Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 18 2016, 08:36 PM

On the NOT trump angle, we have the mouthpiece for the former KGB (RT America) saying trump is a fascist. hmmm Pot calling the kettle black perhaps, but some interesting bits none the less



On the FOR TRUMP angle, we have Faux, sorry, Fox news with Bill Oreilly. You decide

Posted by: Mertay Jun 18 2016, 11:36 PM

Some expert should seriously compare the guy to Turkey's erdoğan, dealing with this (born from democracy) dictator for many years I see lots of resemblances from his tv character and his arguments.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 19 2016, 12:40 AM

I have confidence in our Constitutional protections. Keep in mind what motivated the creation of the American Constitution, fear by the wealthy class, slave owners, land speculators, and holders of debt, that their wealth were being threatened by political movements on State levels. They built in checks and balances that prevented radicalization, and that includes precluding the President from overstepping prescribed bounds. It really does not take the Senate much to impeach a president, if they want to do that. And you always have the Supreme Court, 9 justices with life-long terms (30 years on average) who have the final say on an issue, and keep anyone from getting too far out of line. And the American Constitution if VERY difficult to change, that is it's strength.

My concerns about the guy stems from Trumps ignorance. Did you now that the guy does not even read books? Even George W Bush was a serious reader. We now have someone who actually makes George W. Bush look good in comparison, who would have thought it?

But I don't think he will win. It is frightening, he could do a lot of damage in the short time congress and the Senate would tolerate him, but still I think he will be beaten fairly soundly. Actually I wanted to see him as the nominee because I felt that he was the one Republican pretty sure to lose. Still, I am left with the fact that a great deal of Americans support someone like him, and what that says about people in America.

I vote "no", I think he is not really a facist, I think that is an act to draw appeal from his targeted segment of American voters. There was no other way for him to become the Republican nominee. But I do believe he is very ignorant about how the world works from a global political perspective, and that may be even more dangerous.

Posted by: Spock Jun 19 2016, 02:35 AM

Even more alarming than liberals calling Trump a fascist (as well as a racist) are the violent, belligerent mobs of anti-free speech communist quacks that feel the need to harass and attack peaceful Trump rally attendees.

The real fascists and racists are the thugs that represent Hillary and Bernie.

And holy shit can I post a ton of videos to prove that.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 19 2016, 02:52 AM

Good point! I hadnt thought of that comparison I do keep seeing people comparing Trump to Hitler in the media in terms of the Toxic Election in Germany in the late 1920s. Of course, Trump supporters, take it to mean that people are saying trump = Hitler, which is not really the argument being put forth.

Nobody had called anybody anything until your post here it seems It's just a "poll" asking a question Or at least, it was, until you posted "The real fascists and racists are the thugs that represent Hillary and Bernie". So we have three in just one sentence Including "Thug". Can't we discuss and ask questions without leveling accusations of "Thuggery?"

Sadly, I've seen violence on both sides of Trumps rally's From black people being punched by Trumpers to anti trumpers attacking trumpers. No matter which side it's on, it's sickening IMHO and reminiscent of the violent clashes between communists and Hitler supporters in the late 1920s. The fact that we can't just talk and disagree, as a people, without resorting to fisticuffs, is truly sad. In honesty though, it's clearly been sad on both sides.

Posted by: Spock Jun 19 2016, 12:16 PM

Is it not common knowledge that the mobs of anti-Trump supporters continuously and loudly proclaim Trump as a fascist? Then you post the O'Reilly opinion with the spin of "Faux" news - automatically spinning that opinion as illegitimate in your personal opinion.

Sort of a passive aggressive way of saying you support the idea he is a fascist and I would bet you are one of the 3 which voted that he was. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

I do not see him at all as a fascist. Nationalistic, yes, but even that word has been painted as hate speech by the left. And the insinuation would have to be that if Trump is a fascist, then people that support Trump are either gullible sheep, or fascists themselves.

