CDZ Has anyone heard Donald Trump say anything besides what's wrong with everyone else but him?

[Boss]

The thing is, he's most likely gonna get the nomination.

I agree he is leading in the polls and could very well be the nominee. If so, I will support him against Hillary or Bernie 100%. That said, I will hold his feet to the fire and I will criticize the things he says/does that aren't conservative. I might regret voting for him, he could end up being no different than Jeb Bush.

But for now, my guy is Ted Cruz. I don't like 100% of everything about him but I think he is the strongest conservative in the field and that's what I am. So that's my guy until the primaries are over. Now... I really do wonder what the hell happened to The Pledge" everyone signed and made such a big deal about.... it seems to have been totally forgotten by most of the establishment crowd who are threatening to not support Trump if he wins the nomination.

I mean, it's fine, I knew they were a bunch of lying two-faced hypocrites when the started waving The Pledge around! It's just interesting how quickly they forgot what was promised.

 

[S.J.]

The thing is, he's most likely gonna get the nomination.

I agree he is leading in the polls and could very well be the nominee. If so, I will support him against Hillary or Bernie 100%. That said, I will hold his feet to the fire and I will criticize the things he says/does that aren't conservative. I might regret voting for him, he could end up being no different than Jeb Bush.

But for now, my guy is Ted Cruz. I don't like 100% of everything about him but I think he is the strongest conservative in the field and that's what I am. So that's my guy until the primaries are over. Now... I really do wonder what the hell happened to The Pledge" everyone signed and made such a big deal about.... it seems to have been totally forgotten by most of the establishment crowd who are threatening to not support Trump if he wins the nomination.

I mean, it's fine, I knew they were a bunch of lying two-faced hypocrites when the started waving The Pledge around! It's just interesting how quickly they forgot what was promised.

Bush and Kasich both refuse to say they'll support him.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree with you on attacking Cruz and Carson. I'm talking about attacking liberals (which is what I'm sure is what concerns the OP). Every one of them deserved what he gave them. I wish he wouldn't attack Cruz too, I think it's a bad strategy.

I think you and Don Quixote have a lot in common. You really need to confirm the veracity of your assertions before you make them. You can quite easily ask questions of them before you make statements about what you are "sure" about. You've presupposed what my thoughts and intentions are several times over the past few days, and I know for a fact that you've been wrong on most if not all (I'd say all were I to have all of them squarely in my memory as I write this) of the times you've done so.

If you look through the posts on this forum where folks have asked me direct questions, I've consistently given direct answers to them, no dancing around them, no deliberate ambiguity or semantic games, or anything other hijinks. I've even bothered, unbidden, to go back and answer questions I overlooked or forgot to answer. People may not agree with what I say in reply to their direct questions, but not one person here can say I don't directly and completely answer the question they specifically asked me.

If you want to know what concerns me, ask. Given my concluding remarks in this thread's OP, nobody should have any trouble inferring what concerns me. You can "bet your bottom dollar" it has nothing to do with attacks on liberals. The one attack I cited as an example and that I took exception with was an attack on a conservative.

And to point out the difference between you and me, I ask that you and others look at the answer to the stupid ass reply you gave to the two questions you were to answer in exchange for my answering yours.

My first question (a question you didn't even copy and paste accurately):

What are the central elements to which adherents of intelligent design point and that forms the basis for their attempts to present that concept as being scientific?

Your reply:

I have not claimed that creationism is scientific, and the only arguments I've heard have been based on logic, not scientific experimentation or lab observations so I can't answer that. There is no physical evidence of a creator, other than the results, therefore the same scientific method cannot be applied, which is what I think you're looking for.

My second question:

How, as an adherent to intelligent design, do you overcome the rational flaws inherent in the premise of irreducible complexity that biochemist Michael Behe presents as evidence of the verity of intelligent design?

Your reply:

I've never used the irreducible complexity argument to explain creation and I don't know anyone else that has (although I'm sure some do). I think that's one of those tactics used by evolutionists to win the debate by making creationists look stupid but I suppose it's fair game.

