Is Soros really helping Dems by supporting social justice DAs?

[David Hume]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/report-soros-spent-40-million-to-elect-75-social-justice-prosecutors

I think he is hurting Dems. The social justice DAs mainly defeated normal D candidates in big metros. They contributed to the increasing crime rate, and damaged D's image. Zeldin got within 6 point loss in NY by running solely on crime, and cost Dems the House. Soros DAs are maybe worse to D than election deniers like Lake to R.

[jojoju1998]

Ahh, the Washington Examiner. Such a reliable source of information.

[David Hume]

You don't believe Soros is actively supporting social justice DAs?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

[dead0man]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

As hard as it is for people on atlas to understand, some people go into politics to push policy and view electoral success as a means rather than an end.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

[jojoju1998]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

For your information, I don't read any US News at all.

[dead0man]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

and right on cue, the accusations of racism.  Is it possible to criticize Soros without being accused of racism?  If you think pushing social justice DAs (which there is plenty of evidence that he does) is good, you can defend it if you want.  We've certainly had discussions along those lines in the past, and managed to do so without invoking anti-Semitism.

We can do it in this thread too, if the children can get past the biased link in the OP.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

and right on cue, the accusations of racism.  Is it possible to criticize Soros without being accused of racism?  If you think pushing social justice DAs (which there is plenty of evidence that he does) is good, you can defend it if you want.  We've certainly had discussions along those lines in the past, and managed to do so without invoking anti-Semitism.

We can do it in this thread too, if the children can get past the biased link in the OP.

I mean like 95% of the time Soros is brought up in political discussions it involves invoking ugly antisemitic stereotypes so it’s kinda hard to ignore the elephant in the room

[jojoju1998]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

and right on cue, the accusations of racism.  Is it possible to criticize Soros without being accused of racism?  If you think pushing social justice DAs (which there is plenty of evidence that he does) is good, you can defend it if you want.  We've certainly had discussions along those lines in the past, and managed to do so without invoking anti-Semitism.

We can do it in this thread too, if the children can get past the biased link in the OP.

But why single out Soros ? Why not criticize ALL billionaires for influencing our political system ? For example, remember the Koch Brothers ? They are still around folks.


https://time.com/5121930/koch-brothers-fall-elections/

They spent almost a billion dollars in past elections. No one seems to mention them. But oh my god, George Soros is evil.

[jojoju1998]

You don't believe Soros is actively supporting social justice DAs?

Oh I believe so.


Just as I believe billionaires influence all elections, and candidates. The Koch Brothers are the most famous example of them all. Or the NRA. Or any major company/businessman.

But why should we single out George Soros ? 

[dead0man]

you guys are really doubling down on the hijack.  We've got a "well, most of the time" and a whataboutery back to back. Lets look at the check list.

• Whataboutery-check
• generic insults
• accusations of racism-check
• well, most of the time...-check
• I'm not a fan of the source-check
• mock political identity
• nit pick irrelevant facts

I could go on, but I don't want to give you anymore ideas.  Plus some of you have these on a sticky on the side of your monitor.

[jojoju1998]

you guys are really doubling down on the hijack.  We've got a "well, most of the time" and a whataboutery back to back. Lets look at the check list.

• Whataboutery-check
• generic insults
• accusations of racism-check
• well, most of the time...-check
• I'm not a fan of the source-check
• mock political identity
• nit pick irrelevant facts

I could go on, but I don't want to give you anymore ideas.  Plus some of you have these on a sticky on the side of your monitor.

You misunderstand me.

I don't like George Soros influencing our elections. Just as I don't like all billionaires influencing our elections. Period. End of story.


But to single out Soros, in my view, opens up a can of worms. That I hope we avoid.

Because with all due honesty; you're not worried about billionaires influencing elections to change public policy.

It's all about the social justice part of it. The wokeness of it. The Globalist stuff. Come on man.