So we have name calling from the get-go. Fascist.

To which I reply, " violent, belligerent mobs of anti-free speech communist quacks"

There is a difference I will give you that - Trump being a fascist is merely speculation which people would open for debate. However what is not debatable is the fact that there are consistently mobs of violent, belligerent, anti-free speech communist quacks that mob up for Trump rallies to harass supporters. How many times have you seen this from Trump supporters at Hillary or Bernie rallies?

And, how many times have you seen a black person being punched by Trump supporters? I guarantee it was that one single video.

Should we start a post war on instances of side versus side concerning this? I mean, if we're going to discuss Trump being a fascist, let's also discuss anti-Trump protestors acting like Hitler's Brownshirts.

Or should I start another thread comparing the two so that this thread can stay focused on if Trump is a fascist. Which isn't name calling of course, because it was presented as a question.

Maybe I should start a thread, "Is Hillary's Girlfriend a Saudi Spy"? Or, Are the Anti-Trump protestors Thugs? They wouldn't be biased of course, as they would merely be presented as questions for one to consider.

So - here is a brief interview with one of us fascist Trump supporters which has been left bleeding after Trump rally.

Notice all the peaceful, loving, non-thuggish anti-Trump protestors in the video...

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 19 2016, 12:39 PM

Should this thread also talk about if Hillary is a liar or is this another thread




Come on Todd , if Msnbc calls her a liar

I first would like to ask you what stories you have that lead to believe he is like the person you mentioned as in a forum like this sources and proof are required , I don't think you would tell your students how to do something with just hearsay.
2 . maybe experts don't want to get in that debate because they have seen evidence on both sides

Posted by: Spock Jun 19 2016, 12:52 PM

For the sanctity of this particular thread I will concede that my 2 posts derailed it.

Please continue with the debate of whether or not Trump is a Fascist.

I have seen the light and I now realize how to conduct political debates on a guitar forum.

See, an old dog can learn new tricks.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 19 2016, 01:24 PM

On to your first video , I did not want to re run and waste Kris's space on just a propaganda video = sad music , misleading statements , Pictures taken a the right time to make him look "evil" ,undocumented hearsay from a "non-biased " panel ( what flavor is that cool-aid ) . The first statement that he wants to documents American muslims was false - He wants to document new arrivals as their is very little truth we can know about them ( seems like a good idea to me, I mean I have to be documented and am on a database for owning several guns ), but when a video starts with a misrepresentation , you can bet what the rest will be
His response starts at 1:55



I can't count the times since I have been hear that a chillout thread has varied from its title
( to be fare , I am a unedjumacated sheep , and I probably can't count that high )

Posted by: Spock Jun 19 2016, 02:14 PM

LOL. I'm right there with you. I made it through college and still can't sign my name. That's why Common Core is so vitally important - so I can still feel good about myself understanding I'm just a victim of an intolerant society.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 19 2016, 02:56 PM

hey , your post is starting to shift from the title , I'm on to you

its not about you being right here with me , making it thru college , signing your name , Common core , feeling good about yourself , understanding you're a victim or an intolerant society . Just answer the dang question and shut it

And I felt as if we should just keep it on as few as threads as possible so as not clutter the forum with gobbly gook

Posted by: Spock Jun 19 2016, 03:08 PM

I understand! I must be a fascist, but my fascism should be celebrated and welcomed. Otherwise would be racist.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 19 2016, 04:48 PM

Ok - this might explain why this discussion starts to feel a bit unbalanced.

A video does not proove anything. If I wanted to, I could probably find videos claiming the earth is flat and that earthworms are the most lethal animals in the world.

This is also why I have not bothered watching many of your videos.

If you want to convince me about the legitimicy of your standpoint (whatever the topic is), then you should provide your own analysis - based on at least somewhat established facts.

But since I know you use biased videos as your sources, your arguments and analyses won't be worth much to me. As mentioned by others, they just take up a lot of space in otherwise very interesting threads.

