Can you find the defining trait amongst Trump supporters?

Mistake

As Vyazma has pointed out. All you have to do is look at Europe to see where we are headed.
No no no Mike. Don't take my words out of context. That had to do with immigration...nothing else. Yours and my politics/economics don't match. We went through this about 3 years ago.
I have always thought that communism is just one more layer of control over socialism.
That is another point where your beliefs do not align with facts. What I understand the facts are. Is that Socialism and Communism are theories, no country has ever accomplished the theory yet in true form. You said socialism often leads to communism. I asked what countries have gone from socialist to communist and now you come back trying to weasel out of the question. Well, you kind of answered it. If no country has practiced socialism or communism in its true form then obviously no country has even gone from socialism to communism and your assertion is untrue. I could not remember for sure who said that socialism was the first stage of communism. So I looked it up. It was Marx in the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels. “For Marxists, socialism or, as Marx termed it, the first phase of communist society,…." next www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007 Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshevik Revolution, helped create the Soviet Union and ... Lenin also soaked up the writing of Karl Marx. If these items are true, then Russia would be a good example.

Damn Vy, you’re even farther off the deep end than I thought. My logic leap is that a person with any sense (common or otherwise) would condemn people for attacking a homeless person, especially someone with experience with the press. instead, Donald’s mind went straight to “my followers are passionate.” This isn’t something I read in a magazine, but thank you* for trying to insult my intelligence by assuming I cannot think for myself.
*moderators: you should be proud of my for not typing what I was really thinking.