[BG-NY]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

and right on cue, the accusations of racism.  Is it possible to criticize Soros without being accused of racism?  If you think pushing social justice DAs (which there is plenty of evidence that he does) is good, you can defend it if you want.  We've certainly had discussions along those lines in the past, and managed to do so without invoking anti-Semitism.

We can do it in this thread too, if the children can get past the biased link in the OP.

But why single out Soros ? Why not criticize ALL billionaires for influencing our political system ? For example, remember the Koch Brothers ? They are still around folks.


https://time.com/5121930/koch-brothers-fall-elections/

They spent almost a billion dollars in past elections. No one seems to mention them. But oh my god, George Soros is evil.

From OpenSecrets, top ten donors in 2022:

1   George Soros $126,752,713
2   Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein   $83,446,015
3   Kenneth C. Griffin $71,050,000
4   Jeffrey S & Janine Yass $54,741,400
5   Timothy Mellon $40,500,000
6   Sam Bankman-Fried $38,837,000
7   Stephen A. Schwarzman $35,000,0588
8   Peter Thiel $32,750,000
9   Fred Eychaner $32,100,000
10   Lawrence Ellison $31,007,943

[jojoju1998]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

and right on cue, the accusations of racism.  Is it possible to criticize Soros without being accused of racism?  If you think pushing social justice DAs (which there is plenty of evidence that he does) is good, you can defend it if you want.  We've certainly had discussions along those lines in the past, and managed to do so without invoking anti-Semitism.

We can do it in this thread too, if the children can get past the biased link in the OP.

But why single out Soros ? Why not criticize ALL billionaires for influencing our political system ? For example, remember the Koch Brothers ? They are still around folks.


https://time.com/5121930/koch-brothers-fall-elections/

They spent almost a billion dollars in past elections. No one seems to mention them. But oh my god, George Soros is evil.

From OpenSecrets, top ten donors in 2022:

1   George Soros $126,752,713
2   Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein   $83,446,015
3   Kenneth C. Griffin $71,050,000
4   Jeffrey S & Janine Yass $54,741,400
5   Timothy Mellon $40,500,000
6   Sam Bankman-Fried $38,837,000
7   Stephen A. Schwarzman $35,000,0588
8   Peter Thiel $32,750,000
9   Fred Eychaner $32,100,000
10   Lawrence Ellison $31,007,943

You're missing my point ! I'm not trying to do a whatbaoutism here.

Okay, George Soros donated a lot. So did as you can see, all these other rich businesspeople. And that's bad period. We should not have billionaires funding our elections period, end of story.

But to.... have a bogeyman mentality against a single businessman is well....awkward, if I can use that word ?

[jojoju1998]

My whole point is : What is so particularly dangerous about George Soros, that we have to single him out as the bogeyman ? When he's just like every other billionaire/businessman/ Company ?

[BG-NY]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

and right on cue, the accusations of racism.  Is it possible to criticize Soros without being accused of racism?  If you think pushing social justice DAs (which there is plenty of evidence that he does) is good, you can defend it if you want.  We've certainly had discussions along those lines in the past, and managed to do so without invoking anti-Semitism.

We can do it in this thread too, if the children can get past the biased link in the OP.

But why single out Soros ? Why not criticize ALL billionaires for influencing our political system ? For example, remember the Koch Brothers ? They are still around folks.


https://time.com/5121930/koch-brothers-fall-elections/

They spent almost a billion dollars in past elections. No one seems to mention them. But oh my god, George Soros is evil.

From OpenSecrets, top ten donors in 2022:

1   George Soros $126,752,713
2   Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein   $83,446,015
3   Kenneth C. Griffin $71,050,000
4   Jeffrey S & Janine Yass $54,741,400
5   Timothy Mellon $40,500,000
6   Sam Bankman-Fried $38,837,000
7   Stephen A. Schwarzman $35,000,0588
8   Peter Thiel $32,750,000
9   Fred Eychaner $32,100,000
10   Lawrence Ellison $31,007,943

You're missing my point ! I'm not trying to do a whatbaoutism here.

