Community | February 06, 2012 | 17 comments

George Soros: No Difference Between Obama and Romney

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC27vNp0&feature=player_embedded

Tuppy54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC27vNp0&feature=player_embedded

Billionaire investor and speculator, George Soros, explains why there wouldn’t be much difference for Wall Street between President Obama and Mitt Romney. He also tells Chrystia Freeland why his billionaire constituents see him as a traitor to his class.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC27vNp0&feature=player_embedded
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   US Politics,   4 more
  2. tags:
    Mitt Romney,  President Obama,  REUTERS,  George Soros,  1 more
  3.     
    |

17 comments // George Soros: No Difference Between Obama and Romney // Video

  • Crauly_Fingers
  • faye59
    • +1
      faye59  

    • The gulf between Mitt and Obama is wide. These billionaires are only trying to protect themselves from paying more to help this nation. Obama has done things that neither side likes.That's a sign that he has the nation's welfare uppermost in his thoughts and not kissing up to the big boys who are crying about how much influence they have lost since he was elected. I suspect some of the acts of this Congress have been designed to make it harder for the President to do his job.has anyone else noticed that its the rich and privileged class who are complaining ad nauseum, but the poor and middle class just do what they need to do to survive in this poor economy. Money doesn't vote , people do. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice , shame on me. Remember 2010?

    • 1 year ago
  • Anonmaly
  • ampersand
    • +1
      ampersand  

    • I respect George Soros' opinion. Having lived under fascist and Communist tyranny he's given a lifetime of attention and a lot of money to promote and preserve democracy, and open societies. That's why he's such a bugaboo on the far right. They can't believe a billionaire would be fighting against their entrenched interests.
      That said, his point about the difference between Obama and Rommey, both "moderates" who seek to maintain the status quo, is well taken.
      One characteristically avoids confrontation and is one wholly without any qualms about saying anything to get his hands on the Presidency.
      Still, the troglodytes and fundamentalist fascist wackos that Rommey would sweep into power under his skirt would be a far, far worse fate for this nation than four more years of Mr. Obama.

    • 1 year ago
  • faye59
    • +2
      faye59  
    • ampersand:

      I agree. What sane person would force a girl to have a child by her rapist? Some of these folks have lost their ever-loving minds. I'd hate to think that these nut jobs could have final say on my health, reproductive choices, insurance, love life and religion. Think about that, too.

    • 1 year ago
  • AmericanStandard
  • ThirdSection
    • +2
      ThirdSection  

    • One difference I do see is the sorts of people each would send to the Supreme Court. At the time of the Citizens United decision, Obama had one appointee on the court and she voted against it. I wonder how a Romney appointee would have voted.

    • 1 year ago
  • JohnA
  • nowherefast
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • AmericanStandard
  • maasanova
  • JustZ
  • faye59
  • faye59
    • +1
      faye59  
    • JustZ:

      These old social issues should have died a painful death years ago. Anybody that believes this tripe has a very short memory and ulterior motives. The Mormons brought about Prop 8 in California. Who's to say they haven't revived these old out-dated issues to try to sow discord in the nation, so that Mitty could get a leg up on the President. It hasn't worked. Most women do not want to have 21 kids. Who could afford to feed them even if you wanted to?Keep your eye on the ball and let's find out why family planning is a target of the right. Do they want to create an even larger class of poor people? Last time I checked, the woman is the one left to fend for the family if the husband or significant other decides to leave, or dies unexpectedly. Just imagine a nation of waifs begging on the streets like in third world countries, That's a major difference in having and not having social safety nets. Don't believe the tripe.

    • 1 year ago
  • maasanova
  • faye59
    • +1
      faye59  
    • maasanova:

      Why point out the obvious? My point is that nothing about the two are similar. I've noticed the slant to the reporting and Soros isn't above covering his own behind when he doesn't agree with Obama. He said nothing to support his argument that there would be no differences between the two. Recent history disproves the premise that both would perpetuate the status quo. Mitt does nothing to piss off the conservatives. He panders shamelessly and ad nauseum. Can you say the same about the Prez.?

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos