BUSTED! Recruitment Method of Trump Protesters Uncovered!

originally posted by: mOjOm

I'm sure there are but if it's the same Paul Horner which I believe it is then this is all probably him messing with the media again for some reason. There are many elements in this story that seem very unlikely.
...

Have you ever tried looking up your name to see how many people come up?

Oh, and btw, is Paul Horner the only source that state protestors are being paid?...

originally posted by: mOjOm
...
We've had socialist policies and programs here in the US for many years that do just fine and have been a clear benefit to everyone. Not everything is better off being controlled by Capitalism and For Profit.

But I'm not going to bother having this conversation with anyone who's states from the start that they're "Not interested in all the socialist retardation." So what's the point.

So tell us...exactly what socialist policies and programs you are talking about?...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Have you ever tried looking up your name to see how many people come up?

Oh, and btw, is Paul Horner the only source that state protestors are being paid?...

Yes and none of them that come up are known internet hoaxers that have pulled scams like this before.

Paul Horner is the source of this information and there are no other sources speaking up so he very well may be the only one of these alleged paid protestors for all we know. Right now it seems he's the only source for any of this information which is why I was saying you should look into it deeper and find out if it's legit.

But then, you should already know all this and not be asking me questions if you had actually bothered to do any further research on this as the OP of this thread. But I'm guessing you instead just ran with it without trying to verify any of it because it suited your agenda and therefore needed no further validation before you decided to spread it around.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

So tell us...exactly what socialist policies and programs you are talking about?...

Social Security
Public Education
Medicare/Medicaid
Food Stamps/Welfare
Workers Unions
Environmental Protection
etc....

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So tell us...exactly what socialist policies and programs you are talking about?...

Here is what we learned:

Social Security
Public Education
Medicare/Medicaid
Food Stamps/Welfare
Workers Unions
Environmental Protection

All of that ......

and strangely enough, there's been no general rounding up of citizens .... no incarceration in FEMA camps.....

it just is not happening.



sorry about that - but, your prediction and angst regarding said 'prediction' is unwarranted.







"dearest"

originally posted by: mOjOm

Social Security

Humm...let's see... Social Security was implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt... He was a democrat, so are you stating that democrats are socialists?...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Public Education

Wrong, public education is not socialist... The first public schools opened in the United States occurred in the 17th century. Has public education turned more and more socialist? Yes. But in and of itself public schools are not something socialists envisioned...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Medicare/Medicaid

Medicare was introduced in the United States by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Texas). Again, are you suggesting all democrats are socialists?...

Medicaid was pretty much enforced in the 1980s, and back then Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. Are you suggesting Ronald Reagan was a socialist?

originally posted by: mOjOm
Food Stamps/Welfare

Welfare has existed in some form or another since times of the Roman empire... Are you claiming the Roman Empire was socialist?...

The Food Stamp Act was implemented in 1964 and was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson was a democrat... Are you suggesting yet again that all democrats are socialists?...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Workers Unions

So, you are saying worker's unions are also socialists?...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Environmental Protection
etc....

Well, first of all are you claiming that China, the U.S.S.R., Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc do/did not have socialist policies because they did not protect the environment?...

You are confusing what socialism is, and what it isn't...

Are all those programs you mentioned being "socialized" and become more and more corrupt? Yes... Were they originally socialist?... No...

What you are claiming is that the United States was socialist in the 17th century... That the Roman Empire was socialist, that Ronald Reagan was a socialist, and that all democrats are socialists...

Humm, and here i thought that democrats were always fighting to claim they are not socialists... But not only are you claiming they are, you are lumping in Ronald Reagan, the United States since the 17th century, and the Roman empire as being socialists...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Funny thing about all those things listed.

They call these programs socialist, and everyone of them is inefficient, over budget, relies on others money, has very little oversight, is corrupt and run poorly by government.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm not claiming anyone is a Socialist. I'm saying we have programs and policies operating in the U.S. which follow Socialist ideas and principles and many of them are doing just fine.

I would even go a step further and suggest that not everything is better off being ran under a capitalistic model where Profit is it's primary goal. Not to mention Capitalism isn't even a system of Government anyway but that is all you ever hear from the Anti-Socialists in the world. Capitalism is an economic model and does good in that area but it's not enough to run an entire nation.

Am I saying Democrats are Socialists??? No, but many times they incorporate Socialist Ideas. Don't act too shocked either because the so called Conservatives support Socialist Ideas as well when it suits their purpose and serves them. But I'm not calling anyone anything. I'm not talking about Democrats or Republicans either. I'm talking about the general idea of Socialism. There are many versions of what a Socialist Government can be. Hell, we've made up all these terms and ism's and the rules that guide them. They aren't set in stone. We can configure them any way we want because we made the damn things to begin with. We can change them any time we want.

originally posted by: mOjOm

I'm not claiming anyone is a Socialist. I'm saying we have programs and policies operating in the U.S. which follow Socialist ideas and principles and many of them are doing just fine.
...

So you are saying those "social reforms" are only socialist?... Humm... Let's see who else implemented those types of "social reforms and others"...

Contents of the Fascist Manifesto

The manifesto (published in "Il Popolo d'Italia" on June 6, 1919) is divided into four sections, describing Fascist objectives in political, social, military and financial fields.[2]

Politically, the manifesto calls for:
Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and electoral office eligibility for all age 25 and more, including women;
Proportional representation on a regional basis;
Voting for women (which was opposed by most other European nations);
Representation at government level of newly created national councils by economic sector;
The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the crown);
The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers (this concept was rooted in corporatist ideology and derived in part from Catholic social doctrine).

In labour and social policy, the manifesto calls for:
The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganisation of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the manifesto advocates:
Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
Armaments factories are to be nationalised;
A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.

In finance, the manifesto advocates:
A strong progressive tax on capital (]envisaging a “partial expropriation” of concentrated wealth);
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

The manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

en.wikipedia.org...

Hitler also introduced similar laws. He also implemented and enforced environmental laws.

So, first, since you are claiming those policies are only socialist then it is only logical to conclude Mussolini and Hitler were socialist.

Second, many of those same policies were implemented in the United States before socialism was even known in the U.S. For example, in the United States the right for women to vote was introduced in 1878 by Senator Aaron A. Sargent, a republican Senator. It was only approved 41 years later in 1919. Before that Wyoming Territory (1869), Utah (1870), and Washington Territory (1883) implemented "women's suffrage" in their constitutions. Are you claiming republicans and former republican states were socialist because they implemented such laws?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm starting to notice a pattern with you now. You keep trying to tell me what I'm saying instead of listening to what I'm saying. Every time you say, "So you're saying......" all you're doing is trying to insert your own opinions as if they're mine and twisting words around to become a conversation that only you're having.

You want to know what I'm saying, well it's right there typed out for you. You don't need to interpret it to mean something other than what it is. You're basically having a conversation with yourself at this point. When did I ever bring up Hitler or the Fascist Manifesto??? Oh, that's right, I didn't, you did. You then go on as if that's what I'm talking about but it's not, you are.

Also what does anything I'm saying have to do with Women Voting and what's your issue with Women Voting???

You've done nothing but insert a totally different conversation then what I am talking about by acting like you're just trying to understand what I'm writing. It's a neat trick but completely dishonest I'm not gonna bite.

You're agenda and deceptive tactics at controlling and steering this conversation aren't going to work because I don't give a sh*t about you're Conservative Agenda about making all things remotely Socialism seem evil. Almost Every Developed Nation on earth has a mixture of Socialist Ideas mixed in their system of Government to some degree just like the US does. In each case there are different results as well. But whether it makes it or not it's because of corruption and greed that they fail, not because any one system made to fail.

