too hard to continue.
For the record, here’s the answer Soros gave to Newsweek about what he meant by that quote.
Hardly provocative at all. Saying that America made the wrong response doesn’t qualify someone as anti-US. Explaining that a better response should have been made and could still be made to mitigate that horrendous decision is what a close friend would do for an individual. At the national level someone who does this is a patriot. It’s all the people who supported Bush then and still support him now who are as anti-US as ISIS and responsible for far more harm and deaths.
Or, in simple words: supporting any bad move made by America is anti-US; tactfully trying to correct and mitigate a bad decision makes one a patriot. Your side has it exactly backwards. And not just on this. If the US reflexively did everything that the right condemns, the country would be thousands of times better off.
Thank you for this. Also, I hope thinking Dems would not all forget his assault on the British pound: George Soros - Wikipedia
In my eviler right-wing moments, I liked to hope he does attack the US dollar in a similar way, but that Dubya or Trump, for all their failings, have put some intelligent people watching to prevent the attack from succeeding. He’s probably smart enough to have considered that himself first, however.
I hate to get partisan, but damn Dems, you and your heroes – what, depressed the Weathermen aren’t blowing up banks lately?
Propaganda lies down this way of thinking. By making whether a statement is true or false less important than whether it is “negative” leads to some of the foundations of our political climate.
Notice how as recently as today, Huckabee Sanders was decrying “the fake news media” for being overly critical of Trump. That was her sole criteria, no reference whatsoever to whether educated people can tell when the POTUS spreads lies and hatred, whether that is something newsworthy for real journalists to report, or whether any unworthy actions by Cheetoface could in fact be worthy of serious criticism. Nope! Just, “gosh, you jerks are so negative!”
Are we supposed to just sit quietly and accept being gaslit? Do you think it I appropriate to criticize a true statement merely for being anti-whatever to the point that the truth is suppressed? Should we make it a crime to criticize the POTUS like they have in North Korea?
It would be difficult to find a contemporaneous account of the WSJ attacking Soros for his actions. Because they see speculators as a good thing. His critics at the time were… liberals. Liberals who don’t see this behavior as exceptional. Liberals typically don’t attack Breitbart’s funder for speculating on financial markets; they attack him for propping a website that showcases hate.
Cato Institute on speculation:
Oil speculators are your friends
Scapegoating the speculators
Still if anybody wants to issue a call to, you know, regulate one financial activity or another, I’m all ears. But I hear crickets among conservatives.
It may surprise you (but probably won’t) that I don’t consider Soros a patriot nor his opinion “a true statement”. Aside from that debate, even if it were a true statement, some things aren’t helpful to say, or at least say in particularly negative and harsh ways. For example, Honduras is a shithole. I’m confident that no one here is going to contend that I’m a close friend of Honduras for noting that fact or be appreciative of the critique or think I’m saying it to help Honduras, even though that statement is true. It is a negative statement and not particularly helpful. So was Soros’.
Of course not. No one in this thread has suggested we do so.
…a statement can be both “negative” and “not particularly helpful” and still not be “anti-American.”