I have always thought that communism is just one more layer of control over socialism.
That is another point where your beliefs do not align with facts. What I understand the facts are. Is that Socialism and Communism are theories, no country has ever accomplished the theory yet in true form. You said socialism often leads to communism. I asked what countries have gone from socialist to communist and now you come back trying to weasel out of the question. Well, you kind of answered it. If no country has practiced socialism or communism in its true form then obviously no country has even gone from socialism to communism and your assertion is untrue. I could not remember for sure who said that socialism was the first stage of communism. So I looked it up. It was Marx in the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels. “For Marxists, socialism or, as Marx termed it, the first phase of communist society,…." next www.biography.com/people/vladimir-lenin-9379007 Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshevik Revolution, helped create the Soviet Union and ... Lenin also soaked up the writing of Karl Marx. If these items are true, then Russia would be a good example. That is one example. You said "often." Often requires many examples.
Damn Vy, you're even farther off the deep end than I thought. My logic leap is that a person with any sense (common or otherwise) would condemn people for attacking a homeless person, especially someone with experience with the press. instead, Donald's mind went straight to "my followers are passionate." This isn't something I read in a magazine, but thank you* for trying to insult my intelligence by assuming I cannot think for myself. *moderators: you should be proud of my for not typing what I was really thinking.
Then why did you cite the magazine article? I'm sure that's all you got is ad hominem. Typical. So incidentally this all boils down to how you feel Trump should answer reporters. You should e-mail him. Tell him how to answer reporters questions. Is there anything else in there? Go ahead...fill it in. I'm already through the finish line...I'm waiting for you to catch up. If you can't see the logical fallacy behind your argument.
A question for those who defend Trump. What, specifically, has he proposed that you think is good?
What I think is good is that he hasn’t purposed a lot of items just to lock in unions and vote by different groups. Thanks for (not) clearing that up. I take it you have no idea what Trump has proposed, so I'll ask some specific questions. Why should we build a wall along the Mexican border to keep out illegal aliens? How will we build and maintain that wall? How will we ensure it does not pose a hazard to endangered species? Why is keeping Muslims out of our country a good idea? Explain the part of our Constitution that allows that. Donald Trump's businesses have gone bankrupt at least four times. How does that qualify him to be president? Who would Trump be likely to nominate to the Supreme court? In December Donald Trump said he would take out the families] of terrorists. By what ethical theory do you defend that?
The democrats haven’t gotten the message yet that we have reached the peak of taxation.
Funny, I thought we reached the peak of taxation in the 1950s under Eisenhower.
Today, every time taxes are raised we have taxpayers that are just giving up. They are saying the hell with working for the government all the time. And they decide to change from the giving end to the receiving end of the society.
Please provide evidence, other than anecdotes, to back this assertion.
As Vyazma has pointed out. All you have to do is look at Europe to see where we are headed.
That's why I plan on voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. The European model works much better than what we are currently doing. What are you doing, trying to wear me out with BS stuff? At this point of the election, the runners will purpose anything. Always have and always will. If a candidate says they will get rid of taxes and give everyone a million bucks, do you believe them? The Eisenhower is a bad example. We had depressions and not recessionary inflation as an economic system. With Eisenhower we end up with the Eisenhower depression of 1958. I’ll have to get back to you on the rate of people who stop working based on tax increases. I’ll have to look that up. As far as Bernie Sanders, new to me. No thoughts one way of the other.
As Vyazma has pointed out. All you have to do is look at Europe to see where we are headed.
No no no Mike. Don't take my words out of context. That had to do with immigration...nothing else. Yours and my politics/economics don't match. We went through this about 3 years ago. Understand. Daron was talking about the European model. I did not bring my politics into this. I thought you made a good comparison with Europe, that all. Has it been 3 years already? Boy does time fly.
Understand. Daron was talking about the European model. I did not bring my politics into this. I thought you made a good comparison with Europe, that all. Has it been 3 years already? Boy does time fly.
My comments had to do with the massive backlash underway in Europe over the "refugees".
What are you doing, trying to wear me out with BS stuff?
No, I am trying to figure out why you think Trump is qualified to be president. You have provided no facts, just unsubstantiated assertions. Don't forget Trump was a leader in the Birther movement and is a global warming denier.
Damn Vy, you're even farther off the deep end than I thought. My logic leap is that a person with any sense (common or otherwise) would condemn people for attacking a homeless person, especially someone with experience with the press. instead, Donald's mind went straight to "my followers are passionate." This isn't something I read in a magazine, but thank you* for trying to insult my intelligence by assuming I cannot think for myself. *moderators: you should be proud of my for not typing what I was really thinking.
Then why did you cite the magazine article? I'm sure that's all you got is ad hominem. Typical. So incidentally this all boils down to how you feel Trump should answer reporters. You should e-mail him. Tell him how to answer reporters questions. Is there anything else in there? Go ahead...fill it in. I'm already through the finish line...I'm waiting for you to catch up. If you can't see the logical fallacy behind your argument. No, it boils down to empathy and ethics. I cited the magazine article because it showed how Trump lacks empathy. I'll admit I'm not this forum's expert on logical fallacies, so please explain which logical fallacy I am committing here.
No, it boils down to empathy and ethics. I cited the magazine article because it showed how Trump lacks empathy. I'll admit I'm not this forum's expert on logical fallacies, so please explain which logical fallacy I am committing here.
Here's the logical fallacy:
No, it isn’t. The important point is that Trump did not condemn the behavior, alleged or true, but that he described his followers as passionate, giving tacit approval to the assault.
It said right in the news piece that upon hearing of the alleged incident his first words were.."That would be a shame." So that's condemning the behavior. Secondly, describing his supporters as passionate, does not in any way imply any approval to the assault. You just don't like the way Trump answered questions..as if he has to answer questions from the press to satisfy your narrative. It's election time. The press is doing hatchet jobs all over the place. I don't like the way the press is printing and airing stuff about Bernie, but what can I do. I know there's an agenda. When you can't read the news through the agenda, then we have to listen to your rants on this forum. So you've gone from...."giving tacit approval of the assault"...to..."Trump lacks empathy". You've committed multiple fallacies. 1. Misrepresentation 2. Appeal to what you think is correct based on stated biases..despite conflicting information. 3. Inductive 4. Cherry-picking

When CNN or the WAPO does a 10,000 word piece and the word socialism, punish the wealthy, etc comes up 100x I recognize that as what it is.
I try to see it too when it comes up for the people I don’t support.

