Violent anti-Trump protesters only boost support for Trump

Well, on the other hand it could expose just how much Trump is disliked by Hispanic voters. I just don’t beleive there’s enough Klansmen to pull off a Trump victory in November. Makes you wonder how it will play out for John McCain et al who throw their support behind the racist.

Looks like that $10 million donated to the Libre Initiative by the Koch Bros to establish a relationship with Hispanics wasn’t such a good investment.

@Ajay42302: First of all your just an insolent fool if you think only klansman support Trump. If that is true there are a lot more klansman than you ever imagined. Secondly they all vote legally. It’s far past time to insure that only those eligible to vote do so. No more dead people, prisoners without eligibility, or illegals to vote!! Looks like Obola catering to illegals has caused a huge mess in our country. I assure you that the disgusting activities that took place in New mexico will only increase the number of Trump supporters. It’s time to make America American again!! I don’t expect a moron like you to have a clue though!!

I agree with the article. I will never, ever vote for Sec. Hillary Clinton, but I cannot see how I can vote for Trump either. My personal standards are such that I can’t support him. However, every time I see protests like this or see the MSM twist the news to give the election to Clinton and the cronies that own her, I’m forced to review my position.

These people cannot win.

@Ajay42302: Day of reckoning is correct. I’m not stalking you, your not worth it but I have the right to call out your ignorant moronic ass anytime I want. Don’t like it, back to mommy’s basement in your pp jams!!

@Ajay42302: Your an ignorant ass is a fact, just look at the crap you write!!

Eventually the antagonists will get their wish- another Kent State type response from the police so they have something to really exploit. The left has always used this tactic be it Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or their beloved USSR. Of course, none of them will be on the receiving end of it because they’ll be hiding in the comforts of their own homes in their white, upscale neighborhoods.

He isn’t George Wallace, but but he’s toying with the same sort of negative energies. His rhetoric and the tone of his campaign are producing the angry reaction. Like Wallace, he may think he can use this to his advantage; that he can gain support by making the law and order pitch. People can be frightened with images of disorder in the streets. This can be attributed to the target of his attacks and to the political opposition, and he can hold himself out as a solution.

It’s part of a recognizable pattern. People my own age have seen it before.

@john:

An English Lawmaker Called Hitler a Socialist. After the Arguing is Done, the Audience is Cheering.
In this speech, posted on December 9th of this year, Hannan sets out to prove how the infamous German fuhrer Adolf Hitler was not a man of the right, but a different type of socialist.
Mr Hannan opens, “Ladies and gentleman, who said this? ‘I am a socialist. And a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Count Reventlow.’
Among the points that back Mr. Hannan’s point is the official Nazi platform; particularly, its economic policies:

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
Therefore we demand:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. […]
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
In bold letters, the Nazi platform summarizes:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

As Hannan points out, while socialists and fascists, two different kinds of authoritarian collectivists, fought one another for power, both groups were hostile to the classically liberal true “right” – which stands for individual freedom.

Later on in the video [5:30], a questioner asks: “How is it freedom to not have your daily bread, to not go to a reasonable school, to not have any opportunities to develop yourself as a young person…?”

Mr. Hannan replied, “Let’s leave aside whether or not one means positive freedom or negative freedom. If you want those opportunities, if you want decent schools, if you want a rise in living standards, would you go to North Korea or South Korea?” Much of the audience applauded in approval.

In a related article in the Telegraph, “So total is the Left’s cultural ascendancy that no one likes to mention the socialist roots of fascism,” Daniel Hannan points out how uncomfortable it makes people to recite basic historical facts about history:

One of the most stunning achievements of the modern Left is to have created a cultural climate where simply to recite these facts is jarring. History is reinterpreted, and it is taken as axiomatic that fascism must have been Right-wing, the logic seemingly being that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists were nasty. You expect this level of analysis from Twitter mobs; you shouldn’t expect it from mainstream commentators.

It is astounding to see how one political faction can so thoroughly dominate discourse as to condition the cultural terrain whereby any opposition is considered “hate,” “racism,” or “bigotry.” But much like with the Democratic Party in the United States, the first rule of polite, politically correct conversation is to never drag the skeletons out of the left’s closet.

English Conservative MEP:Hitler Was A Socialist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Rini9Yu0M

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/217711-3-english-mp-daniel-hannan-gives-blistering-speech-setting-record-straight-real-socialists/

@Ajay42302: These folks are just a very few who let their anger get the best of them.

Nonsense!
The invitations to attend this protest was sent by the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) who also printed the signs and had gathering to create a few handmade signs.

We all saw them holding those PSL signs on TV last night on the news.