Okay, George Soros donated a lot. So did as you can see, all these other rich businesspeople. And that's bad period. We should not have billionaires funding our elections period, end of story.

But to.... have a bogeyman mentality against a single businessman is well....awkward, if I can use that word ?

This is exactly the point. People can criticize literally the largest donor. #1 in anything is always the largest target of criticism.

A lot of people don’t like the Kochs either, myself included. But evoking Soros’s name doesn’t make somebody automatically anti-semitic or whatever.

[jojoju1998]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

and they don't even try to find the story on a site they'd believe.


AND they have no problem posting articles from biased sources in their direction.

It's almost like they know this place is left leaning, but if you start a thread with that as the subject, half the posters will say "nah hah, it can't be.  Every time I make a false statement about, say, guns, other posters will call me on my bull sh**t.  Can't be a left leaning site."

Or very few have an appetite to engage in a “serious discussion” about how “our nations laws are being destroyed thanks to a Jewish billionaire working in the shadows”

and right on cue, the accusations of racism.  Is it possible to criticize Soros without being accused of racism?  If you think pushing social justice DAs (which there is plenty of evidence that he does) is good, you can defend it if you want.  We've certainly had discussions along those lines in the past, and managed to do so without invoking anti-Semitism.

We can do it in this thread too, if the children can get past the biased link in the OP.

But why single out Soros ? Why not criticize ALL billionaires for influencing our political system ? For example, remember the Koch Brothers ? They are still around folks.


https://time.com/5121930/koch-brothers-fall-elections/

They spent almost a billion dollars in past elections. No one seems to mention them. But oh my god, George Soros is evil.

From OpenSecrets, top ten donors in 2022:

1   George Soros $126,752,713
2   Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein   $83,446,015
3   Kenneth C. Griffin $71,050,000
4   Jeffrey S & Janine Yass $54,741,400
5   Timothy Mellon $40,500,000
6   Sam Bankman-Fried $38,837,000
7   Stephen A. Schwarzman $35,000,0588
8   Peter Thiel $32,750,000
9   Fred Eychaner $32,100,000
10   Lawrence Ellison $31,007,943

You're missing my point ! I'm not trying to do a whatbaoutism here.

Okay, George Soros donated a lot. So did as you can see, all these other rich businesspeople. And that's bad period. We should not have billionaires funding our elections period, end of story.

But to.... have a bogeyman mentality against a single businessman is well....awkward, if I can use that word ?

This is exactly the point. People can criticize literally the largest donor. #1 in anything is always the largest target of criticism.

A lot of people don’t like the Kochs either, myself included. But evoking Soros’s name doesn’t make somebody automatically anti-semitic or whatever.

Well read into why OP is critical of George Soros's donations.

It's not because he believes Billionaires influencing our elections is bad in of itself.

It's because Soros donates to his causes, which OP finds problematic.

And these causes are inherently " Woke ". Or " Liberal". " Globalist ".

[Zaybay]

I bothered to read the article (I have a feeling that most, including the folks complaining about those dismissing it, didn't bother to do so), and honestly, its pretty obvious why many dismissed it outright. The entire piece is more editorial than anything else; it gives maybe one or two lines of actual information, and the rest is just your typical conservative piece about crime and how the "wokes" are ruining everything.

It's honestly surprising just how much nothing is said in it. It doesn't even bother to actually establish what a "Social Justice DA" is, what policy positions they pursue, or what they even do, its just another empty fluff word.