I will say, however, that even the less complex systems that CAN be explained scientifically does not disprove creation and not just the complexity but the logic in the purpose of them are still an indication of intelligent design.

It clearly escaped you, but I never asked about what you did or didn't say. I also didn't ask potential respondents to prove anything. I didn't ask for anything having to do with science. That I didn't doesn't mean one cannot if one feels that's what is necessary to give a comprehensive answer; it just means I didn't require it in the answer. I just asked for an answer to the question.

And you replied with some BS about "what you didn't claim" and what you never said/wrote. Answer the question directly and I'll know exactly what you think or claim with regard to the questions asked and that's it. Best as I can tell, neither question accused you of claiming or saying anything and neither question was rhetorical.

 

[320 Years of History]

Not sure you're interested in Trump's positions but...
DONALD J. TRUMP POSITIONS

TY for the link.

First of all, the thread is about the fact that Mr. Trump largely doesn't talk about and promote his own positions. He largely only criticizes everyone else's or criticizes what others have done. On top of that, when one actually reads through his position statements, one finds glaring omissions of detail.

Gun Control and the Mental Health System:
So I clicked on the link you provided. The very first thing I read was Mr. Trump's remarks headed "Fix Our Broken Mental Health System." And what did I find? Not one word about how to do that. The section ends, "We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas."

Okay, yes we need "real solutions," Mr. Trump. What are your "real solution" proposals to "fix our broken mental health system?"

Gun Control and Background Checks:
"When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system."

Okay...yes, we need to fix the system. How, Mr. Trump, assuming the fix is to " put criminal and mental health records into 'the system' ," whatever "the system" is, please give me a high level plan for making that happen? Nothing insanely detailed, just the half dozen to ten "must have" milestones in the overall approach you propose. That's no more than you'd ask of someone pitching the rough outline of a project to you....Surely you can do that much, right?

The Trump Tax Plan:
Here Mr. Trump has a bit more detail indicating what he wants to do, and that's not surprising seeing as finance is sort of "his thing." What's missing is anything, much less something credible, that shows or at least strongly suggests the probability of any of its predictions actually materializing.

For example, he states that his proposals are revenue neutral and then he writes, "Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American’s taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth....These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers."

Okay, based on what models? Being a man of big numbers and financial wheeling and dealing, I expect you have some legit basis for making those assertions. Show me the numbers that form that basis. Surely you didn't come up with the very specific tax rates and claim that your plan is revenue neutral based on a dream, or just outright pulling them outta your ass, did you?

Immigration and ICE
Mr. Trump writes that he would triple the quantity of ICE officers from 5K to 15K. He writes to show how that'll be effective, "Approximately 5,000 officers in ICE cover 50 states, Puerto Rico and Guam, and are attempting to enforce immigration law against 11 million illegal aliens already in the interior of the United States."

Okay, so I have to agree that 15K ICE officers will likely have more impact than will 5K of them. What I want to know is why should I accept that 15K ICE officers are going to have a meaningfully greater impact than 5K officers against the 11 million illegal aliens you mentioned?

My take on Mr. Trump's so-called plans, not from a political perspective, but just as a project/business manager:
Mr. Trump does essentially the same thing senior folks in my industry (consulting) do: conceive, plan and manage very large projects. That's basically what he's going to do as President as well. The questions I've asked above are among the very basic sorts of questions that any partner or client exec would ask of a proposal team. More accurately, however, they are the kinds of questions that a strong proposal team would address up front so they wouldn't need to be directly asked.

What Mr. Trump is doing is presenting what I typically refer to as the "cocktail napkin" proposal. It's the sort of questions that when the lunch meeting or golf round is over, one or both parties reach out to a subordinate and have them pull together a team of people to flush out the details at the level indicated by the questions I've asked above. If after doing so, the ideas still "hold water," you move forward and dig into the real details.

What do I mean by that? Take the idea of tripling the ICE force to 15K. Mr. Trump says he'll pay for it by "by accepting the recommendation of the Inspector General for Tax Administration and eliminating tax credit payments to illegal immigrants." Well, that recommendation consists of implementing process improvements and internal controls to drastically reduce the sum of unnecessary tax refunds given to foreign nationals. According to the report, written in 2012, the sum is ~$46.5M.