And who pays the rent for PSL?
George Soros.

Just like those six or seven guys who say they are Vets against Trump and stand in front of Trump Tower are paid by Hillary, these in NM were astroturf paid protesters.

If some of these paid protesters pretended to be angry it was to get air time.

That guy who threatened Milo Y. at DePaul along with his BLM female (I assume) partner who threw a punch at Milo Y. were paid.
The guy is an ex-homeless guy that Chicago liberals were useful idioting. He had been told he was being groomed for a state representative position, but the truth was he was being groomed for last night’s takeover at DePaul.
He’s toast politically.
When the money dries up he’ll be back on the streets.
Just like Cindy Sheehan, when her money was gone the Left threw her under the bus.

@Greg: Stalin was a left wing extremist. Mao Zedong was a left wing extremist. Hitler and Mussolini were at the other extreme.

Greg, you have no idea what your talking about as the term right and left is not from the french revolution, its from the soviet revolution and the soviets.

in the early days, the russians and the germans had the same hand signs (yes, there are posters with Stalin putting up his hand in a hitler salute)… but the problem was how to distinquish international socialism, from national socialism.

the soviets had divided their concepts by right opposition, left opposition, and centrist.. guess what? Stalin and Lenin were the centrists… Trotsky was the left opposition, and Bukharin was the right.

The Right Opposition (Russian: Правая оппозиция, Pravaya oppozitsiya) was the name given to the tendency made up of Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Mikhail Tomsky and their supporters within the Soviet Union in the late 1920s. It is also the name given to “right-wing” critics within the Communist movement internationally, particularly those who coalesced in the International Communist Opposition, regardless of whether they identified with Bukharin and Rykov. Note that the designation “Right Opposition” refers to the position of this movement relative to the other Communist movements on the traditional spectrum. Relative to contemporary political centrism, the Right Opposition is still very firmly on the Left.

and

The Left Opposition was a faction within the Bolshevik Party from 1923 to 1927, headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin’s illness and intensified with his death in January 1924. Originally, the battle lines were drawn between Trotsky and his supporters who signed The Declaration of 46 in October 1923, on the one hand, and a triumvirate (known by its Russian name troika) of Comintern chairman Grigory Zinoviev, Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin and Politburo chairman Lev Kamenev on the other hand. The troika was supported by the leading party theoretician and Pravda editor Nikolai Bukharin and by Sovnarkom Chairman (prime minister) Alexei Rykov, who would later be branded the Right Opposition by Stalin

why not look at the poster of hitler and stalin?
http://atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/hitler-stalin.gif

remember, hitler and stalin were team mates when they had their people meet and come up with a secret protocol to not attack each other as they cut apart europe… it was called the moltov rippentrop pact

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, (also known as the Nazi–Soviet Pact), named after the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, officially the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a non-aggression pact signed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in Moscow on 23 August 1939.

The pact remained in force until the German government broke it by launching an attack on the Soviet positions in Eastern Poland on 22 June 1941 contrary to the supplementary protocol of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty dictating the new European spheres of interest

now, in the US, the schools full of communists attempted to hide the fact that their system was pretty much the same as the nazi system… i can show you pictures of Russian soldiers turning jews over to the nazis during the war before hitler decided to try to beat stalin…

its very sad to hear ignorant people like you spout such trash..
why?
well you see my family is Latvian, and in our history, we created the soviet union for lenin as the latvian rifle men.. later, we were betrayed and executed.. then during the war, stalin moved in, then hitler, then stalin… each had purges and mass executions..

so its kind of hurtful that western idiots have no idea of the terms they use, the side they are siding with or much else other than some foolish ad copy and the belief that the truth is a myth.

heck… the swastika is common in the pacific, but by it original meaning… and hitler said he made his flag red for the socialism, like russia…

hitler was not right wing other than in the small universe of communisms.
since the left in the west likes to think that this is the same, they use the same terms, but they do not teach idiots like you to know, nor do idiots like you learn it, as you just pick what you think sounds good that is self serving to your ideals

As far as the colours are concerned, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the red stood for the social idea of the Nazi movement; the white, the national idea; and the black swastika represented “the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of creative work.”

Hitler may have publicly denounced Marxism, because of his war against the hated Soviet Union, but privately he always admitted that he was at heart a left-winger. He once said to Otto Wagener that the problem with the politicians of the Weimar Republic was that they “had never even read Marx.”