Posted by: Spock Jun 19 2016, 06:47 PM

My analysis has nothing to do with speculation such as whether or not the earth is flat. They are not videos of people trying to prove a point.

They would be videos such as the one above of someone that got the hell beat out of them simply for being a Trump supporter leaving a rally, as well as rioting - they are real and raw - not speculation on any sort of theory. These would be based on "established facts" - I wouldn't waste my time otherwise.

The videos prove a point I am making. If I simply write my analysis then someone would claim it is not fact - so I would just as soon post irrefutable facts you can see for yourself.

If you don't care to watch them that's fine. You can choose not to take my word for anything either which I suspect is the case, but when I say I can post videos to prove, I can. And nobody can post videos to prove the earth is flat.

I would imagine you did watch the videos Todd posted though.


Here's another video which is more compelling than any flat earth video. My analysis of it - Trump rally protesters are brutal thugs and because they are intolerant hypocrites they gang up on innocent people.

Don't watch it though - don't dare see the truth

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 19 2016, 07:39 PM

sorry to point out the fact this might be the most fascist point posted yet , This is how your post came across to me

Your wrong , You are biased so in my haughtiness I don't need to give your post a look or response .

One of the most Passively aggressive Fascist statements IMO , now If you wanted to deny my posting rights based on my response , you could complete your fascism and shut opposite view points down

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 19 2016, 08:32 PM

Easy there I don't think we can really say just yet who is or isn't fascist per se as neither candidate has actually been in power yet. I was more curious who "thought" Donald Trump was a fascist.
It's just a poll. Here is the websters definition of FASCISM:

Full Definition of fascism
1.)Often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2.)A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
fascist play \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often capitalized
fascistic play \fa-ˈshis-tik also -ˈsis-\ adjective often capitalized
fascistically play \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb often capitalized

-----

But to give time for time, let's also ask about Hillary I"ll post the same poll for Hillary, Trump may win here in our small sample with his strong support on this site

P.S. As I mentioned in my previous post, there are wads of videos on yotube featuring both sides of presidential campaign behaving in a shameful way. UPDATE: I even went ahead and posted some of them from the other side to illustrate they are plentiful, and still shameful.

[b]Here is the link to the IS HILLARY A FASCIST poll. I'll refrain from voting so as not to schew the results.

https://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?showtopic=57118

To be sure both candidates are indeed "LIARS" Here is a quick bit of info for ya on that. From politifact.com (a non partisan site)

Here are two charts. Showing the relative truthfulness of our current candidates. To be clear, I'm NOT Pro Hillary, I"m Pro Democracy

*Adding a link to where the graphic came from helps "source" the information. So it's always a good idea
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/


To be sure, both candidates are "Liars". It does seem though that one candidate has a harder time being truthful though.





Very true You can find videos of BIGFOOT flying UFO"s if you like Hard to call youtube videos "Primary Sources" and or "Proof" of anything, on either side of any debate.

Here is a video showing OBAMA'S SECRET SERVICE GUY IS A LIZARD!!!!!


AND THE EARTH IS FLAT!!! : heheheheheh


*THE VIDS I DIDN"T WANT TO POST, but here we go
-SHAMEFUL behavior on both sides of the supporters/Anti it seems. So just for reference then, here are some vids of TRUMP SUPPORTERS behaving badly. (Again, both sides can be blamed here and it's sad. The sheer quantity of these types of vids on both sides is what makes them such bad sources for "proving" anything IMHO. They just take up space)





There is no end to these. They are mostly just mud slinging and make for poor supportive arguments IMHO

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 19 2016, 09:08 PM

About Politifact:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/27/in-2008-politifacts-2013-lie-of-the-year-that-you-could-keep-your-health-plan-under-obamacare-it-rated-true/#1bf7b16d316a

http://www.weeklystandard.com/section/politifact

http://cmpa.gmu.edu/political-studies/

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 19 2016, 09:41 PM

Sadly, the links you provided to discredit politifact are all right wing/conservative/heavily biased/etc.. Just as an example.