1. Have the reforms indicated in the report already been implemented? If so, how much has been gained from implemented them?
2. Assuming the revisions haven't been implemented, $46.5M/10K = $4650. I know just like everyone else that nobody is hiring 10K new ICE officers for $4650/year. And that's even before considering the indirect and overhead costs associated with 10K new employees. Even assuming a modest salary of $50K/ICE officer, that's $500M in direct wages.

As you can see from the above, I can suss out some very high level ballpark figures associated with Mr. Trump's proposal and tell there's a huge gap somewhere. I know damn well that Mr. Trump has a campaign staff would could have done at least as much, but they didn't...for whatever reason, but at the end of the day, the reason stops at Mr. Trump's not insisting that they did.

The above is just one illustration of the perfunctory BS that Mr. Trump is tossing our way and expecting us to accept it. That alone may not be the worst thing, but taken in conjunction with other facts...

• Mr. Trump having zero experience legislating for or managing organizations the size of many a government entity -- a federal department, a state or department in one, or even a mid-to-large size state or federal agency -- and thus is not aware of (nor tried to be so) of the challenges of doing so, and
• The fact that I know Mr. Trump would not himself accept the above level of mediocrity and paucity of precision and clarity from his direct reports in his commercial enterprise, yet he's putting less than his "best foot forward" in presenting his ideas to us whom he's asking to make him U.S. President, and
• Mr. Trump's having gone bankrupt multiple times.

So considering those facts, I have to say that as senior business manager who does much the same things he does, I'm just not seeing the gravitas that suggests I should put my one resource -- my vote -- in his box. Were someone on my staff in seeking my OK to go forward with a project, or present the proposal to an existing or potential client, to present to me the quality of proposals that Mr. Trump has presented to the American people as his intended policies, they'd (1) be told "no," and (2) if they continued to do so, "out counseled" within a few months. And that's a damn shame because as a senior business manager, I would love to vote for Mr. Trump.

Once again, I gave you an answer, you just didn't like it. This is the thread title:
Has anyone heard Donald Trump say anything besides what's wrong with everyone else but him?

Your opening statement:
Mr. Trump has now surpassed Ambien for putting me to sleep! It almost seems as though he entered a wager with one of his rich friends, saying "I'll bet you $10M that average Americans are so gullible that I can win the Presidency on nothing but attacks and innuendo. I can do it by being so outrageous that the press will cover everything I say, and having no substantive, detailed policy platform whatsoever and instead just attacking ."
I gave you a link containing his positions without attacking everyone else and you said he didn't state his positions, then you proceeded to take issue with his positions. You can't have it both ways.

Did you make it past the first paragraph? Did you notice that the OP also says:

Everytime I turn on the news and hear a clip of what Mr. Trump is saying that day, it consists of his:​

• pontificating on what's wrong with his competitors,
• asking questions for which he himself hasn't articulated a comprehensive answer,
• asking rhetorical questions to cast doubt on others and keep them on the defensive,
• making unsubstantiated claims, and
• making empty promises.

Furthermore, did you not notice that I responded directly to some of the content found at the link you provided, PRIOR TO your writing the post to which I'm now replying?

Did you not notice that with regard to the content I discussed I pointed out what I found to be specific examples of Mr. Trump's lack of substance and explained my basis for finding his so-called policy proposals largely devoid of substance?

Did you also not notice that I also read and subsequently referred to content linked-to on the "Trump Platform" site you provided?

Other:
You are beginning to bore me, and Mr. Trump has, with your puerile remarks and lack of substance. So far all I've seen from you in pages and pages of remarks is you complaining about insults, you telling people what you didn't say, you chiding people for not being pleasant. I have not seen one well thought out and presented post from you. All you do is criticize, challenge people to defend their remarks, and point the finger, but you don't actually say shit!

I'm telling you now: FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO TRIFLE WITH!

