I agree with the decision. I take exception at calling ANY billionaire "progressive." The author is bent.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
182 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2411 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I broadly agree, but Soros probably puts more money towards progressive causes than any other human being.
He shouldn't be able to, because billionaires shouldn't exist. We shouldn't have to depend on the goodwill of an oligarch to fund progressive causes.
That said, Fox hates him for a reason.
Fox hates him because Rupert Murdoch spent a shitload of time and effort to artificially boost the Pound Sterling in 1992 as the Tories were fucking things up.
Soros bet against the Tories, publicly so, and made over a billion on Black Wednesday alone.
The Tories lost the next election in a landslide (five years later) and didn't return to power until 2010.
September 1992 marks the beginning of Murdoch's hatred of Soros.
No billionaires are innocent. I'm a longtime secular humanist and feel that my values espouse progressive ideology. Soros might fund entities that push left-leaning ideals, but not without their own agendas. I rankle at the idea that anybody with billions of dollars didn't step on necks to get where they got... and that alone is enough to laugh when someone says he's defending the common man.
He wouldn't know struggle if it cried to him at his feet. Billionaires should not be defended.
That being said, he's Fox's most favored boogeyman. They love to blame everything on him. I would be surprised if 1/10 things they blame on him are his doing. Murdoch is the ant-Soros and they're in a wrinkly billionaire supervillain fight. We're all casualties.
Just serious people doing serious things.
"Let's bring anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to court!"
They were legitimately going to try floating "Jewish conspiracy" in a court of law. I love how desperate that makes them look. I sure hope Smartmatic finishes what Diebold started.
if you watch Fox News on purpose, you're a moron
If you watch Fox News at all, you're giving them ad revenue and attention.
If they are trying this route, they are absolutely fucked with a capital f.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David B. Cohen on Monday shot down a request from Fox to compel Soros to provide documents and testimony as part of its process of discovery in the case.
Soros is a progressive billionaire who often draws the ire of conservative media figures and Republican politicians.
Fox, in a court filing earlier this month, sought to depose Mark Malloch Brown, who is the president of the Soros-backed Open Society Foundation and served as chairman of Smartmatic’s parent company.
“I base that on the finding that the crux of Smartmatic’s claims is that Fox has asserted they were part of rigging [the election], not that Smartmatic was affiliated with George Soros, Alex Soros, or the OSF,” Cohen said in open court on Monday, CNN reported.
Smartmatic sued Fox in 2021 for $2.7 billion, arguing the network knowingly gave Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, former President Trump’s lawyers following the 2020 election, a platform to air falsehoods about its software.
Fox this spring agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to settle separate defamation claims brought against the network over its coverage of the 2020 election.
The original article contains 288 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 35%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!