I don't want a Classic Socialist Nation either. Nor am I trying to sell you on one. But I'm not foolish enough to think a completely unregulated Capitalistic Corporatocracy is the way to go either.

Next you'll be telling me how Smaller Government will solve all the problems. How Unregulated Capitalism will solve all our problems. How Individual Freedom will solve all our problems.

Well, as nice as that all sounds in theory it just doesn't work out that way. Government Force isn't an option I like either because just like Private Business once it reaches a certain point of power it loses focus and starts brutalizing real people.

Anyway, I'm still just wasting my time bothering with this. You want to know what I'm saying. Then just read it and stop changing it to what you want to hear. It's really that simple. Until then this isn't a conversation, it's just you talking to yourself in your head while you imagine it's me talking back to you. So if that's what you want, go for it, you don't need me for that.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Well, first of all are you claiming that China, the U.S.S.R., Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc do/did not have socialist policies because they did not protect the environment?...

You are confusing what socialism is, and what it isn't...

Are all those programs you mentioned being "socialized" and become more and more corrupt? Yes... Were they originally socialist?... No...

What you are claiming is that the United States was socialist in the 17th century... That the Roman Empire was socialist, that Ronald Reagan was a socialist, and that all democrats are socialists...

Humm, and here i thought that democrats were always fighting to claim they are not socialists... But not only are you claiming they are, you are lumping in Ronald Reagan, the United States since the 17th century, and the Roman empire as being socialists...

I am???? That's amazing because I'm sure I never mentioned China, or Russia, or the 17th century, or the Roman Empire or even Ronald Reagan. Not once in this conversation have I said anything at all like what you just said.

I don't know who the f*ck you've been having a discussion with, but it's not me.

You show me where I mentioned those topics while talking to your in this thread and I might listen to what you have to say. Otherwise I'm going to assume you're a schizophrenic and you're having some other conversation in your head besides this one.

originally posted by: mOjOm

I'm starting to notice a pattern with you now.
...

Really?... I wonder what pattern you now claim I have... Did you, or did you not say those policies are socialist?... YES or NO?...

Maybe I should remind you of what you wrote yourself...

I asked you...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

So tell us...exactly what socialist policies and programs you are talking about?...

Your response was...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Social Security
Public Education
Medicare/Medicaid
Food Stamps/Welfare
Workers Unions
Environmental Protection
etc....

You did say those programs are socialist, so by extension anyone who implements any of those policies must be a socialist... I didn't twist what you wrote, it is what you wrote...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Also what does anything I'm saying have to do with Women Voting and what's your issue with Women Voting???

What the hell are you now talking about?... I even proved that REPUBLICANS and conservatives have implemented many of those same programs that you claim are only socialist...

I have no problem with women having a right to vote... I do however have a problem with your false premise that all those programs are socialist...

originally posted by: mOjOm
You've done nothing but insert a totally different conversation then what I am talking about by acting like you're just trying to understand what I'm writing. It's a neat trick but completely dishonest I'm not gonna bite.

Did you, or did you not write that all those programs are socialist?... I already proved you claim such a thing. By extension, anyone who has implemented those programs must also be socialist... You can't have it anyway you want it.

Either those programs are socialist like you claim, which would make everyone who implemented/voted or talked about those programs must be a socialist...

Or the most logical conclusion is that those programs are not socialist. More so since they have existed in some way or form for longer than socialism has existed...

If anyone is trying to twist this, and trying to derail this thread it is you...

If anyone has a "deceptive agenda" it is you among some others...

I'm not derailing anything. Until you started going off on your little rant this topic was about this recruitment of anti-Trump people on Craigslist.

I suggested you look up this guy who is the source of the information you're going by and that's all.

You have totally lost your sh*t because I'm suggesting you research your topic more to make sure it's not just a hoax and now we're somehow discussing Socialism. So don't tell me I'm trying to derail anything. You're the one who got us here not me.

