I am very surprised Bernie Sanders has not cried Anti-Semitism yet. Oh wait, that's really only used to silence White people.

I was called racist on fb for putting up articles linking George Soros to BLM. Which I guess shouldn't surprise me too much.

The only left leaning people I know who would vote for Hillary are the ones who haven't yet hard of Sanders. I'm actually somewhat happy about BLM protesting his campaign, got a lot of nice coverage.

There is the overall elite class, represented best by Rockefeller, then there are these partisan splinter groups. You surprised me by saying Soros isn't partisan. He is. I watched after the 2000 election when Soros really turned it on for the Democrats. MoveOn.org was created.

He is trying to herd the so-called "left." Just look at the name of his organization -- it's an insult to people who saw the election coup! He is trying to control them, but he can't. That is the nature of power -- a unified establishment power versus a disjointed in-fighting opposition. Soros is playing some kind of grey area where he both supports the establishment, but also the opposition. To conceptualize, his role is similar to those who would believe 'FDR saved capitalism.' Soros is no friend to the people.

Anyway, it is fair to say he supports Hillary not Jeb. So, here's the conspiracy idea behind this story.

George Soros has found some important people in BLM and convinced them to avoid an embarrassing confrontation with Hillary so that she looks good. He does this (1) to make sure Bernie looks bad and Hillary wins the nominations, and (2) to make sure Hillary appears strong against the Republican -- especially if it's Jeb Bush. Two questions.

1. Is there evidence to support this?

2. Is there a perfectly reasonable other explanation for what happened in this story?

If we don't have #1 but we have #2, then we can't say there is a conspiracy. It's worth investigating, but until something is found, it probably belongs in v/wildspeculation . :)

About this source. Washington Times is in a very small group of press organizations that have agreed with Koch brothers upon coverage. Regardless, it is very clear that this site is a partisan site. It exists for two purposes only -- to help Republicans win and to provide a "further right" push upon the party.

The right-left thing doesn't speak, money does.

Finally, money is the right. Economic right is money power. That tells us much about which side Democrats are on. :)

I hope you don't mind a really long response, but I don't see you as a partisan, so I"m spending the extra time. :)

No, the Washington Times article doesn't make the case. All I get from that is that Soros spent $33 million in a year. For what? It implies that's all for BlackLivesMatter.

gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson,

1. $33 million in one year is small potatoes compared to -- ready for this? -- Koch brothers .... AND Bradleys, Olins, Richardsons, Coors, Scaifes, .... AND ... Chamber of Commerce, Exxon. RJR and Nabisco, etc. Should these reactionary groups be left entirely unchallenged? It seems the oligarchs of old ... that would be folks like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford ... have plenty of money to fight this newer reactionary group, but choose not to . Then, there are media corporations, which is a-whole-nother conversation. Soros is pretty much out on his own here.

2. How much of this money went to BLM? Did it really make a difference in the size of protests? If Soros was directing it, would that whole #CutTheCheck fiasco have happened?

3. Note the wording "already-established groups." Soros isn't creating or directing these groups. They exist from actual grass roots causes -- unlike for example -- those who prepared the 2000 election Door Bangers or those who bought the bulldozers for the Chicks Bash.

CNN is essentially garbage. I hope you have not fallen into that paradigm that believes Fox is conservative and everyone else is liberal. That's ridiculous frankly -- especially if you are fmailiar with CNN's faking of The Gulf War coverage and it's involvement in choreographing one of the famous Osama videos from the late 90's.

George Soros has a lot to gain by keeping status quo,

I'm not sure what he has to gain, actually. Directing elections to the Democrats? Fine, that's about it.

As already mentioned, it's not working out very well. BLM is clearly not beholden to Soros. It existed without it, and it will continue despite it. Of course you will get "shills" who do things that might not otherwise be done. I posted a link the other day about one of the Bernie interrupters. Turns out, she had been a Sarah Palin fan. So, if you have a conspiracy here, maybe you're looking at the wrong perpetrator. Back to the article:

Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records

This is what is called a conclusory statement. The idea that Ferguson popped up from Soros money is absurd -- especially without specific evidence. Quite the opposite. He did not take over BLM -- compare what happened with Tea Party.

I'll tell you what happened with George Soros. The man is very old, but don't let that fool us. The fact is Mr. Soros was not involved in any significant partisan politics until he created MoveOn.org after the December 12, 2000 coup . He was just another part of the mainstream wealthy promoting business and opposing the people. The election theft appears to have awakened him, or more likely, spurred him to try to reverse direction to save the elite classes generally.

Compare that to Koch, Scaife, Exxon, etc. These people have been pursuing partisan politics for generations. Now, the partisans are all up in arms about George Soros as if he is some kind of equal. No, he is not. Not even close.

The establishment elites pursue a certain kind of capitalism for their private interests. The Koch/Exxon split-off takes advantage and agrees with those, but targets their money as a splinter group to really push things back to the gilded age.

This is what is really going on. :)

Then make the case. There may very well be one. Make it. What do you think happened here?

As for your links, all three are particularly bad sources of information. I've read stuff from those sources here at Voat too many times. Can you do better on the sources?

---

Edit: Woah, I didn't realize just how bad Snopes is.

That's a different issue. Where does this figure come from?

I don't see anything conspiratorial here. I know many would love to pin whatever they can on Hillary (except most of her actual wrongdoing strangely enough), but we simply don't have anything at all here.

This is plain old political pandering. The story explains it quite well. They were blocked from the event making interruption impossible. She decided to meet with them privately. They took her up. She pandered.

That's because her campaign paid them to disrupt the Sanders event....