Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: please just stop it. [View all]DonViejo
(60,536 posts)37. "Soros funding of BLM is not evidence."...
So what if it is evident?
Claim: George Soros donated $33 million to fund rioting Ferguson protest groups - Snopes
-snip-
According to various alarmist reports, Soros himself virtually single-handedly enabled and promoted protests connected with the Ferguson shooting because some of the groups involved (tangentially or otherwise) with activism-related events received some portion of their funding from the OSF network:
But taking that information and converting it into the assertion Soros himself funded Ferguson-related protests and riots is problematic for a number of reasons. Although George Soros is the founder and chairman of OSF, he quite obviously does not personally oversee and approve every single grant made by the OSF network to the multitude of
organizations and programs that the network helps to fund. As well, the $33 million figure includes just about every organization with any connection to Ferguson-related activism that received monies from the OSF network, even if their involvement was tangential (such as publishing, writing, or promoting hashtags about the issue). And that such groups may have received part of their funding from the OSF network doesn't mean those funds were given for the specific purpose of organizing Ferguson-related protests, or with the knowledge or intent they would be used thusly.
As Kenneth Zimmerman, director of OSF's U.S. Programs observed, some of the groups involved have been receiving OSF funding since long before the Ferguson shooting was a political issue, and the OSF itself did not promote or direct Ferguson-related protests:
-snip-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251503072
-snip-
According to various alarmist reports, Soros himself virtually single-handedly enabled and promoted protests connected with the Ferguson shooting because some of the groups involved (tangentially or otherwise) with activism-related events received some portion of their funding from the OSF network:
In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.
The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre.
Soros-sponsored organizations helped mobilize protests in Ferguson, building grass-roots coalitions on the ground backed by a nationwide online and social media campaign.
Other Soros-funded groups made it their job to remotely monitor and exploit anything related to the incident that they could portray as a conservative misstep, and to develop academic research and editorials to disseminate to the news media to keep the story alive.
But taking that information and converting it into the assertion Soros himself funded Ferguson-related protests and riots is problematic for a number of reasons. Although George Soros is the founder and chairman of OSF, he quite obviously does not personally oversee and approve every single grant made by the OSF network to the multitude of
organizations and programs that the network helps to fund. As well, the $33 million figure includes just about every organization with any connection to Ferguson-related activism that received monies from the OSF network, even if their involvement was tangential (such as publishing, writing, or promoting hashtags about the issue). And that such groups may have received part of their funding from the OSF network doesn't mean those funds were given for the specific purpose of organizing Ferguson-related protests, or with the knowledge or intent they would be used thusly.
As Kenneth Zimmerman, director of OSF's U.S. Programs observed, some of the groups involved have been receiving OSF funding since long before the Ferguson shooting was a political issue, and the OSF itself did not promote or direct Ferguson-related protests:
-snip-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251503072
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Numbers of recs and posts. That is about as reliable as political polls this early in the season.
jwirr
Aug 2015
#100
Yes, the reality of what these protests have done. I thought I was pretty clear
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#17
Facts are facts. No one should ever have supported these tactics from the beginning.
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#25
Pure speculation, innuendo and personal opinion are now "facts", did you not get the memo from Fox?
Fred Sanders
Aug 2015
#64
I am still laughing! And not worrying much about the nonsensical rantings, there are a few folks like you keeping it real.
Fred Sanders
Aug 2015
#73
She probably isn't tangled up in it. That's what political operatives are for.
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#49
I'm pretty sure you are doing your part to promote that perception on social media
Sheepshank
Aug 2015
#106
I did not write that, I did not say that. You are in error if that's what you think
irisblue
Aug 2015
#103
If you want to talk about ME this probably isn't the place. I prefer to stick to
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#146
So do I. I have a quote from you about heckling as a tactic and the gay people who used it:
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2015
#57
As apparently many formerly strident critics haved. And what I say to them I say to you, which is
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2015
#135
OUCH! That's gonna leave a mark. Seems this "evolution" thing is like a "Free Pass" on any issue....
Indepatriot
Aug 2015
#114
I thought it was hilarious that you and others were making demands of Sen. Sanders
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#21
The poster said "Hillary gets the blame. Sorry" By 8 o'clock last night anyone who was watching
jwirr
Aug 2015
#108
Thank you, stating a fact creates quite stir it seems. Bernie Sanders defended Hillary
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#155
"take credit for your own statement instead of deflecting? " I read that as defecating, lol.
bettyellen
Aug 2015
#158
Thank you, that is exactly what people are saying. Wnen something makes no sense
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#98
No one is ever obligated to do the right thing. That's why it's a matter of -honor-
HereSince1628
Aug 2015
#7
Regardless, it's a campaign tactic. We are in the middle of a campaign. As to her connection to
GoneFishin
Aug 2015
#11
And it could also be someone else that is hoping for a twofer. What better way could you use to
A Simple Game
Aug 2015
#41
I was not the one who asserted that there was not a connection. No. And you ... ?
GoneFishin
Aug 2015
#91
This "division" is not within our party. BLM is not a Democratic Party-affiliated group. Please
Hortensis
Aug 2015
#39
I will repeat this as politely as I can, I support the Labeling of our Food and I oppose
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#95
Again repeating a request that this poster refrain from addressing me, due to
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#111
Most people tend not to respond in the best manner when they are insulted. It's human nature.
jalan48
Aug 2015
#47
If Hillary gains anything from Bernie's engagement with BLM, it should be that she learns
ancianita
Aug 2015
#68
a lot of the suspicion is also from the similar language to the Clinton side: if you're not
MisterP
Aug 2015
#134