“I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.” He stated plainly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.
[his killing of jews and such was an answer to marx “jewish question”]

[My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – A Hitler

the major difference was that Stalin and Lenin seized the property of the capitalists, sent them away, and arbitrarily appointed others to run things who didnt know how… you know, like dems and detroit

hitlers idea was to keep the capitalists running the companies, but instead control them, and the companies, and confiscate the money with high taxes. ergo, schindler still could make bombs, but not much else… as was the same with IBM who made punch clocks or Krupps, the company that makes coffee machines now that made weapons for the germans (or AG farben which made the gas)

We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”. – A hitler

you see, his idea was to work off of the crazy liberalism of the weimar republic which allowed great freedoms, and gave women the vote. Hitler appealed to the ladies even saying how the body politic is like a woman. the women outnumbered the men cause of the massive deaths during WWI… hitler thought the full revolution as a way to marxist socialism was destructive and put the state at a disadvantage so he came up with a way to slowly move there using the rules of the state he was a part of and lots of the kinds of things the left in the US uses while assigning hate towards others who are not that way

Hitler argued that the problem with Russian Communism was that they had chosen their path as a revolutionary one. If individualism was to be destroyed, revolution was the most painful and difficult way to destroy the capitalists. Marx and Lenin had the right goals in his mind, but simply chose the wrong tactics

by the way, this was theidea of the social democrats… ie, the menshiviks

“Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.” – Hitler

this was why he took over the schools, and why modern leftists here in the US did the same… dewey was a communist, bella dodd was head of the cpusa and the teachers union… and the model fo the school was copied from the soviets incuding forcing the public to bring their children under the force of a gun (do some research in the early days of the centralized school system in the Us)

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” 1927 Hitler

and since he read marx, he read the jewish question where marx equated capitalism with the jews and made it their invention. and so, to their eyes, necessitated getting rid of the people whose idea this was or else the idea would not die out

now, i can go on a lot more.
but i am sure your going to start yelling names at me and not do any research
why?
cause that is what the american leftist who was and is uneducated in this stuff always does, as their teachers give them clever ad copy and talking sentences but never teaches them the substance and they are too lazy to learn it themselves.

@another vet: Eventually the antagonists will get their wish- another Kent State type response from the police so they have something to really exploit.

you realize that today they know that someone shot a gun off which is what set the national guard off

Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings

A noisy, violent altercation and four pistol shots took place about 70 seconds before Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on antiwar protesters at Kent State University, according to a new analysis of a 40-year-old audiotape of the event.

Four distinct shots matching the acoustic signature of a .38-caliber revolver then ring out, according to a review by New Jersey forensic audio expert Stuart Allen.

Earlier this year, Allen and colleague Tom Owen examined the recording at The Plain Dealer’s request and determined that Guardsmen were given an order to prepare to fire moments before they unleashed a 13-second fusillade of rifle shots at a May 4, 1970 demonstration that killed four students and wounded nine others.

today they think its a student of the left named Terry Norman

Norman was photographing protestors that day for the FBI and carried a loaded .38-caliber Smith & Wesson Model 36 five-shot revolver in a holster under his coat for protection. Though he denied discharging his pistol, he previously has been accused of triggering the Guard shootings by firing to warn away angry demonstrators, which the soldiers mistook for sniper fire.

and

Shortly after the Guard gunfire on May 4, a reporter and camera crew for Cleveland’s WKYC TV saw and began filming Norman as he ran down Blanket Hill toward a cordoned-off area where Guardsmen and police officers had gathered. Norman was being chased by two men.

One of them, a graduate student named Harold Reid, yelled, “Hey, stop that man! I saw him shoot someone! Stop him! Stop him! He’s carrying a gun.”

its a dead end from there since he wont ever admit it (no statute of limitations on what happened), and thats that…

@Greg: Carl Sagan’s admonition was that: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Trying to pretend a Socialist Worker’s party WASN’T a Socialist Worker’s party is an Extraordinary claim.

Where is your extraordinary evidence?

For starters Please explain why they were a ‘Socialist’ ‘Workers’ party:

Nazi
German Nationalsozialistische [deutsche Arbeiter-Partei] (National Socialist [German Workers’ Party])
The American Heritage® Abbreviations Dictionary, Third Edition

And do try to be creative – you can dispense with the tired and shopworn ‘Propaganda’ excuse or the Red Herring ‘North Korea’ dodge.

Please include Plenty of EXCERPTS and Links from authentic reference sites to bolster your assertions.

You could write a term paper filled with BS about propaganda or the North Korea red herring but if that is the extent of your ‘evidence’ it falls way short of being ‘extraordinary’.

The same holds true for conflict amongst collectivists dodge – Did the treatment of Trotsky somehow prove the USSR wasn’t socialist?

