'(Soros)having bought control of the Democratic Party,'
Michael.SF responds:
This is the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that has caused me to stop using Newsmax as a credible source. A more realistic phrase would have been:"Soros has used his vast wealth to gain a significant role of leadership within certain Democratic circles, Moveon.org, being one example."
Dear Michael.SF:
I can well understand why you might consider the second statement less "inflammatory" than the first. However, I can assure you that the first is the more accurate of the two.
"Inflammatory" is not always synonymous with "wrong," nor is "understated" always synonymous with "correct."
FReegards...
Soros is getting divorced, fwiw.
Thank you for your response to my comments.
In my opinion, the biggest threat facing the direction of this country, for the future, is represented by the philosophy of the Clinton's and those who agree with them. The danger, in my mind, is that the true beliefs of the Clinton's is shielded from all but a very few. Bill, for example, governed as a 'moderate' out of survival, not out of desire. Hillary embodies this same deceit.
George Soros, on the other hand, is more honest regarding his true feelings and the direction in which he wants the country to go. I am sure we would both agree that any politician who publicly espoused the philosophy of George Soros would be unelectable to national office and only in a select few states could that philosopy rise to the level of the Senate.
Although George Soro's, simply because of his vast wealth, is able to yield power, I do not believe that he is more powerful then the Clinton's. The Clinton's will distance themselves from him publicly, while seeking and appreciating his money privately. But no decision is made by the DNC w/o the Clinton's approval, even if it is just a tacit approval.