Another Day, Another Absurd Smear From the Good Folks at Breitbart

[Cripplecreek]

Since this story keeps coming back like an unkillable zombie.

I once wrote that a certain Breitbart piece was “the stupidest of all time.” Every day for the past two years I’ve kicked myself for wasting that assessment so early.

Perhaps you saw Breitbart’s latest masterpiece on The Drudge Report yesterday:



Wow! Rubio, Ryan, Graham, McCain, and Bush ALL took money from George Soros?? I bet this is a really important story that somehow only Breitbart managed to uncover and not malicious clickbait.

Except, yeah, it’s malicious clickbait. The catch is that Soros never gave those candidates money, and Soros’ foundation never gave them money, and even Soros’ company never gave those candidates money. Instead, private individuals who happen to work for Soros gave them money, even as Soros himself was spending billions to defeat them.

George Soros oversees a multi-billion dollar hedge fund empire. This may come as a surprise to Breitbart, but most people have no problem working for or hiring those who disagree with their politics. These Republicans only took what Breitbart calls “Soros-connected cash” if you assume that the country’s largest and most prestigious hedge fund only hires soulless automatons who do Soros’ bidding.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/another-day-another-absurd-smear-from-the-good-folks-at-breitbart/

Yes, George Soros is still a scumbag and McCain and Graham are spineless jellyfish but the fact remains that this wasn't money consciously given by George Soros. Sanders gets money from people who work for the Koch brothers and he most definitely isn't in their pocket.

Soros did give money to the now defunct Republican main street coalition but that org appears to be long dead.

[geronl]

but Soros did invest many millions in Trump.

[Sanguine]

but Soros did invest many millions in Trump.

Got a link?  I would want to know that if that is indeed the case.

[TomSea]

To be fair, a number of websites paraded this out on Sunday night I believe; it was posted here and was criticized by some as not having enough information. The source was not Breitbart. Perhaps they were snookered in.

[TomSea]

but Soros did invest many millions in Trump.

Where's your backup? Just creating smears out of midair.

Pro-Choicers, upset that Trump is saving babies? Is this website an excuse to just slander?

[geronl]

Soros, Blackacre and Fortress invested $160 million in Trump's Chicago tower with a "Mezzanine loan", high interest rates. Trump would owe them up to $360 million depending on the time it took to pay it back. This is the kind of loan you pay back ASAP, even before paying the bank back. But Trump was paying the bank back first, why? Somehow most of this debt was forgiven. Why would Soros and the others forgive this debt that Trump owed? Was there an arrangement?

A gift that might have been worth as much as $100+ million.

[geronl]

Soros and Trump are close knit.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/trump-pals-around-with-george-soros

[TomSea]

12 top Republicans backed by Soros in 2016
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/12-top-republicans-backed-by-soros-in-2016/#koeK8qRPQJPsZyzK.99

WND published this, yes, World Nut Daily, but at the same time, is it actually a falsehood? Giving money is backing them.

The Cruz campaign accused Kasich of accepting Soros money,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/cruz-super-pac-inaccurately-accuses-kasich-campaign-accepting-soros-donation.html

 ***jimney

Oh, yes, I"m sure we are going to hear the same disgust and outrage for Cruz's campaign (whose campaign apologized to Kasich, those stories are out there) as we heard from Breitbart NOT.

Same old song and dance.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

12 top Republicans backed by Soros in 2016
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/12-top-republicans-backed-by-soros-in-2016/#koeK8qRPQJPsZyzK.99

WND published this, yes, World Nut Daily, but at the same time, is it actually a falsehood? Giving money is backing them.

The Cruz campaign accused Kasich of accepting Soros money,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/cruz-super-pac-inaccurately-accuses-kasich-campaign-accepting-soros-donation.html

 ***jimney

Oh, yes, I"m sure we are going to hear the same disgust and outrage for Cruz's campaign (whose campaign apologized to Kasich, those stories are out there) as we heard from Breitbart NOT.

Same old song and dance.

Donald Trump Took Liberal Icon George Soros’s Money


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/donald-trump-took-liberal-icon-george-soros-s-money.html

The pair’s relationship goes back more than a decade. In 2004, Soros lent Trump a cool $160 million to help with the construction of Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago, the [/color][/size]Chicago Tribune reported[/font][/color][/size]. At the time, some Chicagoans were skeptical that Trump would ever get his tower built. The project, after all, was yuuuge.[/color][/font]

$160 million. Yet another way that Trump sycophants look the other way.

[Sanguine]

@geronl @Weird Tolkienish Figure that's very disturbing if true.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@geronl @Weird Tolkienish Figure that's very disturbing if true.

Why is that disturbing?

