Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Free Speech goes PRO on Gab.ai Social Media Website

Gab.ai launches Gab Pro service.
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've probably heard of Gab.ai, the hottest new social media website on the web.

Gab.ai shook up Silicon Valley when the free speech social media platform launched on August 15, 2016. In its basic features, the site including self-censoring options to allow the users to control the content they wanted to engage instead of depending on the company to police the content for them.  Sites like Twitter scrambled to copy cat Gab's unique features.

By December 1, 2016, Andrew Torba, co-founder and CEO of Gab announced that the company had reached the coveted threshold of 100,000 users in 108 days, without apps that were still under development no less. That breaks down to an average of 925 new sign-ups a day and they also surpassed more than 2.2 million gabs (or posts).

Within days of Gab blowing past its 7-month birthday, the upstart shows no signs of slowing down with the launching of its new paid service, Gab Pro.  Unlike other venture capitalist ventures, the Gab.ai team has chosen to break the mold on how new companies operate.  Torba has maintained that he wanted his team to retain creative control over its social media platform. He did not want to be beholden to shareholders or risk caving to pressure from advertisers like Breitbart has contended with in recent months.

At users requests to assist Torba and his team with their mission to build a social media website that protects free speech, they launched a Gab Donor program back in September 2016 that has funded the company as it developed its platform.  Users dug deep in their pockets and have handed the company $107,484.42 as of the last transparency report published by Torba back in February.

Back in November 2017, the Gab Donor program had hit its peak with an amazing one-month fundraising total of $24,658 from 926 users.  Unfortunately, the donation numbers declined by half over the following months to just $12,552 from 523 users in February 2017 despite growing their user base by another 50,000 plus users with another 250,000 on a waiting list to join the site.

As always, Torba and his team innovated creative ways to overcome the fundraising issues by efficiently launching a paid version of their service for just $5.99 per month.  Basic unit accounts will remain free, but the Gab Pro subscription comes with added perks for users who want to support the site.

Those new subscription features include:
  • Instant Access to Photo Sharing
  • Custom User Lists
  • Category Insights on User Profile pages to see what types of content they are interested in.
  • Optional account Verification of the user's identity
  • And my personal favorite - Saved Posts which allows users to bookmark and sort posts they want to track.
When I asked Torba how has the user based responded to Gab Pro, he responded that there were over 400 users that adopted the enhanced subscription service in the first 18 hours.

With Gab heavily engaged user community, Torba and his team have just found their sea legs and they're ready to take on the Silicon Valley establishment head on.

Follow me on Gab @wocassity!

Sunday, August 7, 2016

The American Slave Plantation Is Alive and Well

Make no mistake about it:  The American Slave Plantation is alive and well in the United States of America.  This doesn't just affect minorities, it affects everyone of every nationality, race, gender or sexual orientation.

Social programs are designed to force the poor into servitude by voting for political candidates that will keep their benefits intact.  The poor are given just enough to survive, but they are not given enough to pull themselves out of poverty.

If someone getting housing assistance, food stamps, medical care or welfare decides they want to find a better paying job to improve their situation, they have to risk losing all of their government subsidies.  They are not given enough to save up to make the transition without the benefits.

Most are given a very basic education in the public school system.  Just enough to maybe work as a cashier, waiter/waitress, or some other service-related occupation.  Those who manage to push beyond a high school diploma are typically steered toward social justice degrees like Women Studies or Black Studies, which are degrees that will typically earn them a salary below the poverty line instead of high paying degrees like STEM (Science, Technology, Engineer and Math diplomas).

Students rack up anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000 in college loan debt that they will spend the rest of their lives repaying.

Those with the entrepreneur spirit run into similar challenges.  They want to start their own businesses, but it has become considerably more challenging to start-up a new business without the right amount of capital.  Boot-strap startups are a thing of the past due to cumbersome regulations, draconian insurance requirements and a complex tax code that gets even more complicated each year.  Competition is discouraged through heavy regulation that only benefits those who have lobbied Congress to discourage those who could challenge existing business models.  Hell, a child cannot even run a lemonade stand in this day and age.

As our national debt keeps rising to the tune of $19 Trillion dollars, we have sacrificed the future of the unborn Americans that will come into the future.  They will have to work and pay an incredible amount of taxes to pay for the peanut handouts our corrupt politicians are giving citizens today.

