Youtube Vids, Trump Or Not To Trump? |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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_fo...showtopic=57118 QUOTE (Spock @ Jun 19 2016, 07:16 AM)  Is it not common knowledge that the mobs of anti-Trump supporters continuously and loudly proclaim Trump as a fascist? Then y Notice all the peaceful, loving, non-thuggish anti-Trump protestors in the video... 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.  QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Jun 19 2016, 07:39 AM) 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 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 QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 19 2016, 11:48 AM) 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. This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 19 2016, 09:33 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2016, 09:08 PM
|
|
About Politifact:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/...e/#1bf7b16d316a http://www.weeklystandard.com/section/politifact http://cmpa.gmu.edu/political-studies/ QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 19 2016, 11:32 AM) c=57118[/url]
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 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.This post has been edited by AK Rich: Jun 19 2016, 09:19 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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/Cente..._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/bl...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. QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 19 2016, 04:08 PM) About Politifact:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/...e/#1bf7b16d316a http://www.weeklystandard.com/section/politifact http://cmpa.gmu.edu/political-studies/ This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 19 2016, 10:02 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19 2016, 09:49 PM
|
|
QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Jun 19 2016, 07:48 AM) 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. Recent news related to the videos Spock has posted regarding anti Trump folks at Trump rallies. Satisfied? https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverythi...-broke-my-nose/ http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgb...d-trump-n594691 QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 19 2016, 12:41 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/Cente..._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. Yeah I know, everything is biased except for the sources you provide. My bad. |
|
|
|
|
 
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