 

[Boss]

I don't see Trump taking the role of running interference for another candidate. Not with that ego and not with those poll numbers. He hasn't even spent any money yet (not real money). Why in the world would he agree to be the loser? Not his style at all, Trump is an achiever, that's what his life has always been about, he's not gonna deliberately lose. I could see somebody else doing that but not Trump.

This guy does WWE! He is a showman. Yes, he has a bit of an ego... but I can see him running interference, not for a particular candidate, but for ALL the candidates. He doesn't care... he's going back to building things when this is over. If he can contribute by going out there and taking the heat, setting the tempo, getting the important issues on the table, turning the establishment... why not?

And let's understand this... POLLS are not VOTES. With the kind of wealth he has, he could be paying the pollsters off to buy these glorious numbers. I'm not saying that he is... but hey, he certainly could do that. and hey, maybe a lot of people are telling the pollster they support Trump because they don't want to admit they're supporting Cruz or Carson, or Jeb, or Rubio? Maybe Trump is an involuntary foil?

But look... we will know in a few more weeks if the polls are for real. Maybe I am wrong...

 

[320 Years of History]

...because as an approach it denies too much for too long to the "heir apparent" who'd step in.

But that would be the point, don't you see? What happens to the guy on top? Smear... jeer... overblown controversy... slam... smear... criticize... attack... more smear... digging into the past... slam... smear some more... raise more controversy... ridicule... denigrate... just vicious non-stop partisan witch hunting 24/7 as long as it takes to bring them down. That's what the left and their media lap dogs do to the front-runner.... who has been Trump. Meanwhile... heir apparent is left alone... unscathed, for the most part.

You saw it, when Carson began to edge close to Trump, they switched gears and suddenly began smearing Carson. Trump jumps in an starts talking shit about Carson and retakes the lead. Then Cruz... same thing happens. Trump continues to lead and continues to be the one who everyone is attacking... for the most part. I just think it's a possibility... Trump is simply acting to deflect the attacks on the "would-be" front-runner. AND... if it all plays out to where he actually WINS... I think he will be shocked.

Well, as I said, it's an idea. It may be one that's in play. If it is, it's one I hadn't foreseen.

 

[S.J.]

Furthermore, did you not notice that I responded directly to some of the content found at the link you provided, PRIOR TO your writing the post to which I'm now replying?

Of course I noticed, that's why I said "you can't have it both ways". You directly responded to Trump's positions right after saying he didn't HAVE ANY.

BTW, did you realize you're flaming in your own thread? Why did you put it in the CDZ ?

 

[320 Years of History]

Furthermore, did you not notice that I responded directly to some of the content found at the link you provided, PRIOR TO your writing the post to which I'm now replying?

Of course I noticed, that's why I said "you can't have it both ways". You directly responded to Trump's positions right after saying he didn't HAVE ANY.

BTW, did you realize you're flaming in your own thread? Why did you put it in the CDZ ?

How am I "having it both ways" when I said he makes unsubstantiated claims and empty promises and then showed that to be exactly the nature of some of the content at his site? Did you expect me to do in writing here that for every stinking remark on his site? Aren't my posts long enough? LOL

Off Topic:
Flaming? I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what that term means. I assume that for a remark to be a flame, it must be untrue.

There are folks on here with whom I agree and disagree. Whether I do or not has nothing to do with what I think of them or of the quality of their remarks. Some of those folks include Boss, FA_Q2, Elvis, and someone having "Clayton" in their ID, and a few others. What they all have in common is that they bother to carefully read the entirety of posts to which they reply and they provide comprehensive replies that make some damn sense. Lastly, they don't take one little clip from a post and present it out of context and then respond to that little snippet as though it reflects the central theme of the whole post.

Go back and look at what I wrote in my OP and what you wrote above and then try to tell me they are the same things.

 

[Kalki]

Esmeralda, I would suggest studying history and I don't mean historical texts written by people today "whoever controls the present, controls the past" - Orwell. I mean read the literature of the 19th century and before. You can start by reading Lincoln's explanations of his abolitionism, and see that Lincoln himself was racist, but today he is portrayed as an anti-racist - this is done by liars who want to erase your knowledge of the past. I was reminded of '1984' by George Orwell when I read your response, perhaps you could read the text someday, after you study texts from history..