So ask yourself.  Do the bare minimum monthly benefits our poorest people in this country receive really helping them or giving them reasons to simply give up and keep voting for a system that truly cares nothing for them?

It's time to empower the individuals who want to make better lives for themselves.  It's time to provide them equal opportunities of success, not barriers that will trap them in poverty.  It is time to wake up and encourage those with the willpower to make a change to venture out into this business world and make an impact by innovating technology and creating jobs.  It's time we stop sending our manufacturing jobs overseas so that corporate fatcats can avoid the strangling regulations that American manufacturers can barely overcome.  We need to end disastrous trade deals.  We need to stop flooding the workforce with cheap illegal labor that steals decent paying jobs away from Americans that are encouraged to sit at home or live in their mom's basements and play video games all day long.

It's time that we revive the American Dream.  It's time to Make America Great Again!

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

A Little Truth about Free College for Everyone

What happens when a moron gets a college degree?

You end up with a moron with a college degree. It isn't gonna make him smarter. He will have the same level of intelligence he had when he started school. Sure, he will know some things, but he wouldn't have a clue how to apply what he has learned.

In fact, I'd argue that you are making him dangerous. He believes that because "this piece of paper says I can", he will truly believe he knows exactly what he's doing that no matter how badly he screws up. And when things don't work out the way he expects, he'll blame the system for his fundamental inability to apply what he has learned.

Don't kid yourselves either. We've all worked with these people and have asked ourselves, "Geez, how does this idiot make it out of bed in the morning?"

A person's IQ matters... If we keep lowering the standards to meet the passing grade, society won't be able to function. Some people are meant to be doctors, others are meant to work with their hands (not on people).

Just imagine this conversation and ask yourself does everyone need to have a college degree:
"Look at him, he loves people so much. Little Jimmy is gonna be a doctor someday."
"Uh, ma'am, Little Jimmy is eating the dish soap tablets with bleach in them."
"Bless his heart. He's only 12 years old. Maybe he'll grow out of it."
I understand that this is a hard truth to accept and so we should use reason instead of wasting resources.  Not only that but if everyone is walking around with a 4-year college degree, then how do you decide who is best suited for the job?  You'd have to start using a person's experience as the primary attribute or only focus on graduates from the most prestigious schools.

Take a look at the Top College Degrees for 2016.  http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/

Ask yourself which ones of these are guaranteed to become a high-earning opportunity if from any school that isn't ivory league?  Yeah.  You see what I'm saying.  There are already too many business management degree holders working as managers in fast food joints and we want to add more to our workforce?

Ever hear of a thing called Supply and Demand?  That's what is used to measure the worth of someone's skills based on training, aptitude, and experience.  Not a piece of paper.

What we need are people with a work ethic and initiative who are self-starters.  We need entrepreneurs to create jobs and we need skilled labor not only in vocational fields of labor but technical skills as well.

So let's stop pretending everyone needs to run off to college and join a fraternity or sorority to become cultured.  Some people are simply not capable of understanding anything beyond their own limited understanding.  Don't reward them with meaningless trophies.  Let's recruit our brightest and work with them to give them the resources they need to innovate and move our society forward with scientific and technological advances.  Let's focus on quality, not quantity.


Friday, March 25, 2016

What does it mean to be Presidential?

Today, I had a conversation on my Tighty White Press Facebook Page about what it means to be Presidential.  I would recommend for everyone to visit the article I posted there about Cruz's wife being attacked by Donald Trump and read the discussion in the comments.

I wrapped up the conversation after the other participant ended the dialogue.  Here's what I wrote:

"It would appear that you have stopped engaging the conversation about how unpresidential Donald Trump is. Let me wrap this up then.
First, you stated that Trump and Cruz were both deplorable in the way they behaved. I presented evidence that shows we have had Presidents in the past not acting as Presidential to your standards. We also talked about how Marco Rubio lured Donald Trump into the hand/penis bait comment and you agreed both were immature to do that as well.
When I asked you to define what it means to you to be "Presidential", you did not provide the criteria. I stated that no one currently in this election held to the standard of your criteria based on what I could surmise. You then mentioned Kasich and Sanders both acted with civility.
In a previous conversation with you on a friend's page, you suggested Donald Trump was not like Ronald Reagan and alluded to the fact that Ronald Reagan was the mark of a Presidential standard.
I provided links to 4 videos showing how Ronald Reagon told protesters to "Shut up" (not acting with civility) and then 2 videos of Kasich getting walked over by protesters (showing civility) and Sanders having his mic and podium taken over by protesters (showing civility). Then I stated that a President's first priority was to LEAD. How can a man/woman lead a country if they can't even control their own rallies? You ignored the Reagan comparisons to both Kasich and Sanders.
You brought up Paul Ryan who isn't even in the race! (Of course, I do believe the GOP is gunning for a brokered convention to nominate him, but that's a different subject altogether).
So we agree that Cruz, Rubio and Trump have been crass and many people have the opinion that all acted immaturely in some way. We also agreed that Clinton's behavior in the past wasn't Presidential either. 
So that leaves us looking at Kasich and Sanders who both allowed protesters to walk over them during their own rallies.
As I stated when I posted this article, I was expressing a distaste for the rhetoric and hyperbole that somehow made Cruz a victim in all of this. Cruz is no victim, but he is pandering for sympathy votes to try to win by making Trump be some kind of bully. And to a degree, it is my opinion that Trump can be very rude and brash, but as I've mentioned on my blog, my research thus far does not show Trump taunting anyone without provocation. I will continue to do research and if you find an example of this, please let me know.
As far as provocation goes, if a man were to come after my wife to get at me, I would declare his wife/spouse fair game for retaliation. I'm not talking violently. I understand the power of words and I would not hesitate to defend my family. That's what someone with morals would do if those words could cause harm. Cruz of all people should understand that given his wife's own mental issues. Society has a very negative perspective of people who suffer from mental illness. Cruz should have immediately come to Melania's defense at the very first deplorable use of that photo in that way. But he didn't. Could of, would of, should of. It didn't serve Cruz's political agenda at the time.
This has ben a dirty race. I for one am relieved to see the veil of hypocrisy removed so the public gets a good, hard look at the ugliness that is known as politics. Our politicians do not work for the voters, but the lobbyists, which is why I like Trump and Sanders who call attention to that. It is no accident that lobbyists spent $67 million dollars to try to shut Trump down. I would imagine that if Bernie was winning on his side, the lobbyists propaganda machine would also be in full swing against him too. Instead, they are using a different tactic on Bernie. They are appealing to his sense of fairness and civility. Bill Clinton violating the law in Massachusetts campaigning within 50 feet of a polling station, in Arizona, switching long-term registered Democrat voters to independent and denying them the right to cast a ballot, and so many more antics. They don't have to be so blatant with their attempts to bring Sanders down, he's already losing.
But Trump, well they have been gunning for him with everything and his numbers have gone up. Not because he's a racist or a misogynist as the media and establishment would have you to believe. No, People understand that their government has been taken over by special interests and lobbyists money. They can see that the system has thrown them overboard and the fake smiles and weak handshakes are tools that the establishment has used to disarm the people's feelings that something is wrong.
The people are essential recruiting the establishment's "bully" to stand up and fight for them. Why? Because he's proven that he can beat them at their own games."

I understand that there's a lot of commentary and opinion in the discussion at the end, but as you can see by the flow, I tried to keep the conversation to the facts.  The truth is, the particiant wanted to discuss political theory and philosophy.  I'm down with that.

In conclusion, I feel that I have not done enough fact checking for this blog yet to be fully effective.  I am working on it and I prefer to have more facts than commentary here.  I have other writing obligations I'm trying to fulfill, so please bear with me.


Thursday, March 24, 2016

The Burden of Proof

In the court of law, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff, not the defendant.  This rule doesn't seem to apply in the court of public opinion in places like social media. People make outlandish claims expecting the defendants to prove them wrong.

There needs to be an understanding as to why this is true. When you look at people making false claims, they fall into two categories: People who are pushing an agenda and people who are misinformed.  It is imperative that we understand the difference.

The Ideologist

Someone who is beholden to an ideology doesn't care about facts. They will pick and choose which facts or opinions that validate their perspectives. They are not capable, critical thinkers and in most cases, they only seek to incite hostilities if they cannot sway people to their side of the issue.