First, there is an obvious difference between a loan, and a gift.  For all his dabbling in politics, Soros is also just a plain investor who tries to make money.  And it doesn't appear that he lost money on Trump's venture, so it wasn't even an under-the-table gift.

Second, it's hardly been a secret that Trump was essentially a political whore prior to this campaign.  But in terms of what he is doing right now, as president, it's actually difficult to imagine how he could be doing things that contradict everything Soros has ever tried to do.  Soros is the king of globalization and immigration -- they're the great "levelers" he uses to destroy the West.

The entire thrust of what Trump is doing is in the exact opposite direction, and what he's doing right now is more "anti-globalization" than what any other GOP candidate was proposing.  I personally think he's going to far in some respects, but if you're Soros, "Trumpism" is your worst nightmare.

So why should we care about business dealings 13 years ago?

[Sanguine]

Why is that disturbing?

First, there is an obvious difference between a loan, and a gift.  For all his dabbling in politics, Soros is also just a plain investor who tries to make money.  And it doesn't appear that he lost money on Trump's venture, so it wasn't even an under-the-table gift.

Second, it's hardly been a secret that Trump was essentially a political whore prior to this campaign.  But in terms of what he is doing right now, as president, it's actually difficult to imagine how he could be doing things that contradict everything Soros has ever tried to do.  Soros is the king of globalization and immigration -- they're the great "levelers" he uses to destroy the West.

The entire thrust of what Trump is doing is in the exact opposite direction, and what he's doing right now is more "anti-globalization" than what any other GOP candidate was proposing.  I personally think he's going to far in some respects, but if you're Soros, "Trumpism" is your worst nightmare.

So why should we care about business dealings 13 years ago?

Sometimes one can be so open minded one's brains fall out.

Soros is not just another "plain investor who tries to make money", and yes, I do care about business dealings 13 years ago.  Is there some magic number of years in your mind that makes past actions moot?

[txradioguy]

So why should we care about business dealings 13 years ago?

Because they give us insight into the person...especially one who wants to lead the country.  It gives you an idea of who they are and who they associate with.

You don't think that when you show up to a new unit they've called around to check and see what you're like from people you've worked with?

I know I do when I'm getting a new soldier and I'd be disappointed if they didn't do they same when I arrive at a new unit.


Why do you think an employer requires you to have references on your resume?  Same thing.

Would you as an employer waive off what someone you're about to pay money to as an employee 10-15 years ago?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sometimes one can be so open minded one's brains fall out.

Soros is not just another "plain investor who tries to make money",

He is also that.

and yes, I do care about business dealings 13 years ago.  Is there some magic number of years in your mind that makes past actions moot?

No, it's not the number of years.  It's that I place infinitely greater weight on present-day actions v. speculation drawn from events in the past.  Trump's actions as president are about as anti-Soros as you can get.  I made that point in my initial post, and you didn't address that.  But that's everything.

Look, prior to the election, when we were all unsure of exactly what Trump would do if elected, I'd agree this article/story would be more relevant.  It wouldn't prove that Trump shared Soros' views, but it would be grounds to be more suspicious.  Although to me, I think the tipoff was that Soros opposed Trump during the election, and spent a shitload trying to defeat him.  In any case, that still would have been speculation either way, right?  Trying to read tea leaves about what he would "really do" if elected.  And we'd have to say "well, we'll have to see what happens once he's elected to know for sure what he'll do."

Okay, he's been elected, and been taking a lot of substantive action since the election.  And the evidence of what he is actually doing as President proves false any pre-election speculation that he was secretly a Soros-minded globalist.  He's been the exact opposite.

Just step back and look at this from a neutral perspective.  Or better yet, step back and look at it from Soros' perspective.  He's thinking either one of two things right now:  1) "I can't believe that guy I financed back in 2004 is this big an a-hole", or 2) "I always knew that orange-haired freak was not a progressive!"  To the extent you think those dealings meant they were like-thinking buddies, Trump has screwed Soros.  And badly - no grease or reach-around.  Trump is not only taking the U.S. in the exact opposite direction from what Soros wants, but he's actually encouraging/supporting the dissolution of the EU, which has been Soros pet project for decades.

Again, we are passed the point where we need to speculate about what Trump "really thinks" about globalism, immigration, etc..  Frankly, what he "really thinks" doesn't even matter.  What matters are the actions he takes as President, and as I've said, those actions have been Soros' worst possible nightmare from a U.S. President.

[txradioguy]

Trump has screwed Soros.  And badly - no grease or reach-around.

So what's to say he won't do that to a trusted U.S. ally?

Will you be so blase about him screwing someone over then?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Because they give us insight into the person...especially one who wants to lead the country.  It gives you an idea of who they are and who they associate with.

Very useful stuff prior to an election when we're trying to decide who to vote for.

