George Soros donated money to campaign for a rerun of Britain's EU referendum

[Morch]

12 hours ago, greatwhitenorth said:

then your posting on the wrong thread.  Typical nonsense , now he is grammar police and reading coach.

 

My comment had nothing to do with "grammar police", but with the incorrect interpretation of my post. Thanks for making my point again.

 

 

11 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Reading comprehension requires the relevant posts to be comprehensible. Other than flagging up the fact that laws have fallen behind on this issue, you aren't actually saying anything.

 

You're at it again. I did not "flag" that "laws have fallen behind on this issue", but rather you assert that laws have fallen behind. So not only this is yet another misrepresentation of my post, but further, it is not even a fact - but your own partisan point of view. Pretty much on par with declaring Soros's contributions as being "unacceptable".

 

As for the "aren't actually saying anything" bit - yeah, thanks: I get it that often on TVF not spewing some simplified one-sided opinion, is "unacceptable", at least for some.

 

I think such donations are problematic, but not convinced that the wholesale denouncement offered above is correct. As for attempts to draw a faux equivalency between such donations and political interventions as taken by Russia - no, not same same at all.

[i claudius]

Go George!

Yup as far away as possible

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

You're at it again. I did not "flag" that "laws have fallen behind on this issue", but rather you assert that laws have fallen behind. So not only this is yet another misrepresentation of my post, but further, it is not even a fact - but your own partisan point of view. Pretty much on par with declaring Soros's contributions as being "unacceptable".

 

As for the "aren't actually saying anything" bit - yeah, thanks: I get it that often on TVF not spewing some simplified one-sided opinion, is "unacceptable", at least for some.

 

I think such donations are problematic, but not convinced that the wholesale denouncement offered above is correct. As for attempts to draw a faux equivalency between such donations and political interventions as taken by Russia - no, not same same at all.

 

But you did flag up the issue of laws on this matter being inadequate. Inadvertently, but that's no bad thing.

 

And there we have it again: the daft and meaningless assertion that some types of foreign interference are better than others. Russia stands accused (without evidence) of influencing foreign politics through propaganda. What do you think the recipients of Soros' money are doing with that money? Donating it to the Red Cross? Nope. It's being used to influence politics though propaganda.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Khun Han

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

But you did flag up the issue of laws on this matter being inadequate. Inadvertently, but that's no bad thing.

 

And there we have it again: the daft and meaningless assertion that some types of foreign interference are better than others. Russia stands accused (without evidence) of influencing foreign politics through propaganda. What do you think the recipients of Soros' money are doing with that money? Donating it to the Red Cross? Nope. It's being used to influence politics though propaganda.

 

I said nothing about them being "inadequate". That's your own input. Guess that some people may think the current laws (or lack of) is, in fact, adequate. Or even restrictive, who knows. My point was about pushing personal views and positions as representing agreed upon sentiment or facts. 

 

Call it "daft" all you like, still doesn't make your argument. Denying that there's proof Russia tried to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries is plain silly. Not so much a question of if, but of how deep it goes and what are/were the actual effects. Russia, for good reasons, conducts its activities in a clandestine manner, whereas Soros and (others like him, of whatever political persuasion) often act within legally acceptable bounds. Another key element is motive - Russia does not act according to the best interests of relevant countries. On the other hand, while there can be different takes as to Soros' motives, I doubt they could be described as outright hostile.

[Khun Han]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I said nothing about them being "inadequate". That's your own input. Guess that some people may think the current laws (or lack of) is, in fact, adequate. Or even restrictive, who knows. My point was about pushing personal views and positions as representing agreed upon sentiment or facts. 

 

Call it "daft" all you like, still doesn't make your argument. Denying that there's proof Russia tried to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries is plain silly. Not so much a question of if, but of how deep it goes and what are/were the actual effects. Russia, for good reasons, conducts its activities in a clandestine manner, whereas Soros and (others like him, of whatever political persuasion) often act within legally acceptable bounds. Another key element is motive - Russia does not act according to the best interests of relevant countries. On the other hand, while there can be different takes as to Soros' motives, I doubt they could be described as outright hostile.

 

Conspiracy theory alert!

 

Yes, Soros certainly acted in the UK's best interests, and not at all in a hostile way, the last time he (is known to have) intervened, didn't he? Remember Black Wednesday?

 

Anyway, with regard to inadequate laws (which I said you inadvertently flagged up - thank you anyway), you didn't read the article I linked then?

[FreddieRoyle]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Conspiracy theory alert!

 

Yes, Soros certainly acted in the UK's best interests, and not at all in a hostile way, the last time he (is known to have) intervened, didn't he? Remember Black Wednesday?

 

Anyway, with regard to inadequate laws (which I said you inadvertently flagged up - thank you anyway), you didn't read the article I linked then?

The sponsoring of acts directly opposing the will of the electorate is by it's very nature acting against the UK's best interests. Unless the UK has it's best interest being led by an unelected billionaire foreigner? Funny when the US was paranoid about foreigners possibly interfering with their internal politics it sent the media and liberals into meltdown, yet here we have an identical situation and they are supporting it and attempting to somehow glorify it. So much for consistency.

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Conspiracy theory alert!

 

Yes, Soros certainly acted in the UK's best interests, and not at all in a hostile way, the last time he (is known to have) intervened, didn't he? Remember Black Wednesday?

 

Anyway, with regard to inadequate laws (which I said you inadvertently flagged up - thank you anyway), you didn't read the article I linked then?