It is easy to identify ideologists when you ask them for evidence to support their claims.  Here are the 3 most common reactions from a propaganda ideologist:

  1. A Waste of Time
    1. This type of propagandist chooses to make a false claim based on feelings without providing evidence or they will utilize evidence taken out of context. 
    2. When asked to provide proof of their claim, they will feign indifference and act like they either don't care enough to bother or claim that there's so much evidence that proves them right they don't have time to present every single piece.
  2. Fact Bombardment
    1. This type of propagandist is highly aggressive and will seek to suppress questions about their ideology by rapidly firing off a multitude of facts or present multiple new false claims in an attempt to suppress the presentation of facts.
    2. This falls under the needle in the haystack scenario where the facts that invalidate the false accusers claims get buried quickly.
  3. Name Calling
    1. Some propagandists will take offense immediately upon being questioned or asked for evidence. They will immediately make personal attacks against the inquirer to invalidate them before the evidence disarms their false claim.
    2. Other propagandists will use fact bombardment to suppress the question and if an inquirer provides facts that refute their claim, they will make a new false claim. When the inquirer attempts to bring them back to the false claim at hand, they will instigate personal attacks against the inquirer.
    3. Most commonly attacks are against the inquirer's intelligence or lack of knowledge.
  4. I'm the Victim
    1. As a final resort, the person making a false claim will react as if they are the one under attack.
    2. They are beholden to an ideology and firmly believe that everyone who disagrees with them ar wrong.  And not just wrong about one specific point, but to every viewpoint, the opposing opinion may hold.  This is why when you see people who disagree with one specific thing, suddenly the false claim maker disagrees with absolutely everything the opposing opinion has to say even if it isn't related to the original disagreement.
In most cases, you will not be able to present compelling evidence to an ideologist who is beholden to a preconceived notion.

The Misinformed

The second type of person that may make a false claim is someone who misunderstands. They have either not bothered to research beyond the surface claims they have been exposed to, such as the mainstream media or social media, or they do not consider the subject matter to be a high priority in their lives.

Present a pleasant tone and do not belittle the misinformed for not having the correct information. 

How to Present Facts

  1. Remain emotionally neutral. If you see a claim that upsets you, take a moment to breathe and relax.
  2. In a polite manner, inform a person who is making a false claim that they have not presented evidence to validate their claim.  If there is evidence in their initial claim, ask them to source their information.
  3. Do not present facts until they have either provided evidence or sourced the evidence.
  4. If bombarded with evidence, ask them to present the first piece of evidence and reciprocate with a fact.  This will initiate a dialogue.
  5. If a person stating a claim begins name calling or claims to be the victim, advise them that it was not your intent. Inform them they have a right to their opinions and beliefs, but if they want to make a claim about someone else, then the decent thing to do would be to support the claim with evidence.
  6. Do not present evidence that isn't sourced.
  7. If you do not have the time or you need to research evidence presented to support a false claim, do not rush. Explain that the facts matter to you and that you do not want to rush.  Set a reasonable time frame of 24 to 48 hours if you need.
  8. If you do not have enough time to present the full evidence within the timeframe, present what evidence you have and inform them you will continue to do more research.
  9. Be objective and willing to change your opinion based on the information you discover.  If the facts are in context and are true, willfully admit the error in your opinion.  You can't win every battle.  Sometimes, it takes time for all the facts of a situation to come to the surface.
  10. When breaking news generates false claims, I would advise withholding your opinion until the evidence come in.  Do not immediately turn to the breaking news for your evidence unless there is a history readily available about the issue.
  11. Finally, at any time you realize the person presenting the false claim has no interest in the fact, simply thank them for their participation in the discussion and let them know that you have no interest in changing their opinion. Your only goal was to set the record straight by presenting the facts.
In the end, you should not set out to change people's opinions to yours.  We all have a right to our own opinions.  We are also inclined to offer our opinions without evidence.  If asked for evidence, simply do the work.  This would be a good indication that you may not be fully informed if you cannot present the evidence.

People have deeply held beliefs.  They have been through many different experiences in their lives and those opinions were not formed by one or two events. People who make false claims are not bad people, not even the ideological ones.  They BELIEVE in what they are saying.  Most have good intentions.