You don't think that when you show up to a new unit they've called around to check and see what you're like from people you've worked with?  I know I do when I'm getting a new soldier and I'd be disappointed if they didn't do they same when I arrive at a new unit.  Why do you think an employer requires you to have references on your resume?  Same thing.
Would you as an employer waive off what someone you're about to pay money to as an employee 10-15 years ago?

That's a useful analogy.  You're talking about what an employer should consider before an employee is hired.  When the employee has not worked for you at all, and the only way you can speculate as to how he'll do is via recommendations.  But we're passed that.  The employee has already been hired, and has been on the job.

So to tweak your analogy, it would be as if you hired someone to paint your house, they got half of it done, and it looked fantastic so far.  Then you hear from someone that "that guy is the worst painter and can't paint at all."  Who are you going to believe -- what that person told you, or your own eyes that tell you he is a very good painter?

That's the point.  While pre-election speculation that "maybe he's a closet Soros-ist" may have reasonable to some, Trump has proven that such speculation was simply wrong.  He's the anti-Soros.  So if anyone should be pissed about this, it shouldn't be those of us who wanted him to be the anti-Soros -- it should be (and most certainly is) Soros who should be pissed.

[Cripplecreek]

So what's to say he won't do that to a trusted U.S. ally?

Will you be so blase about him screwing someone over then?

We'll see. Soros has a multi billion dollar deferred tax bill coming due.

George Soros likes to say the rich should pay more taxes. A substantial part of his wealth, though, comes from delaying them. While building a record as one of the world’s greatest investors, the 84-year-old billionaire used a loophole that allowed him to defer taxes on fees paid by clients and reinvest them in his fund, where they continued to grow tax-free. At the end of 2013, Soros—through Soros Fund Management—had amassed $13.3 billion through the use of deferrals, according to Irish regulatory filings by Soros.

Congress closed the loophole in 2008 and ordered hedge fund managers who used it to pay the accumulated taxes by 2017. A New York-based money manager such as Soros would be subject to a federal rate of 39.6 percent, combined state and city levies totaling 12 percent, and an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income to pay for Obamacare, according to Andrew Needham, a tax partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Applying those rates to Soros’s deferred income would create a tax bill of $6.7 billion. That calculation is based on publicly available information such as the Irish regulatory filings, which provide only a partial glimpse into Soros’s finances. The actual tax bill would be affected by factors specific to the billionaire. Soros declined to comment, according to Michael Vachon, a spokesman, as did Anthony Burke, an IRS spokesman.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/george-soros-s-tax-bill

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So what's to say he won't do that to a trusted U.S. ally?

He might.  But that has nothing to do with Soros.  And if you really wanted an analogy between the Soros loan and Trump's actions, then the best comparator is actually Putin.  Maybe when Trump is "buddies" with someone, he draws the line at stuff he doesn't like.

Will you be so blase about him screwing someone over then?

I don't believe he "screwed Soros over" at all. I believe the speculation/inference that he was a Sorosista simply because he borrowed money from the guy was wrong at the outset.  I'm just saying that if you believe there was some sort of promise, then he screwed over Soros.

In any case, Trump wasn't running for office in 2004, and didn't pull a Jumpin' Jim Jeffords or Arlen Spector by promising one thing to get campaign contributions, and then going back on it.  Unless there was some codicil in those loan documents saying "I promise to support your political/social views", Trump didn't screw over Soros.   Perhaps Soros misjudged him, but so what?  He's doing everything possible now to jam it up Soros' keister, and I couldn't be more pleased.

Not sure why so many people keep wanting to look for turds in the punchbowl.

[txradioguy]

He might.  But that has nothing to do with Soros.  And if you really wanted an analogy between the Soros loan and Trump's actions, then the best comparator is actually Putin.  Maybe when Trump is "buddies" with someone, he draws the line at stuff he doesn't like.

I don't believe he "screwed Soros over" at all. I believe the speculation/inference that he was a Sorosista simply because he borrowed money from the guy was wrong at the outset.  I'm just saying that if you believe there was some sort of promise, then he screwed over Soros.

In any case, Trump wasn't running for office in 2004, and didn't pull a Jumpin' Jim Jeffords or Arlen Spector by promising one thing to get campaign contributions, and then going back on it.  Unless there was some codicil in those loan documents saying "I promise to support your political/social views", Trump didn't screw over Soros.   Perhaps Soros misjudged him, but so what?  He's doing everything possible now to jam it up Soros' keister, and I couldn't be more pleased.

Not sure why so many people keep wanting to look for turds in the punchbowl.

So past performance predicts future behavior means nothing to you?

I don't ask that about the Soros stuff but in reference to your comment it doesn't matter what he did 13 years ago.