 

[S.J.]

Furthermore, did you not notice that I responded directly to some of the content found at the link you provided, PRIOR TO your writing the post to which I'm now replying?

Of course I noticed, that's why I said "you can't have it both ways". You directly responded to Trump's positions right after saying he didn't HAVE ANY.

BTW, did you realize you're flaming in your own thread? Why did you put it in the CDZ ?

How am I "having it both ways" when I said he makes unsubstantiated claims and empty promises and then showed that to be exactly the nature of some of the content at his site? Did you expect me to do in writing here that for every stinking remark on his site? Aren't my posts long enough? LOL

Off Topic:
Flaming? I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what that term means. I assume that for a remark to be a flame, it must be untrue.

There are folks on here with whom I agree and disagree. Whether I do or not has nothing to do with what I think of them or of the quality of their remarks. Some of those folks include Boss, FA_Q2, Elvis, and someone having "Clayton" in their ID, and a few others. What they all have in common is that they bother to carefully read the entirety of posts to which they reply and they provide comprehensive replies that make some damn sense. Lastly, they don't take one little clip from a post and present it out of context and then respond to that little snippet as though it reflects the central theme of the whole post.

Go back and look at what I wrote in my OP and what you wrote above and then try to tell me they are the same things.

Speaking of "Off Topic", post #23 is off topic. It has nothing to do with Trump, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, is it not? Sounds like you're trying to derail your own thread (which has no business in the CDZ in the first place).

 

[jasonnfree]

Trump's the only candidate who can stop the muslim invasion, much like europe is suffering under. The only candidate other than sanders who's talking against the crap trade deals that have de industrialized America. This is one of the reasons black people have such high unemployment rate, since they worked in those factories that were offshored. Trump is the only candidate who thinks that people should come to this country legally, not just sneak in and wait for an eventual amnesty and citizenship.

 

[SingleVoyce]

Furthermore, did you not notice that I responded directly to some of the content found at the link you provided, PRIOR TO your writing the post to which I'm now replying?

Of course I noticed, that's why I said "you can't have it both ways". You directly responded to Trump's positions right after saying he didn't HAVE ANY.

BTW, did you realize you're flaming in your own thread? Why did you put it in the CDZ ?

How am I "having it both ways" when I said he makes unsubstantiated claims and empty promises and then showed that to be exactly the nature of some of the content at his site? Did you expect me to do in writing here that for every stinking remark on his site? Aren't my posts long enough? LOL

Off Topic:
Flaming? I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what that term means. I assume that for a remark to be a flame, it must be untrue.

There are folks on here with whom I agree and disagree. Whether I do or not has nothing to do with what I think of them or of the quality of their remarks. Some of those folks include Boss, FA_Q2, Elvis, and someone having "Clayton" in their ID, and a few others. What they all have in common is that they bother to carefully read the entirety of posts to which they reply and they provide comprehensive replies that make some damn sense. Lastly, they don't take one little clip from a post and present it out of context and then respond to that little snippet as though it reflects the central theme of the whole post.

Go back and look at what I wrote in my OP and what you wrote above and then try to tell me they are the same things.

I listened to Trump's entire speech last night and it mostly consisted of citations of polls showing how great he was doing and remarks about what a great leader and businessman he was. I don't recall anything about any real positions on anything.

The one thing he did keep repeating was that, if elected he would "make America great again". That statement seems to imply that America is not currently the greatest nation on Earth. Does Trump actually believe that? Do his supporters?

 

[cnm]

The answer to that seems to be 'Could be greater'.

 

[320 Years of History]

I listened to Trump's entire speech last night and it mostly consisted of citations of polls showing how great he was doing and remarks about what a great leader and businessman he was. I don't recall anything about any real positions on anything.

The one thing he did keep repeating was that, if elected he would "make America great again". That statement seems to imply that America is not currently the greatest nation on Earth.