*link first for refernce (I"m sure the weekly standard or something like it will say that SOURCEWATCH is corrupt as well
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
History of the CMP
The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by S. Robert Lichter and Linda Lichter.[2] According to Salon.com, "the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson".[3]

The Weekly Sandard and Forbes speak for themselves and ardently conservative and right wing organizations. So to have these folks saying Politifact isn't objective is just not very solid. The site I"m using here, to comment on yours, (sourcewatch) is part of the CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY: a bit of history on them.

http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html
CMD is led by Lisa Graves, who formerly served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice and Chief Counsel for Nominations for the chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, among other strategic research and analysis roles in Washington, DC. These exposés reveal how some of the most powerful corporations in the world manipulate public policy, elections, and some in the media in ways that undermine real democracy.


As for POLITIFACT, here is a bit of actual history on them as an organization.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2011/oct/06/who-pays-for-politifact/

Updated Monday April 18, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

As we've gained new readers over the years, every now and then we get emails that ask, "Who's paying for this website? Who's putting out this information?"

The short answer: PolitiFact is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and its partner news organizations to help you find the truth in American politics. (See more about our mission on the "About Us" page.) The Times is the biggest newspaper in Florida, so the advertisers and subscribers help foot the bills for PolitiFact.

Yeah, yeah, you say. But who owns the Times ?

The answer to that question is a little long, but interesting.

Back in the 1970s, the Times was owned by Nelson Poynter, whose father Paul Poynter had bought the paper in 1912. (It was then called the St. Petersburg Times; the name changed to the Tampa Bay Times in 2012.)

Nelson Poynter had a passion for journalism, especially for independent journalism. As he thought about the future of his newspaper, he knew that he wanted to keep it independent and vigorous, even after his own death. So he created a plan to leave his newspaper, not to his family, but to a nonprofit school for journalism he created for the purpose.

"I haven't met my great-grandchildren. I might not like them," Poynter said.

Poynter died in 1978, and his plan went into place. The school -- now called the Poynter Institute -- owns the newspaper. The Poynter Institute offers seminars and classes to working journalists, educators and students, and its website, Poynter.org, is a clearinghouse for information and news about journalism.

Control of the newspaper and its operations, however, lies with a single executive. Upon retirement, that leader picks a successor. Poynter himself picked Eugene Patterson, who picked Andy Barnes, who picked the Times ' current chairman and CEO, Paul Tash.

We know of no other news organization in the country that runs like this.

Since 2010, the Times has partnered with other news organizations to operate PolitiFact sites in the states. Some of these partners are newspapers, such as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Austin American-Statesman (both part of Cox Media Group); and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (part of Gannett Co. Inc.). We also partner with Scripps television stations based in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio; with Capital Public Radio based in Sacramento, Calif., and with Billy Penn, a Philadelphia-based mobile-first news website.

From time to time, we’ve accepted financial support for our independent fact-checking from foundations that seek to improve news coverage or civic discourse.

We received a grant from the Democracy Fund that has assisted us in expanding to new states. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has supported the PolitiFact Global News Service, which fact-checks claims about health and global development. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has supported our efforts to fact-check political content on the publishing platform Medium.

For our PunditFact project -- which fact-checks talking heads and opinion leaders -- we have received grants from the Ford Foundation and the Democracy Fund. Seed money for the project was provided by craigconnects.

In previous years, we’ve accepted underwriting for our PolitiFact Florida project from the Knight Foundation, Craigslist Charitable Fund, and the Collins Center for Public Policy.

But when it comes to the question of "Who is PolitiFact?" or "Who pays for PolitiFact?", we can assure you that no one is behind the scenes telling us what to write for someone else's benefit. We are an independent, nonpartisan news organization. We are not beholden to any government, political party or corporate interest. We are proud to be able to say that we are independent journalists. And for that, we thank Nelson Poynter.