 

There was no conspiracy theory offered, other perhaps than in your own posts. Haven't said Soros acted in the UK's best interests, "certainly" or otherwise. As far as I understand this topic is not about Black Wednesday - and that was the sense in which the comment was made. Seems like there's little point to this discussion if one needs to point out what was actually said or wasn't said in every sentence. Not so much a reading comprehension issue then, but more to do with intentional misrepresentation.

[Khun Han]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There was no conspiracy theory offered, other perhaps than in your own posts. Haven't said Soros acted in the UK's best interests, "certainly" or otherwise. As far as I understand this topic is not about Black Wednesday - and that was the sense in which the comment was made. Seems like there's little point to this discussion if one needs to point out what was actually said or wasn't said in every sentence. Not so much a reading comprehension issue then, but more to do with intentional misrepresentation.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory about Russian interference in other countries' politics? Articles making the same claim without any factual evidence don't count, by the way.

 

Dontcha just love it when posters declare inconvenient supporting evidence as offtopic? Such a ham-fisted debating tactic.

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory about Russian interference in other countries' politics? Articles making the same claim without any factual evidence don't count, by the way.

 

Dontcha just love it when posters declare inconvenient supporting evidence as offtopic? Such a ham-fisted debating tactic.

Cia, FBI have both confirmed Russian interference. So have Facebook and Twitter.

 

This is not a conspiracy theory but these are facts.

[Khun Han]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Cia, FBI have both confirmed Russian interference. So have Facebook and Twitter.

 

This is not a conspiracy theory but these are facts.

 

What are these facts then?

 

Social media provided lists of people 'involved' in this so-called conspiracy. One was a retired grandfather living in middle America, another was a Scottish security guard. We know about these two because they both came forward, utterly bemused by being dragged into this nonsense.

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory about Russian interference in other countries' politics? Articles making the same claim without any factual evidence don't count, by the way.

 

Dontcha just love it when posters declare inconvenient supporting evidence as offtopic? Such a ham-fisted debating tactic.

 

Well this would just go back to you ignoring facts, so what's the point? Numerous US and EU agencies stated as much, various IT firms confirmed it. More a question of scope and effectiveness rather than whether it happened or not. Go on denying it as much as you like - or take your argument with them agencies and firms. If you want to derail this topic further by making it another Trump supporter denial-fest, go ahead and have a ball.

 

This is not a trial and you haven't presented any "supporting evidence" regardless. All you do is twist posts, present personal opinion as fact, then argue some more when this is pointed out.

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Well this would just go back to you ignoring facts, so what's the point? Numerous US and EU agencies stated as much, various IT firms confirmed it. More a question of scope and effectiveness rather than whether it happened or not. Go on denying it as much as you like - or take your argument with them agencies and firms. If you want to derail this topic further by making it another Trump supporter denial-fest, go ahead and have a ball.

 

This is not a trial and you haven't presented any "supporting evidence" regardless. All you do is twist posts, present personal opinion as fact, then argue some more when this is pointed out.

 

See my post above yours. And your attempted description of me is actually a description of yourself.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Funny when the US was paranoid about foreigners possibly interfering with their internal politics it sent the media and liberals into meltdown, yet here we have an identical situation and they are supporting it and attempting to somehow glorify it. So much for consistency.

Well, consistency is not the strong suit of the Social Justice Warrior types.

 

'Consistency' is akin to 'reason' and 'rationality', which do not actually exist, SJW academics insist, but are mere constructs of the cis-heteronormative white patriarchy.

 

Syracuse University professor John Caputo explains: "I think that what modern philosophers call 'pure' reason — is a white male Euro-Christian construction. 'Pure' reason is lily white, as if white is not a color or is closest to the purity of the sun, and everything else is 'colored'."

 

So don't expect reason, much less consistency, from these people. They think that if it feels like it should be true, it automatically is.

[stevenl]

31 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

What are these facts then?

 

Social media provided lists of people 'involved' in this so-called conspiracy. One was a retired grandfather living in middle America, another was a Scottish security guard. We know about these two because they both came forward, utterly bemused by being dragged into this nonsense.

Check with CIA, FBI, Facebook, Twitter. Russian interference is a fact.

 

But facts don't seem to count anymore, it is all about spin. 

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[Khun Han]

17 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Check with CIA, FBI, Facebook, Twitter. Russian interference is a fact.

 

But facts don't seem to count anymore, it is all about spin. 

 

Er.....has nobody pointed out to you that the way how it works is: if you claim there are facts to support your opinion, you're the one who has to provide them, not the people asking for them?

[Morch]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

Er.....has nobody pointed out to you that the way how it works is: if you claim there are facts to support your opinion, you're the one who has to provide them, not the people asking for them?

 

Er...pretending this wasn't covered on many previous and ongoing topics (in which you partook) is disingenuous, not to say tiresome.

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Er...pretending this wasn't covered on many previous and ongoing topics (in which you partook) is disingenuous, not to say tiresome.

 

No. What is tiresome is the conspiracy theorists constantly claiming that Russian interference has been proven, but never actually coming up with any proof.

[rockingrobin]

33 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No. What is tiresome is the conspiracy theorists constantly claiming that Russian interference has been proven, but never actually coming up with any proof.

The British foreign minister disagrees

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-johnson/stop-meddling-in-foreign-elections-uks-johnson-tells-russian-hosts-idUSKBN1EG00W

 

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The British foreign minister disagrees

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-russia-johnson/stop-meddling-in-foreign-elections-uks-johnson-tells-russian-hosts-idUSKBN1EG00W

 

 

What is this evidence?

[Khun Han]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/08/youtube-says-no-evidence-of-russian-interference-in-brexit-vote

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/facebook-no-evidence-russia-interfered-in-brexit-2017-11

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/study-casts-doubt-about-russian-interference-in-brexit-referendum-1.3332326

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Khun Han