1. Does Trump actually believe that?
2. Do his supporters?

Question 1:
I have a hard time believing he does. I certainly hope it's not truly possible for someone foolish enough to believe the empty assertions (that is, to the extent they go above and beyond what can be attributed to self confidence) to become a billionaire. Certainly if one of that sort can, there's clearly nothing amiss with the American Dream.

Question 2:
I don't know, but it sure looks like they do....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Has anyone heard Donald Trump say anything besides what's wrong with everyone else but him?"

To be fair Trump isn't the only republican doing this – most of the candidates' campaigns are based on personal attacks and the politics of fear, none of the GOP candidates have anything of value or merit to offer the American people.

 

[Boss]

I listened to Trump's entire speech last night and it mostly consisted of citations of polls showing how great he was doing and remarks about what a great leader and businessman he was. I don't recall anything about any real positions on anything.

The one thing he did keep repeating was that, if elected he would "make America great again". That statement seems to imply that America is not currently the greatest nation on Earth. Does Trump actually believe that? Do his supporters?

Under Obama it has become not so great. As a matter of fact, Obama has made 10 appearances abroad where he delivered speeches to foreign audiences telling them how un-great America is and apologizing for us. Repeatedly, Obama tells us we are not great. We have racism in our DNA. We're too irresponsible to own firearms. Private sector job creation is a thing of the past. We're even so stupid we can't build anything on our own... it requires government.

None of this is surprising because it's Obama's core philosophy. America is NOT great... we're average. We have a flawed system full of social injustice and white privilege created by old racist white men from Europe. He wanted to fundamentally transform that and he has done a pretty good job of it. We are now on the brink of social anarchy and financial collapse. Our credit rating has twice been downgraded.

You don't need to worry about Republican positions because you're not going to vote for the Republican. However, for some out there who are genuinely interested in specific details Trump has presented, he has written a book where all of it is outlined. But what Trump is doing on the campaign trail is playing the game how Liberals want to play... making it all about personality and petty trivial bullshit. You want to act like petulant children instead of adults so that's what he is doing. If we're going to be immature and throw spit wads at each other, he is going to do it better than you.

 

[320 Years of History]

He seems okay for a merchant. Why is racism evil? Because someone told you it is? It was a virtue only 3 generations ago. This demonstrates how you are not even in control of your own beliefs and values.

If you don't like how merchants rule the world and have all the power, you might like reading Rene Guenon and Julius Evola.

Personally, I prefer reading nonfiction, and everyone knows journalism is primarily fiction. Read, 'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays, where this is admitted - that journalism is to manipulate the masses, and he coined the phrase "public relations" or PR; he helped to make the propaganda to get people to go off and get murdered for the merchants in WWI. Bernays told Wilson, "tell the American people we are going to war to bring democracy to Europe." They used the same lie 100 years later, and everyone supported it. Read the PNAC and Oded Yinon Plan and Operation Northwoods, or Operation Ajax.

Then, to know the true story about WWI read, 'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens To You After the War' by Charles August Lindbergh. Also, read 'War Is A Racket' by Smedley Butler. 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin. Or, in later years, 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins. Then, study Harry Dexter White, the Bretton Woods Conference and the IMF, which were predicted by Lindbergh. Or, the Haavara Agreement, the Lend Lease Act, and the Morgenthau Plan. Or how Morgenthau put an oil embargo on the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor to instigate them to attack to get congressional and public support to commit mass murder and dominate the earth through New York City and London.

Then, look up Jacob Schiff financing the bolsheviks. Or Jacob Schiff financing the Japanese in the 1890s. Or Commodore Matthew Perry 1853. That is correct, Wall Street financed the communists. So much for the lies. Read, '1984' by George Orwell, which is happening right now in a country near you.

Just stop following the lies and half-truths of journalism or propaganda. Free your mind. I am surprised there are still people who watch television and read journalism. The only benefit of seeing it is to see what the manipulators of public dialogue are doing at any given year. I would have thought everyone knows that the news is aimed at the lowest common denominator, intellectually, and besides it is almost entirely one-sided stories and half-truths.