----
In short, sourcewatch is widely regarded as a "watchdog" organization that isn't afraid to point out who is being paid to say what. They have very solid leadership role keeping people honest IMHO. The gal that started it, is a bit of a crusader as you can read per her short bio.

Politifact, by no means a perfect organization, is also widely regarded as an objective watchdog group and has taken down both democrats and republicans. They don't stop short calling either side out for not telling the truth. Sourcewatch and Politifact both have solid reputations for journalistic integrity. Between them and PEW RESEARCH, we have 3 sources that consistently focus on objective facts and are not created solely to push a given "agenda". I'd take anything from any of these three as a good place to start. They do get things wrong, everybody does at some point. But they are all valid sources that often criticize the LEFT and the RIGHT so I'd suggest we call them "Primary" in terms of polling/research/etc.

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 19 2016, 09:49 PM

Recent news related to the videos Spock has posted regarding anti Trump folks at Trump rallies. Satisfied?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/10/im-voting-for-donald-trump-so-i-went-to-see-him-speak-protesters-broke-my-nose/

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtrump-gay-men-voting-donald-trump-n594691



Yeah I know, everything is biased except for the sources you provide. My bad.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 20 2016, 02:00 AM

Not everything You just picked three in particular However, as I Mentioned in another thread in response to Spocks post, I"m going to join him in taking a break from all of this political back and forth and try to get back to making more posts that are guitar related. However, if anyone wants to have a private conversation on a political issue, please do shoot me a PM

Todd

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 20 2016, 08:42 AM

Thanks for digging up these - they are examples of random youtube videos that don't prove anything. You can start with any random thesis and find "evidence" to back it up on the Internet.

So the best way to navigate through the massive brickwall of propaganda is probably to start by studying late modern history and then use news sources that color the info as little as possible.

Posted by: Spock Jun 20 2016, 10:52 AM

Even a child can tell the difference in videos like this and actual news footage - the same kind of footage that can be used in a court of law to convict someone.

As far as color - the color of the news footage videos I posted were red - blood red.

I even did a search for "Trump Supporters Mob Rally" as opposed to "anti-Trump supporters mob rally"

check out the results...

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Trump+supporters+mob+Rally&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 20 2016, 01:49 PM

Please let me know if I understand you correctly -

You're saying these videos are so obvioulsy not real, even a child could tell the difference. So what a about a better one - where adults would have problems telling. Would it be problematic to base a political ideology on such videos?

Posted by: Spock Jun 20 2016, 02:18 PM

No - I don't place my personal political ideology on the videos of rampant mobs attacking Trump supporters and tearing shit up at rallies. My political position is a hybrid of conservative and liberal so if I had to label myself I would say I'm and independent or maybe a libertarian.

I am what could be considered liberal on some domestic issues and conservative on foreign policy - although I think U.S. foreign policy has been completely screwed up since Reagan's term.

What I meant about the differences in the videos is that the first one is obviously an artifact from video compression - it happens all the time. But for the sake of argument, let's just pretend the secret service agent did shape shift on live television - would that necessarily classify him as an alien? Could he not be a ghost? Maybe one of our dark ancient reptilian overlords that live deep within the earth - even if the earth was flat. There would be no court of law that could single this man out and present evidence to a jury that this man was indeed an alien.

As for the other video - it's an op-ed piece. It's a man trying to convince another man and the viewing audience of his position. I can imagine it would be considered biased if I had posted opinion pieces from someone like Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh. So these videos could be categorized in the same light.

What I posted was real video footage of the rampage, bullying and attacks perpetrated by anti-Trump supporters en masse. These are not opinion pieces or video compression artifacts.

