This is true. A statement can also be all three of those things.
What IS your opinion on Soros?
…it could be: but you haven’t made a case that the statement *is *anti-American. I stand by my original position: the words, the sentiment and the statement in context are not anti-US at all.
I find this pretty odious:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/37703/media-tout-jewish-leaders-pittsburgh-telling-trump-ben-shapiro
One of Soros’ organizations basically impersonated the Pittsburgh Jewish community to blame Trump for for the shooting, and suggest he wasn’t welcome in Pittsburgh. The narrative got picked up by several news sources.
But they don’t speak for anybody and in fact the head of the Synagogue that got shot up said he would welcome Trump.
So, this kind of shit.
My point wasn’t to defend Soros specifically, but more broadly to note the incurious way nearly everything is approached by the right.
The question on the right is never, “WHY is a statement true or false?” That would be truth-seeking behavior. No, it is, “he’s not a patriot.” I dunno, maybe not, but it isn’t relevant to whether he made an accurate observation. By focusing on crap like that, meaningful analysis gets drowned out, which is useful if you’re pushing bs, but not for much else.
But back to the op, if the statement is false, does that make him more or less of someone “trying to change US policy?”
I guess the idea that they use this shooting as a chance to play politics is just disgusting.
…Alexander Soros is not George Soros: and conflating the two is pretty odious IMHO. The Pittsburgh affiliate of Bend the Arc is not “impersonating the Pittsburgh Jewish community.” They speak for plenty of people.
I’m delighted that he failed in his mission to unseat President Bush. I hope he continues to fail to achieve his political aims.
I don’t think he deserved to receive a bomb in the mail, even an inert one.
And the former synagogue president doesn’t want Trump to visit. Jews, of course, don’t all share the same opinion. Also, any article that calls J Street an, “anti-semitic front group” is so far in right field that I’d really have to question anything else that it says. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/10/29/lynette-lederman-trump-not-welcome-pittsburgh-intv-newday-sot-vpx.cnn
Even Fox News - quoting the (Republican) FBI Director - says that the bombs weren’t a hoax. Do you know something that they don’t? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/explosives-sent-to-democrats-not-a-hoax-fbis-wray-says-as-probe-continues
I’m just going off what CNN reported:
Ben Shapiro is lying to you.
Why? Which political aims are you against?
Course he is trying to change policy. Like the Koch brothers. If we lived in a perfect world all three of their voices would each be no more powerful than my own. As it is, I can’t feel too bad about it since we seem to have the lesser share of billionaires on our side.
Anthony May said that before the authorities had time to examine the bombs. He was speculating based on his expertise but off incomplete information. He was later proven to be wrong by people who actually had the bombs in their hands.
My personal feeling is that people, even experts, shouldn’t speculate on the basis of inadequate information. Yet all news shows rely on such speculation to fill airtime in the early days of a major event. Including Fox News.
The cited CNN article is from a couple of days ago. More recent information is easily available. Things change fast after such an event. Of course, fast change is inherently liberal.
Banning guns for one.
Really? You think so? I actually thought more politically-active billionaires were supporting liberals than conservatives.
The Fox News article cited by 1060westaddison was from a couple of days ago too. And it was quoting a WaPo article from Oct 26th which said:
If “More recent information is easily available” could you be troubled to cite some of it to support your assertion that “He was later proven to be wrong”? I’ve actually been looking for more details about the composition and explosive potential of the devices, and have yet to find much.
Impersonating? LOL. They speak for themselves.
Pence just spoke at a Michigan campaign event. He found a “Rabbi” to attend: the rabbi was one of those clowns from Jews for Jesus. That was the best they could do. So, yeah, I’d say the Trumpists have some challenges in the Jewish community. Again, impersonating? LOL. https://twitter.com/charles_gaba/status/1057031273129091079
News article: Fake Jews - TPM – Talking Points Memo
Meanwhile over at Fox Business News, Lou Dobbs interviews someone who claims that the migrant caravan in southern Mexico was being funded and directed by the “Soros-occupied State Department.” Dog whistle or fog horn? Either way its a shout-out to those neo-Nazis who like to refer to the "“Zionist Occupied Government”. They even have an acronym for it: ZOG. TPM notes: Rob Bowers, the shooter in the Pittsburgh massacre, appears to have been specifically inspired by this conspiracy theory. Indeed, Bowers had also reposted references to “ZOG” on his social media accounts.
A basic review of Bowers’ social media trail leaves no doubt that he was a hardened anti-Semite of longstanding. But what drove him to attack the Tree of Life synagogue was his belief that Soros and other Jews were funding and directing the migrant caravan. I believe that most attacks on Soros in the US aren’t anti-semitic. But some are, at least among the wack jobs, many of whom routinely book appearances on Fox News. (Full disclosure: since this story blew up, Fox News and Fox Business put a ban on this coded hate monger.) A Country Awash in Fox’s Dark Toxins - TPM – Talking Points Memo
In Eastern Europe, the antisemitism of the attacks on Soros is there as well.
No snark. It’s difficult to tell because of Dark Money: we can’t track plutocrat political spending like we used to.