Soros, the Open Society Foundations, and the Continued Political Hacks

The open borders zealots like Soros never seem to have a clear answer to this.

You made that up yourself. I said most of our military actions were about pushing politics or capitalism. Which the evidence supports, including many declassified documents. I said military spending in U.S. is excessive, has tons of failed programs, is justified by bribes/votes, and mostly lines pockets of defense contractors and Congress reps. U.S. records give me proof of first two, Congress records have proof of next (i.e. lobbying), and annual reports + track records show proof of last. You're straight-up reciting propaganda of U.S. military connected outfits that contradict results in their own documents. Such contradictions are confusing until you realize they can lie in some places and it's a felony in others. ;)

"oh please, you aren't even responding to my comment or claims."

Sure I am. You implied the U.S. spending is actually about the security of us and NATO. It's provably not. It's a mix of profiteering, waste, and security expenses. Of the security expenses, it's a mix of useless stuff given modern battlefield and stuff that's actually useful which usually costs far less. Your whole spending claim is bogus if it relies on false belief that U.S. military spending is about security. It's partly false if it believes that the small portion spent on security actually improves security. Most is again about jobs (eg votes in key districts), campaign contributions to Congress, military heads getting promoted for appearing to improve something, and so on.

"NATO own studies have shown over and over again that an issue it constantly faced is the uneven spending (as ratio to GPD) of its members"

And since you're belief is false, those that correctly realize most U.S. military spending has no value shouldn't try to support or match that. They should instead just buy what has value in their country spending a tiny fraction on that. Your recent claim supports they are doing this. Smart.

"the reluctance of members to put their troops within joint commands."

Joint commands fighting the wrong people for the wrong reasons with the initiator of the war admitting in declassified documents they funded and created the enemies. Their newest war was projected to create even more. (It did.) That nations are reluctant to support those deployments is again the wise choice. Their citizens or targets shouldn't die for greed or politics.

All his public statements are about promoting stability, democracy and the open society. If your hypothesis is that wants to promote chaos to help him profit from speculation there is no way to do that without also ascribing to him direct intentionality on the matter. He can't 'unconsciously' be creating chaos and 'accidentally' profiting. The cause-and-effect feedback look is too tortuous for this to be a rational explanation for his actions.

So pick your position. He's either a duplicitous puppet-master with no sincere motivation aside from increasing his own wealth - or he is a sincere believer in freedom and democracy - even if he is deluded or incorrect about the long-term effects of his actions.

Note that the second position allows you to believe he still wants to increase his personal wealth - it allows for the possibility that he is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser degree. But there is clear blue water between that and many of the Soros-theories that sound to me like barking mad wingnut fodder.

A new kind of Socialist class warfare where Democrats now divide the population into countless different "identity" classes that struggle against each other.

This reduces cohesion within a society and often leads to violence between these groups.

> People saying it's bad to shoot black people running away from police who aren't armed?

So a criminal suspect should have the universal human right to run away without being stopped by force? Bonus question: How can a police officer know that a person running away is not armed?

I don't know where you have read about these supposedly universal human rights, please point me to a link.

> Women should get equal pay for equal work, and have control over their own bodies?

Yes, what makes you believe that this is not the case? Please look up some statistics about labour participation by gender. You'll find that much less women work full time jobs than men do, so they obviously will earn less. They also tend to not pursue careers in high paying industries.

I'm not going to promote a part time worker to a high position in my company just because the person is female. I'm going to promote the person that works the hardest and has a skill set that is highly valuable to the company.

> It hurts the dems because it makes them look stupid

No, it makes them look criminal. That's why the FBI is investigating Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

> , but it won't affect the election.

You contradict your previous statement.

> If there was a better demagogue than Trump running, it might affect the election.

You can believe in whatever you like, but you should be at least intellectually honest and recognise that this statement, like all of the statements in your comment isn't backed by any facts.