monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Debra Law wrote:

Simply providing links to Wikipedia material doesn't disclose your knowledge or understanding of any particular subject matter.

Providing Wikipedia material listing incidents of civil unrest, including unrest among left wing and right wing factions, does not support your argument that rioting has been continuous for 8 years under Obama's watch and liberals are growing more and more violent.

Your initial argument was no better than Chicken Little's argument that the sky is falling because an acorn dropped on his head.

Your alleged condemnation of Obama also changes when you are cornered on your unsupported accusations.

Despite your unsupported assertions, Obama has in fact made statements condemning violence. A cursory search discloses that your condemnation was false so you shifted your sands from a general condemnation of Obama over a course of 8 years to a specific condemnation over a criminal act committed on one occasion.

Now your argument is no longer the sky is falling, but rather one acorn fell from a tree on one particular day and Obama is bad.

Someday, you might be able to put forth an argument that is both valid and sound. But I don't think it will be any day soon.

Poor Tony. He apparently sincerely took Blatham's bait about a debate with the terms of proof, reference and allowable arguments subject to his whim. Now the apparently equally authoritarian Debra joins in the arbitrary dismissal of the material you offer: both have given Tony failing grades. What a surprise !

Obama has indeed "made statements condemning violence". He has also made many more frequent statements suggesting that police are "stupid", "racist" and in other cases "insensitive to the concerns of minorities", and in addition has sicked his racist "Justice" department on many local law enforcement agencies. He has done this in cases involving serious crimes and assaults by Blacks without much evident consideration for the challenges police face in the execution of their responsibilities. He and his Justice department have consistently advanced the absurd notion that any statistical disparity in law enforcement actions involving blacks, must necessarily be considered as a result of disparite and unlawful actions by the police, and cannot be consitered the proper result of any other factor. Indeed he advanced this principle as well in the administration of disciplinary procedures in public schools. This is doubly interesting in that both the schools and law enforcemnent are the perogatives of the states, and not the Federal government . It doesn't take much insight to realize that many people will take that as an invitation to civil disorder, and, perhaps more importantly, lead them to conclude that their problems are in no way the result of their own actions or inaction but rather someone else's fault.

In any event, your evidence was declared irrelevant, your logic dismissed out of hand, and you got a failing grade (from them) . Was there any other possibility? These folks are so accustomed to controlling the agenda and terms of reference here that their prejudices and misrepresentations cannot be revealed for what they are in an argument subject to their definition of the issues to be discussed, or the terms of reference that are acceptable - they have mastered that art and the slavish elements of their audience doesn't appear to know better.

Lol it's all good. I kinda beat this horse dead. By not making any point at all given a ton of opportunity I feel as if they sorta proved my point. There isn't much of an argument for Obama on that particular issue.

The point I was making was for independent thinkers, or people whose minds were not made up before the conversation even started.

Blatham kinda dodged out and Debby law just talked herself in circles. The only kinda point made was by cicero, with the article about Obama saying "no excuse for riots". Take from it what you will.

Show me your sources

“Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine,” the incoming president of the United States wrote. “Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!”

Actually, the magazine reports that its circulation, its revenue and its Web traffic are all up this year over last. And Mr. Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair and one of the best magazine editors in the country, is in no more danger of losing his job than he was a year ago, when Mr. Trump wondered aloud whether he was on his way out.

But Mr. Carter seized the moment with a red home page banner calling Vanity Fair “The Magazine Donald Trump Doesn’t Want You to Read” and imploring visitors, “Subscribe Now!”

Lo and behold, subscriptions spiked a hundredfold over their daily average, the magazine said, bringing Vanity Fair’s parent company, Condé Nast, the biggest number of new daily sign-ups in its 116-year history. (The tally had hit 42,000 by Sunday.)

As Mr. Trump tries to burn the media village down, he may just be saving it.

His running campaign of Twitter attacks, declarations of failure and vows to punish the traditional news media is threatening to do what so many years of cost-cutting and re-envisioning could not do as easily: put the industry on more solid economic footing, where customers who realize its value are willing to pay for it more regularly.

It’s early. And, in traditional media, hope is the province of masochists.

But in the weeks since the election, magazines like The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Vanity Fair; newspapers including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post; and nonprofits like NPR and ProPublica have been reporting big boosts in subscription rates or donations.