All we have to do is read the news from Russia and Iran at this time, to hear the opposite side of the story, to understand how journalism is purely propaganda lies, to manipulate your mind. The same is true of public education. When the entire public is educated, it necessarily must have lower standards so everyone can go through it and education is not the goal; John Dewey even admitted they wanted pliable tools to manipulate, and this was the purpose of public education in America.

You realize that you have above proposed a sum of reading that I suspect surpasses in quantity the entirety of non-essential reading the Average does in any decade, perhaps longer, after they graduate from their last year of formal education?

Blue:
As beneficial as reading all those works would be for anyone, A People's History of the United States just as well conveys the same theme as that highlighted in blue above, plus it has the added benefit of being "cherry pickable," that is, one can start at any chapter and not really have missed out (as goes the end you've identified in the blue text) by not having read any of the ones that precede it.

Red:
Hmmm....I would wager that the folks who in fact comprise the "lowest common denominator" don't perceive themselves as being part of that cohort, yet being part of it, odds are they don't know the news is aimed at their level of comprehension. The main thing that makes them so (dis) believe is that they "understand" what they are told on the news; therefore they think it must be composed for folks even less astute than they are....

That you ace all the assignments your teachers give isn't an indication of whether you are smart/studious or not. It could be that the assignments aren't difficult, and one'd have to be not very smart at all, or not very studious, not to ace them.
-- 320 Years of History to my kids when they used external measures to gauge their intellect and abilities
​

 

[Kalki]

'A People's History of the United States' does not go as far as I go, and it directs the attention away from as deep as I am going. For example, if the PNAC and its predecessor, the Oded Yinon Plan, had been written when Zinn wrote the book he would not have included them. He also would not include information about Schiff and Warburg financing the bolsheviks, nor would he include information on Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and would not reference Eustace Mullin's book on 'the Secret's of the Federal Reserve' - which is the only text, to my knowledge, that was burned in Europe in the 1950s. Proving how important that book was. Charles Lindbergh's books were also destroyed by the U.S. government, but Zinn will not include that in his book. The reason why is because Zinn is anti-white and not anti-imperialist. This is the key difference.

 

[320 Years of History]

'A People's History of the United States' does not go as far as I go, and it directs the attention away from as deep as I am going. For example, if the PNAC and its predecessor, the Oded Yinon Plan, had been written when Zinn wrote the book he would not have included them. He also would not include information about Schiff and Warburg financing the bolsheviks, nor would he include information on Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and would not reference Eustace Mullin's book on 'the Secret's of the Federal Reserve' - which is the only text, to my knowledge, that was burned in Europe in the 1950s. Proving how important that book was. Charles Lindbergh's books were also destroyed by the U.S. government, but Zinn will not include that in his book. The reason why is because Zinn is [sic] not anti-imperialist. This is the key difference.

??? The central aim of the whole book A People's History of the United States is to present history from the standpoint of the "losers of the battle," so to speak, because the history texts most folks encounter present it from the standpoint of the "winners." "Winning," as it were, comes with the privilege of getting to write the history books, but writing them doesn't mean there's not more, another side, to the story.

I agree Zinn wouldn't have presented anything in A People's History from their point of view. I'm not in the remarks below even remotely defending Zinn. Rather I'm making the point that given the scope and nature of A People's History, I don't see the relevance of including in it the elements you've noted above. That's not to say that the topics/texts you noted aren't important or related to the overarching concept that inspired Zinn's book, that of "telling the rest of the story."

Red:
The PNAC is hardly a bunch of folks who "lost the battle." It's as establishment as any small group of people could be. Zinn would not have presented anything from the point of view of the PNAC.

Blue:
Schiff and Warburg -- along with their allies the Rothschilds, JP Morgan partners, Rockefeller, and others -- like the members of the PNAC, aren't among the folks who "lost the battle," so again, Zinn would not have presented anything from their point of view in A People's History. In addition to being on the winning side of the Russian Revolution, the story of the Bolsheviks is not part of the story of the people (collectively) of the United States.