I would not use a broad brush and paint all people that would vote democrat in this election in such light, for instance I would never see anyone of my friends or family members which are affiliated with the democrats and hate Trump acting in such a way. What I am pointing out is the thuggish behavior from anti-Trump supporters to Trump supporters which has been chronic at Trump rallies.

For the video Todd posted of that stupid wench calling out those kids with obscenities, that is a fair video to post as rebuttal, so is the video of that moron Trump supporter kid that sucker punched that guy. But they don't represent the enigma that has happened when you pool all the instances together. Sure there are hooligans supporting both - but I don't think anyone has ever felt threatened going to a Sanders or a Clinton rally, where around here people are afraid to put Trump signs in their yards and have to walk through mobs screaming and spitting at them to enter a Trump rally.

The funny thing about it is that even though Trump won our state overwhelmingly, people still don't want to advertise the support him out of fear of retaliation from idiots.

The silent majority is making a major stand in this election. We are sick of our corrupt government and Hillary has been at the center of the corruption for the past 20 years.

Does that clarify my position?

Posted by: AK Rich Jun 20 2016, 09:11 PM

I don't how there can be any doubt to the validity of those youtube vids recorded at Trump rallies. It has been all over the news and major news outlets are using the vids as well as their own footage and first hand accounts from reporters on the scene.
Like it or not the videos accurately show what has happened here and is likely to continue to happen.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gays-for-trump-crowd-gathers-at-costa-mesa-rally-20160428-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politics/donald-trump-albuquerque-protesters-police/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/25/protesters-at-trump-rally-throw-rocks-bottles-at-albuquerque-police/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/protesters-assault-trump-supporters-eggs-bottles-punches-after-rally-n585096

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/02/donald-trump-protests-san-jose-rally-violence-sanders-clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-protest.html?_r=0

And this article popped up just today. Apparently an admitted assignation attempt on Trump.
Here is some text from the article.

"Sandford told officers he had been planning an assassination for about a year and was convinced he would die in the attempt. He said he also reserved a ticket for a Trump rally in Phoenix, scheduled for later in the day, as a backup."

"He told authorities that he went to the Battlefield Vegas shooting range the day before the rally and fired 20 rounds from a 9mm Glock pistol to learn how to use it. Police detectives who visited the range spoke with an employee who confirmed that he provided Sandford shooting lessons, according to the complaint."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_ATTEMPTED_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-20-16-01-59

http://thesmokinggun.com/file/trump-kill-bid (5 page source document)

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/man-admits-plot-to-kill-trump-759302

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 21 2016, 01:08 AM

I don't understand , guy swings bag - hits trump attendee in the ear - said ear bleeds . How is this fake Kris

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Jun 21 2016, 11:57 AM

Yes I feel with you - even today's democracies are corrupt in so many ways. I certainly understand the situation is frustrating and you want to make a change.

But please bare in mind that the videos you share with us have no statistical value at al! They showcase a bunch of assholes, and believe me the assholes are EVERYWHERE - in all cultures and religions.

Also please remember that when something sounds too good to be true, it almost always is! If you are promised a quick fix for a very complex problem, you are most likely getting scammed!

As mentioned, I think the best way to truly tell what is right and wrong - is to study modern history. As many of the mistakes we do today have already been done in the past.



See my reply above. I do not (necessarily) question the truthfulness of the videos. I question how relevant it is to post them in abundance for our discussions, as they offer absolutely no statistical value.

Posted by: Spock Jun 21 2016, 01:45 PM

So you are asking for statistics of mob violence at Trump rallies vs. Clinton and Sanders rallies before you would accept this is a real phenomena?

As far as Trump - he may not be an ideal candidate, but compared to Clinton and Sanders, which would equate to status quo or socialism - there is no better choice. A spiraling trend of Bernie Sanders type presidents would have our country looking like Venezuela.

As I said earlier, I am not a fan of Trump's tax proposal - but when you look at the numbers his tax plan actually puts more money in the hands of the people than Clinton's does.