So you believe socialism leads to communism? In all cases?
I wouldn’t want to say because I don’t know enough about socialism or communism. The foundation to any good system would have to be a fair legal system. And we will see if Hillary is prosecuted over the emails. If not, then we are already over the edge. And our only hope to get back to a good system would be Trump. Wow. I have a lot to catch up on, on this thread. Re: Hillary being prosecuted over emails. That, seems to me to be, 99% partisan political nonsense. There are SO MANY things done by previous Presidents and their cabinet members, that could be more worthy of prosecution.
...The Eisenhower is a bad example. We had depressions and not recessionary inflation as an economic system. With Eisenhower we end up with the Eisenhower depression of 1958...
With Eisenhower we wound up with an Interstate Highway system, the biggest boon to our economy for generations. (Of course he had to get it through as part of a "defense" program.)
The Democratic Party itself is now view by many as a socialist party.
Mike, I wonder if you define what "socialism" is? I wonder if you define the difference between "socialism" and "communism"? TimB in post #10 says it best. I have always thought that communism is just one more layer of control over socialism. Personally they both end up over years operating like the Mafia and are nothing more than a caste system. Egypt of the past had the best system. It was built on capitalism, but it also understood the problem of greed in capitalism. This greed cause the earth to become unbalanced. The Pharaohs job was to keep the world in balance. So on an average of once in every twenty years the Pharaoh would re-balance the world by redistributing the wealth. That system worked for a very long time. The re-balancing would open the doors for new capitalists. Today people don’t want to be capitalists. Too many regulations and taxes. And the world needs to be re-balanced. But taking from the rich and giving to the government is not re-balancing. The doors need to be reopened for new small town capitalists. Hey thanks for the plug. But my post #10 could be interpreted in different ways. To clarify my personal position: I think that Socialism does not, in reality, lead to Communism, and probably never will (unless there is something in the far distant future that can allay the need for a Capitalist underpinning). I think that Capitalism can be effectively modulated by Socialism so that the natural course of unregulated Capitalism does not effect as much corruption and inequities as it does. I think that societies that attempt pure Communism are doomed to dictatorial tyranny and to decline and ultimately fail.
Understand. Daron was talking about the European model. I did not bring my politics into this. I thought you made a good comparison with Europe, that all. Has it been 3 years already? Boy does time fly.
My comments had to do with the massive backlash underway in Europe over the "refugees". What's the "European model" got to do with the growing refugee insurgency?
The Democratic Party itself is now view by many as a socialist party.
Mike, I wonder if you define what "socialism" is? I wonder if you define the difference between "socialism" and "communism"? TimB in post #10 says it best. I have always thought that communism is just one more layer of control over socialism. Personally they both end up over years operating like the Mafia and are nothing more than a caste system. Egypt of the past had the best system. It was built on capitalism, but it also understood the problem of greed in capitalism. This greed cause the earth to become unbalanced. The Pharaohs job was to keep the world in balance. So on an average of once in every twenty years the Pharaoh would re-balance the world by redistributing the wealth. That system worked for a very long time. The re-balancing would open the doors for new capitalists. Today people don’t want to be capitalists. Too many regulations and taxes. And the world needs to be re-balanced. But taking from the rich and giving to the government is not re-balancing. The doors need to be reopened for new small town capitalists. Hey thanks for the plug. But my post #10 could be interpreted in different ways. To clarify my personal position: I think that Socialism does not, in reality, lead to Communism, and probably never will (unless there is something in the far distant future that can allay the need for a Capitalist underpinning). I think that Capitalism can be effectively modulated by Socialism so that the natural course of unregulated Capitalism does not effect as much corruption and inequities as it does. I think that societies that attempt pure Communism are doomed to dictatorial tyranny and to decline and ultimately fail. That's right, just as societies that attempt anything approaching pure capitalism are doomed to dictatorial tyranny and to decline and will ultimately fail. Lois

Why am I not surprised that Mike Yohe is now sounding like Ayn Rand?

The Democratic Party itself is now view by many as a socialist party.
Mike, I wonder if you define what "socialism" is? I wonder if you define the difference between "socialism" and "communism"? TimB in post #10 says it best. I have always thought that communism is just one more layer of control over socialism. Personally they both end up over years operating like the Mafia and are nothing more than a caste system. Egypt of the past had the best system. It was built on capitalism, but it also understood the problem of greed in capitalism. This greed cause the earth to become unbalanced. The Pharaohs job was to keep the world in balance. So on an average of once in every twenty years the Pharaoh would re-balance the world by redistributing the wealth. That system worked for a very long time. The re-balancing would open the doors for new capitalists. Today people don’t want to be capitalists. Too many regulations and taxes. And the world needs to be re-balanced. But taking from the rich and giving to the government is not re-balancing. The doors need to be reopened for new small town capitalists. Hey thanks for the plug. But my post #10 could be interpreted in different ways. To clarify my personal position: I think that Socialism does not, in reality, lead to Communism, and probably never will (unless there is something in the far distant future that can allay the need for a Capitalist underpinning). I think that Capitalism can be effectively modulated by Socialism so that the natural course of unregulated Capitalism does not effect as much corruption and inequities as it does. I think that societies that attempt pure Communism are doomed to dictatorial tyranny and to decline and ultimately fail. Yea, it was not the direct answer that citizenschallenge was asking for, but it the most correct answer. The text books say how things should be. In real life it is always different for a thousand different reasons. The whole key to any large system is the fairness. If people don’t think it is fair, then it is not a good system. Did you pick up the Egyptian lead for the Flat Tax? No bites.