But anyway, the actual evidence listed in the article (along with the report) ironically contradicts the question given here. The report, written by the Law Enforcement Defense Fund, is so desperate to list every possible DA that might have been funded by a group associated with Soros that it devaluates any real critiques about the guy. Sure, they list the classic example of a bad reformist DA in Chelsea Boudin, but they also decide to include the DA of Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City (both sides), Burlington, Bend, Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Houston, Winnebago County Wisconsin (who's also a Republican), etc, many of whom are either uncontroversial or barely even reformist.

At a certain point, the list just becomes "DAs representing urban centers in America". Explains why one of the few "criticisms" of Soros from the report is that "40% of homicides nationwide occur under these jurisdictions", a very astute observation. /s

What this means though is that many "Soros DAs" are in places where crime rates are quite low and not an issue. Hell, NYC, the whole originator of this idea, has only 1 "Soros-backed" DA, the DA of Manhattan, who's been criticized for being too conservative, not liberal. Long Island, which swung the most to the Rs over the entire debacle, has 0. Therefore, its actually somewhat difficult to tie these DAs to worsening Dem performance at the ballot box. Besides the case of NY, there's not really much to work with here.

[David Hume]

You don't believe Soros is actively supporting social justice DAs?

Oh I believe so.


Just as I believe billionaires influence all elections, and candidates. The Koch Brothers are the most famous example of them all. Or the NRA. Or any major company/businessman.

But why should we single out George Soros ? 

Because I want to discuss social justice DAs. Anyone can donate any amount of money to whatever candidates they prefer. I have no problem of this at all. But I have problem with social justice DAs.

[OSR stands with Israel]

My whole point is : What is so particularly dangerous about George Soros, that we have to single him out as the bogeyman ? When he's just like every other billionaire/businessman/ Company ?

Cause he’s the main left wing donor so obviously he will be attacked . Just like the Koch Brothers are from the left cause they are the main right wing one

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I bothered to read the article (I have a feeling that most, including the folks complaining about those dismissing it, didn't bother to do so), and honestly, its pretty obvious why many dismissed it outright. The entire piece is more editorial than anything else; it gives maybe one or two lines of actual information, and the rest is just your typical conservative piece about crime and how the "wokes" are ruining everything.

It's honestly surprising just how much nothing is said in it. It doesn't even bother to actually establish what a "Social Justice DA" is, what policy positions they pursue, or what they even do, its just another empty fluff word.

But anyway, the actual evidence listed in the article (along with the report) ironically contradicts the question given here. The report, written by the Law Enforcement Defense Fund, is so desperate to list every possible DA that might have been funded by a group associated with Soros that it devaluates any real critiques about the guy. Sure, they list the classic example of a bad reformist DA in Chelsea Boudin, but they also decide to include the DA of Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City (both sides), Burlington, Bend, Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Houston, Winnebago County Wisconsin (who's also a Republican), etc, many of whom are either uncontroversial or barely even reformist.

At a certain point, the list just becomes "DAs representing urban centers in America". Explains why one of the few "criticisms" of Soros from the report is that "40% of homicides nationwide occur under these jurisdictions", a very astute observation. /s

What this means though is that many "Soros DAs" are in places where crime rates are quite low and not an issue. Hell, NYC, the whole originator of this idea, has only 1 "Soros-backed" DA, the DA of Manhattan, who's been criticized for being too conservative, not liberal. Long Island, which swung the most to the Rs over the entire debacle, has 0. Therefore, its actually somewhat difficult to tie these DAs to worsening Dem performance at the ballot box. Besides the case of NY, there's not really much to work with here.

No, most people are dismissing it because they don't like what it says. Not accusing you of being one of those people, it really seem s like you read the article.

[Ferguson97]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

If you guys are tired of us attacking the sources that you site, maybe you should pick some better sources.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

The red avatar standard of attacking the source rather than addressing the substance of the article is so pathetic. This place is basically indistinguishable from Twitter at this point.

If you guys are tired of us attacking the sources that you site, maybe you should pick some better sources.

It wouldn't matter what the source is and you know it. You'd be decrying it as anti Semitic or whatever