And sure - there are idiots in all ideologies - however with the influx of Islam that is the largest threat to western civilization. Islam is not just a religion, it is a political ideology with its own laws.

So I stand 1000% behind Trump on immigration policies and it genuinely baffles me how anyone can not.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2016-race-donald-trump-ted-cruz-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-tax-plans-impact/

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 21 2016, 11:38 PM

That was exactly my point in sharing these They are wads of fun though!

Finding good news sources can be really hard depending on ones point of view. Generally speaking, I'd say go with folks that have a long track record, and that have won some Peabody awards. It's ok to take in sources that drift right and left, but it's got to be taken with a grain of salt IMHO. E.G. MSNBC drifts left, Fox drifts right, so both of these are sources that can be a bit tricky

I"d say BBC, Pew Research, and CBO (the congressional budget office. It's a non partisan research group that does analysis for congress), are all good places to start for general research on many topics. But then again, that's just me. Folks can and do use pretty much whatever they like. Which is fine too Takes all kinds as they say.

You are spot on as far as history study goes. There are patterns that keep repeating in history. So studying history is a good way to see what's coming up in the future

Egad! The issue of "Source" comes up to me on these. The source is IBT. IBT just bought NEWSWEEK. Who is IBT? Here is an article in (rightish leaning) FORTUNE.com about the connection between IBT and a Korean Cult leader who claims to be the second coming of Christ. That's all fine and dandy of course But I'd say look to pew research or one of the other sources I mentioned to get stats. They are just a bit more reliable and a bit less associated with messianic cults .

http://observer.com/2013/08/moonies-messiahs-and-media-who-really-owns-newsweek/

Here is an article from politico.com (*disclaimer: politico is often accused of leaning a bit rightish/pro establishment) talking about the first and second tax plan from Trump. The first one is around 10 trillion in deficit, the second one (if we take out dramatic and dynamic estimations of economic growth) is around 7 trillion in deficit. These are the plans from him. Not from another candidate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-tax-plan-revisions-223064

After posting here I just realized we are doing politics again. I"m off to my SHRED JOURNEY thread to critique some up and coming players!

Posted by: Spock Jun 22 2016, 12:52 AM

Actually I saw these broken down in a commentary.

What that does not take in account as far as the deficit is the "status quo" of Hillary's plan while neglecting the America First issues of Trump. So essentially, that would be the case if Trump's agenda only initiated his tax plan under Obama and Clinton's "status quo". Which would not be the case. However I can not locate the full explanation I heard regarding it.


Regardless - I'm still not a fan of his tax plan being for a flat/fair tax and sales tax while doing completely away with others. That would sort of take the sales out of paying illegals under the table because everything they purchased would go into the public fund.

Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 22 2016, 02:40 AM

I don't have time right now , but I am all for http://fairtax.org/

Tod I encourage you to put aside your leaning and give this an honest look

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 22 2016, 03:20 AM

So far I don't like either proposed plan CRSN: If you want the fair tax plan, I'd suggest you get with Trump pretty quick as he doesn't look to be going down this road AT ALL. You may have to do some quick talking

I'd point you to this link. From a non-partisan tax analysis site called the TAX POLICY CENTER. As you know, rich folks don't spend most of their income, statistically speaking, they save/invest most of it. This would preclude most of it from being taxed under this plan. Im for taxing the rich until they bleed. The worst part, is that many folks against high taxes for the wealth are not wealthy or even close to wealthy. They hope to be wealthy some day, but that's mostly just wishful thinking. Point of fact is that social mobility has been on the decline for decades as wages have stagnated and the middle class has vanished. So yeah, I'd say tax the living daylights out of anyone making above $250k. Then really go nuts over one million. This won't cure all ills. It will force the 1 percenters to pay a more fair share Which is much better than getting them all in a room and letting the poor loose on them. In other words BASTILLE DAY. Which is where things are headed sadly.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/trouble-fairtax