Then there is this quote:

In certain basic respects – a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom – fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Associate Professor of History at Harvard New York Times Magazine

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party included “socialist” because the word had strong populace appeal when the party was founded. That, as any serious and unbiased historian will tell you, was pretty much the only reason. The party had little or nothing to do with actual socialist political philosophy. They broke the heads of socialists and other leftists on the streets at every opportunity. The Nazi Party was an extremely nationalistic, fascist, totalitarian organization. Consider the definition of socialism:

socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Can you imagine even for a moment that Adolf Hitler was all about the community owning and regulating itself? Hitler was the extreme opposite. He was all about one man—der Führer—embodying and ruling the State. All was for the State. The well-being of the community didn’t even run a close second. His final instructions as the end approached was to burn the community to the ground. Germany was to end in a flaming Götterdämmerung, with old men and children fighting to the death.

I believe my statements are fact. They’ve been recognized as such for over 80 years.

Hitler was not some leftist community organizer bent on giving the community as a whole ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. All control was the State’s, and der Führer was the state personified. Industry and agriculture were for the good of the State.

These are not socialist ideas.

@Tor: Good luck with that my friend. I have asked Greg to prove himself on numerous occasions with NO response. Greggie will change the topic and often just fall back into his customary blame Bush mode for everything!!

@Common Sense: You beat me to it. Do you think he ever figured it out that Patrick Henry didn’t write Agrarian Justice as he “proved” here three or four years ago given that his own link clearly had the true author’s name in the byline?

@another vet: Greggie has never proven any of his wild assertions. He will not even admit that Obola lied when he told America they could keep their health insurance and/or doctor period. He still believes hilldabeast that slick was the subject of a vast right wing conspiracy and that’s why he got a hummer in the whitehouse. He is totally off there reservation!!

@Common Sense: I’ve found that people like that usually can’t back up their asseverations, but it’s always fun to show how vacuous they are.

Most of the time they will respond with something along the lines of ‘everybody knows’ trying to pretend repeating something a number of times somehow makes it true.

Or they use infamous Go google it yourself routine since it easily gets them off the hook because if the evidence if hard to find something that doesn’t exist, much less report on this fact.

Save it for somebody else. What I’ve found is that people who don’t know as much as they think they do often have very little insight into that deficiency. I’m aware of those areas of which I know very little. 20th Century History isn’t one of them. Alternate history has never appealed to me.

If you want an accurate picture of the world’s past, it’s possible to get one. The first rule is to avoid any sources that have a current-day political agenda.

@Tor: Greggie is so easy to corner and so predictable when you do it!! He will change the topic because you called him out and he can’t prove his position.

@john:

Nazis were most certainly leftists! They just weren’t as far left as the Communists.
NAZI = National Socialist….remember, Mr Historian?

@Common Sense: Yes, he keeps on proving that with every post.

@Greg: One should be careful in tossing off such childish vitriol. After all, we can back up our position with facts, you have FAILED to accomplish that feat.

As I said before:
Carl Sagan’s admonition was that: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Trying to pretend a Socialist Worker’s party WASN’T a Socialist Worker’s party is an Extraordinary claim.

Where is your extraordinary evidence?
Please include Plenty of EXCERPTS and Links from authentic reference sites to bolster your assertions.

You could write a term paper filled with BS about propaganda or the North Korea red herring but if that is the extent of your ‘evidence’ it falls way short of being ‘extraordinary’.

The same holds true for conflict amongst collectivists dodge – Did the treatment of Trotsky somehow prove the USSR wasn’t socialist?

@Bill: Well said Bill, illegals do hate Trump because he’s going to do his job as President!!

@Old Codger: Yep. Conservatives in this country are referred to as the “right”.

So let’s see here, the right advocates small government. The left advocates large, intrusive government. The Nazi’s advocated large, intrusive government, therefore they were right wing.

The right frequently refers to the principles of our Constitution. The left bemoans our Constitution. The Nazi’s bemoaned our Constitution, therefore they were right wing.

The right favors traditional liberal economic policies of minimal government intervention in the economy. The left favors massive government intervention in our economy. The Nazi’s favored massive intervention in the economy, therefore the Nazi’s were right wing.

The right believes capitalism is the best economic system. The left believes socialism/Marxism is the best economic system. The Nazi’s believed in socialism, therefore the Nazi’s were right wing.

The right are staunch believers in the right to keep and bear arms. The left has long sought to ban the right to keep and bear arms or to at least regulate them to produce the same effect. The Nazi’s did ban the right to keep and bear arms, therefore the Nazi’s were right wing.

There are plenty more similarities, but I think we all understand now. Aren’t you in awe at the left’s interpretation of history?