It’s as if Mr. Trump’s media attacks have combined with the heightened attention on the perils of fake news to create one big fat advertisement for the value of basic journalism.

Instead, I suspect in both cases, he is acting out some vague anti-colonial & anti-American notions that appear to have preoccupied him for much of his life.

Some time ago hObama, in an off-hand remark, rather clearly rejected the long term notion of Anerican exceptionalism.

he is acting out some vague anti-colonial & anti-American notions that appear to have preoccupied him for much of his life.

Some time ago Obama, in an off-hand remark, rather clearly rejected the long term notion of American exceptionalism.

inquiries to all 50 states (every one but Kansas responded) found no states that reported indications of widespread fraud. And while additional allegations could surface as states wind up postelection reviews, their conclusions are unlikely to change significantly.

The findings unambiguously debunk repeated statements by President-elect Donald J. Trump that millions of illegal voters backed his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. They also refute warnings by Republican governors in Maine and North Carolina that election results could not be trusted.

And they underscore what researchers and scholars have said for years: Fraud by voters casting ballots illegally is a minuscule problem, but a potent political weapon.

“The old notion that somehow there are all these impostors out there, people not eligible to vote that are voting — it’s a lie,” said Thomas E. Mann, a resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. “But it’s what’s being used in the states now to impose increased qualifications and restrictions on voting.”

For eight years, it has been the most exclusive, and arguably most important, daily meeting in Washington. Each morning, President Obama gathers his inner circle for the Presidential Daily Briefing, a run-through of the most important intelligence from around the world.

The rules under Obama have been strict and unyielding: No substitutes are permitted if one of the six regular attendees is out sick or traveling. No straphangers are allowed to linger in the Oval Office and watch.

Unlike just about every other meeting involving Washington officialdom, this one rarely, if ever, leaks.

Now it looks as if the PDB’s status as Washington’s most indispensable briefing could be coming to an end. “I get it when I need it,” said President-elect Donald Trump, who so far is taking the PDB only a few times a week. “I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t need to be told the same thing and the same words every single day for the next eight years.”

Last week a restaurant reviewer at Vanity Fair wrote a negative review of the main restaurant in NY's Trump Tower. Trump did what he always does when criticized about anything at all.

Quote:

“Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine,” the incoming president of the United States wrote. “Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!”

Apparently it's Donald who hasn't looked at the numbers (yuge surprise, that)

Quote:

Actually, the magazine reports that its circulation, its revenue and its Web traffic are all up this year over last. And Mr. Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair and one of the best magazine editors in the country, is in no more danger of losing his job than he was a year ago, when Mr. Trump wondered aloud whether he was on his way out.

But Mr. Carter seized the moment with a red home page banner calling Vanity Fair “The Magazine Donald Trump Doesn’t Want You to Read” and imploring visitors, “Subscribe Now!”

Lo and behold, subscriptions spiked a hundredfold over their daily average, the magazine said, bringing Vanity Fair’s parent company, Condé Nast, the biggest number of new daily sign-ups in its 116-year history. (The tally had hit 42,000 by Sunday.)

As Mr. Trump tries to burn the media village down, he may just be saving it.

His running campaign of Twitter attacks, declarations of failure and vows to punish the traditional news media is threatening to do what so many years of cost-cutting and re-envisioning could not do as easily: put the industry on more solid economic footing, where customers who realize its value are willing to pay for it more regularly.

It’s early. And, in traditional media, hope is the province of masochists.

But in the weeks since the election, magazines like The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Vanity Fair; newspapers including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post; and nonprofits like NPR and ProPublica have been reporting big boosts in subscription rates or donations.

It’s as if Mr. Trump’s media attacks have combined with the heightened attention on the perils of fake news to create one big fat advertisement for the value of basic journalism.

link
That graph I've bolded is precisely what I see happening in a lot of media now. The threat this guy so clearly poses has acted rather like a slap across the face. It took far too long for this awakening to happen but it finally has.

an impasse in Michigan (though it was discovered that in Detroit (the source of most Democrat votes in the state) about 650 more votes were cast than the total number of registered voters ( typical of our excellent Democrat urban political ground games)

Of course voter fraud-the idea that illegal immigrants are voting in large numbers-is preposterous. If an illegal is here and using fake ID, common sense says he will use that ID as little as he can get away with, since every time he uses it he runs the risk of it being discovered as fake.