Green:
Once again, Paul Warburg, the guy who it's widely thought inspired Gray's character "Daddy Warbucks," is hardly among "the losers."

Purple:
Certainly The Secrets of the Federal Reserve is well worth reading. Certainly it's in keeping with the high level theme of "telling the largely untold part of the story" as goes the Fed's creation. The thing with Secrets is that while it and A People's History are certainly in the same "wheelhouse," Secrets isn't really about "the people," that is in the sense of the common men and women of the U.S. It's about power plays between already very rich and powerful men. There's no question that the Fed -- in Warburg's day as well as now -- had/has a clear impact on the average American (be they on the side of the "winners" or "losers"), the scope of Secrets doesn't lend itself to telling their story; thus it's hard to see the value of referencing its content in A People's History.

I won't say it isn't an important book; it exposed much about the Fed, as well as the collusive acts of the powerful men behind its creation, much that should have been openly shared at the time of the Fed's creation. Indeed, that one book may be among the top three reasons the Fed is widely and openly discussed today.

I'm uncertain that the book's having been banned/burnt in 1955 Germany speaks to it's importance, even though I accept its importance. Truly the only thing I can find about the book's burning comes from Mullin himself, and he says that the German judge Israel Katz approved the burning based on the book violating Germany's race laws. I can't find a translation of the hearing/opinion so I cannot determine whether I agree with Mullin. I can only say that I don't generally cotton to burning books, but then I'm not German nor have I lived in Germany, and I wasn't alive in 1955.

Pink:
Well, that deed is more an example of Presidential power than it is of governmental coercion. The book, when it was brand spanking new was sent to President Wilson who immediately after reading it ordered it destroyed in its entirety. I get saying "destroyed by the U.S. government," but only because the President has to bear responsibility for all that the government does. That order, more so than any modern use of Executive power, seems an act befitting a monarch more than a U.S. President.

Brown:
Zinn definitely opposed imperialism. He merely used the word "expansionist" rather than "imperialist." From an interview he granted, Zinn spoke on specifically the matter of his not using the word "imperialism" (imperialist).

The U.S. had been imperialist, it was continental imperialism: taking Florida, taking a part of Mexico, taking over Indian territory. But that was looked upon as westward expansionism and imperialism was always seen as something you did overseas, like the British empire.

I think probably for along time I deliberately didn't use it, though I would describe it. I would use the word expansionism or control of other countries. For a long time I didn't use the word imperialism because I thought it set off alarms which didn't allow people to look carefully at what I was saying. I'm willing to use the term so long as I can explain it.​

From the remarks above, it's pretty clear that Zinn's eschewing of the word "imperialism/-ist" reflected his sense of the context of the term, not his, as you imply, approbation of the act.

 

[Kalki]

I didn't mean that Zinn should have included knowledge of those things from the point of view of the power structure, but from the point of view of the people to show how the people were, and still are, harmed by those things. I meant that Zinn would not write about the financing of bolshevism from America, because he would not want people to know that happened or to look into it in depth and see who did that. The reason why is because Zinn's entire basis of the book was to destroy ethnic whites and ethnic white states. Zinn hated white people, the sole purpose of his work was premised on this. That is why I would never recommend his work to anyone.

Students are forced to read Zinn, not because of what happened, but because his agenda is the same agenda of the rest of his ilk in power: to destroy ethnic white identity and instill white guilt, to train them that they are the only group on this planet that do not have the human right to their own ethnic identity; to train them not to protest when the authorities take every action that only results in the destruction of white identity.

Here is a question: Would Zinn quote the same quotes on African slavery that are in the book: 'The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews' ? Where are those quotes in his book for the "losers"? He seems to have missed them. Intentionally, and on purpose. Because the point is to blame white people for everything bad, to instill guilt in white people.

Zinn's work is actually more harmful than good, because it deflects attention away from, and does not address, how the system actually is today, and how the powers-that-be are destroying and enslaving peoples, not only in America, but throughout the world, not 200 years ago, but right now at the present.

On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).