So before you start pinning that sh*t on me, I'm saying goodbye. You want to talk about Socialism, fine, start another thread and I'll join you there. But this thread is about recruiting for anti-Trump rallies. Which at this point I don't care if it's a hoax that you want to believe or not. Think whatever you want.

OP, you've been proven wrong in every thread you've created. It's obvious too because if you skip to the last page of the thread you're always talking about something that has nothing to do with your original post. The only person who has been busted here is you. Busted for spreading lies at the expense of your own integrity. Your obsession with attempting to pin down those who think differently than you is disturbing.

a reply to: olaru12

Or how about to George soros the hater of all things American

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: olaru12

It is funded by Soros, approved by Hillary.

Hey, when your under criminal investigation by the FBI
and still trying to run for POTUS, anything goes right?

This is Hillary to a T.

But how does Hillary or even Soros benefit from this? Violent left wing protesters don't make the left look good. I would put money on the Koch brothers trying to make the left look bad to gain sympathy votes on the right. As when you take into account the fact that the next President will picking a handful of Supreme court justices, it seems more likely to me that right would want to damage the imagine of the left as much as possible. Under these circumstance it makes no sense for Hillary or Soros or anyone from the left to do this when all it does is make the left look bad.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

First of all, Snopes propaganda is clearly obvious. The ads speak for themselves. Yet you need someone else to tell you differently?

Second, Alex Jones isn't the only one who has posted this. I also posted evidence from the MSN itself that propagandists are being paid to protest against Trump.

Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump’s Rally”
By abcnews -
June 8, 2016

PHOENIX A.Z. (AP) — For months now, rumors have circulated the Internet that individuals were being paid to protest at rallies held by presidential hopeful Donald Trump. Today a man from Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills, Arizona back in March has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event.

“I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”
...

abcnews.com.co...

Here is a photo of that other ad.

The person who was organizing that other protest posted her name.

BTW, apparently to you "the use of reason" is twisting completely what ads that have been advertising paid propagandists actually mean?... facepalm indeed.

Screen shots are not good proof of anything. Anyone with Chrome can open up the developers tools to see a webpages script and edited anything they want on it and then screen shot it. If you don't believe me below is a screen shot of your comment that I am replying to with the developers tools open on the right of it:

Link to screen shot of youyr comment.

originally posted by: GiulXainx
a reply to: olaru12

Um..... That is a bait post. The email associated with it comes from Nigeria. So go ahead. Send them a request to join. They want your social security number.

I hope it is a Nigerian 419 post.

It will serve the morons that sign up right to get ripped off.

originally posted by: mOjOm

I'm not claiming anyone is a Socialist. I'm saying we have programs and policies operating in the U.S. which follow Socialist ideas and principles and many of them are doing just fine.
...

No they don't, only naive people would claim these policies are socialist... Heck, you are probably one of those who thinks being in a group = socialist... You, and every other socialist always tries to claim those programs are socialist to lure people into the quagmire that socialism is.

A socialist program would be one in which the State pays you money, but also controls exactly what you can buy, gives you a ration which for everyone is the same, and controls what you and your family can eat...

With social security you have more control of what to do with the money from your retirement/disability. Heck, you could go on vacation if you want with that money. When you have control that is not socialism. When the State controls what you do, what you eat, exactly what you can learn/indoctrination, etc that is socialist.

Has social security turned more and more socialist? Yes, when the money started being used for other things such as paying hospital bills for illegal immigrants who do not pay income taxes. That part is socialist. But it was made so by the left, and because of such programs social security is almost out of funds. Money has to come from somewhere. It doesn't grow on tress like socialists seem to think.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No they don't, only naive people would claim these policies are socialist...

What the hell?

Dude. Seriously?
Your trolling is getting out of control. Of course those things are "socialist!" By definition....they are socialist.


Wow. Truly mind-blowing. Amazing.