[InitialLastName]

I think it would be possible for two people to reasonably disagree over whether any given move "enables democracy" though. I don't have a good internalized list of the positions that Soros' critics take issue with, but looking at [0], I could see my way to arguing that lots of the issues either do or do not enable democracy, based on different initial assumptions.

[0] http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Soros#Socialist_Agenda_F...

[ZeroGravitas]

Well, yes I can see how "the demolition of technological/industrial civilization" might be considered anti-democratic but in fact, once Soros has destroyed industrial civilization, the remaining 12 humans alive will vote on everything so really it's a win for democracy.

Or maybe we can find slightly less cranky sites to reference in our political discussions.

[InitialLastName]

I was trying to track down an easy shot at a critical framing of his viewpoints. It's surprisingly hard to find people on the internet who criticize George Soros in a coherent and reasoned way.

[ZeroGravitas]

If you follow the source links from that page you do find a coherent and reasoned criticism of Soros.

The authors don't want felons to vote, don't want poor people to vote, don't want African-Americans to vote etc. Soros funds efforts to make this happen. The Republican party on the other hand has aimed towards the opposite goal for decades and is on the record that they're doing it intentionally because the less people vote the more likely they are to win.

So it's perfectly logical and rational, it's just anti-democratic.

I mean are we all supposed to just pretend this stuff doesn't happen? There's been supreme court arguments about it, it's all on record.