You can never offer a compelling argument to someone you antagonize or someone you have insulted. Please be respectful and objective. Work hard and be honest so you can gather the trust of the opposing opinion holders.  Who knows?  You might be the one who doesn't have all the facts.  Be prepared to accept that.

This is by no means a fully detailed write up on how to address false claims.  Do not take on the burden of proof unless you are the person making a claim. Be sure to provide evidence that is sourced and if you need time to collect the evidence, give the facts the time and respect they deserve.

As you can see, when I present facts in a single article, I do research the information extensively. This is not a bombardment of facts. All facts relate to the existing claim and are presented in a clear, time linear fashion.  If additional information about the sources is required to understand the perspectives of the source, I strive to include the information at the end of the articles.


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Donald Trump Attacks Carly Fiorina

The claim insists that Donald Trump attacked Carly Fiorina because she was a woman and this proves his mysognistic tendancies.

“Look at that face!” said of former Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!"

The quote first appeared in Rolling Stone magazine on September 9, 2015 and in an article titled "Trump Seriously: On the Trail with the GOP's Tough Guy" written by Paul Solotaroff. The article can be found here:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909?page=13

In the article, the author starts off by describing his time riding on Trump One to a Trump rally Hampton High School in Hampton, New Hampshire. It took me awhile to find out that the event was held on August 14, 2015 at Winnacunnet High School.

The article jumps around a lot. First on the plane with Trump, then a few weeks before this event to discuss meeting with Trump in New York, then it jumps back to the rally held at Winnacunnet High School, and finally after the rally.

In the article, Solotaroff writes:

Trump takes the stage to a standing ovation. His speech goes the way it always goes. "They had 24 million people [at the debate the other night]. . . . Do you think they were there for . . . Rand Paul? Rand, I've had you up to here!" He touches his armpit, zinging the vertically challenged Paul: "He didn't like it when I said you have to pass an IQ test to get up on the stage." Then he pivoted to Carly Fiorina. "Carly was a little nasty to me — be careful, Carly! Be careful! But I can't say anything to her because she's a woman. . . . I promised that I wouldn't say that she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground. I said I wouldn't say it! That her stock value tanked. That she laid off tens of thousands of people, and she got viciously fired. I said I will not say that. And that she then went out and ran against Barbara Boxer, and . . . lost in a landslide. And I said, 'I. Will. Not. Say. That!' "

But when I listen to the speech, I noticed a few things.  First, the comment about "passing an IQ test" was wrongfully contributed to refer to Rand Paul. The remarks regarding Carly Fiorina have been heavily redacted.  Here's a transcript that I made based on video taping of the event:

"And actually Carly was a little nasty to me — be careful, Carly [shakes outstretch hand side to side to indicate shakey ground]! Be careful. But I can't say anything to her because she's a woman and I don't want to be accused of being tough on women. [addresses the crowd] I can't do that, right? Women, am I allowed to fight back? [women in audience shout "yes"] Huh? Am I allowed? She's been a little nasty to me. I promised that I wouldn't say that she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground. I said I wouldn't say it! That her stock value tanked. That she laid off tens of thousands of people, and she got viciously fired. I said I will not say that. And that she then went out and ran against Barbara Boxer for the United States Senate in California and it's a race that should have been won but she lost it in a landslide. And I said, 'I. Will. Not. Say. That!' Ok? Alright? I will not say it."

The Hampton, New Hampshire rally video can be found here (the comments about the other GOP candidates begins at 29:29 mark and the comments about Fiorina begin at the 33:58 mark in the video):  http://www.c-span.org/video/?327605-1/donald-trump-campaign-rally-hampton-new-hampshire

Further down in the Rollingstone article, the author writes about what happened after this rally:

After the Hampton rally, Trump is so exultant he practically floats the 10 miles back to his plane. 
He parks himself at the dining table in the center of the big plane's cabin, turns on the massive flat-panel unit that is preset to Fox News and watches reports of the speech he's just given, while wolfing down a takeout dinner. Onscreen, it is wall-to-wall coverage of Trump, though none of it is mediated by Megyn Kelly, the network's golden girl and homegrown star. A week after the Republican debate, in which she'd taken on Trump and tried to gore him over his caddish remarks about women, she'd gone missing from the conversation, vanishing to her beach house till late August. In the sweet but too-brief battle between Trump and the network that followed his ugly dust-up with Kelly, Trump had emerged from it the walk-off winner after staring down Roger Ailes, the Fox News chief. During his four-day boycott of the station, he pumped up the ratings of its rival networks by appearing on their shows and savaging Fox, and escalated his all-out war on Kelly with the crack about her bloody "wherever." Ultimately, peace broke out, and Ailes brought him back on. Trump's return, on Sean Hannity's show, drove ratings back up, beating out the competition several times over. It devolved into a victory lap for Trump, but even in triumph, he couldn't keep the truce. In his office, Trump slipped me a printout of a story titled "How Roger Ailes Picked Trump, and Fox News' Audience, Over Megyn Kelly." "I don't start these fights, but I sure as hell win them," he told me. 
And that is Trump all over: He can't-stop-won't-stop whaling away at anyone who dares to bait him. The day after Kelly returned from exile, Trump trashed her afresh with snarks and retweets, refusing to give Kelly peace. This is the other thing he learned from his father, who taught his sons to "attack, attack, attack," says Blair, the biographer. "He's constantly on offense, picking massive fights, and it always results in polling spikes," says Matt Boyle, a correspondent for Breitbart News, the only other writer on Trump's plane. 
With his blue tie loosened and slung over his shoulder, Trump sits back to digest his meal and provide a running byplay to the news. Onscreen, they've cut away to a spot with Scott Walker, the creaky-robot governor of Wisconsin. Praised by the anchor for his "slow but steady" style, Walker is about to respond when Trump chimes in, "Yeah, he's slow, all right! That's what we got already: slowwww." His staffers at the conference table howl and hoot; their man, though, is just getting warm. When the anchor throws to Carly Fiorina for her reaction to Trump's momentum, Trump's expression sours in schoolboy disgust as the camera bores in on Fiorina. "Look at that face!" he cries. "Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!" The laughter grows halting and faint behind him. "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" 
So you see from the details of the article, Trump feels that he is being attacked by Megyn Kelly of Fox News and states, "I don't start these fights, but I sure as hell win them." This reliation style of insulting attacks does fall within Trump's code of "do not cast the first stone."

So what does this say about Carly Fiorina?  At what point did she attack Donald Trump that made him feel he needed to give her a warning on August 14, 2015 to be careful about throwing stones, the same day the Rolling Stone documented the "Look at that face!" comment?

For the answer, we have to go back to the infamous Fox News debate held on August, 6 2015. During the debate, Megyn Kelly asked Carly Fiorina a question:

Fox News Debate 8/6/15:

Megyn: "Let me ask you the same question as it is true of all of you on this stage and like it or not, there's a huge disparity between the poll numbers you have and the poll numbers that he [Donald Trump] has. Given also the fact that Ruddy Giuanni said he thought there may be some Reagan qualities to Donald Trump, so Carly Fiorina, is he [Donald Trump] getting the better of you?
Carly responded, "Well I don't know, I didn't get a call from Bill Clinton before I jump in the race, did any of you get a phone call from Bill Clinton? I didn't. Maybe it was because I didn't give money to the foundation or donated to his wife's senate campaign.  Here's the thing I would ask Donald Trump, in all seriousness, he is the party's front runner right now, and good for him. I think he's tapped into an anger that people feel. They're sick [pause] of politics as usual. You know, whatever your issue, your cause, the festering problem you hope would be resolved, the political class has failed you, that's just a fact and that's what Donald Trump taps into. I would also say this: Since he's changed him mind on amnesty, on healthcare and on abortion, I would just ask what are the principles by which he would govern?"

On August 7, 2015, Donald Trump accused Megyn Kelly of not being fair and balanced and accused her of going after him with questions about how Donald Trump has treated women like Rosie O'Donnell, and others as Donald Trump had admitted. Feeling Megyn Kelly cast the first stone, he told CNN:

“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her — wherever,” 

After the CNN comments aired, Carly Fiorna tweeted:

On August 12, 2015, two days before the rally and Rolling Stone quotes,  Carly Fiorina went on CBS to once again compare him to the Democrats and then accused Donald Trump of attacking women (comments start at 5:25 mark):

In this video, she is quoted as saying "Women of all kinds are horrified by Donald Trump's statements and that President's can't be so thin skinned." I have not be able to find the interview where this Fiorina quote came from, but once I do locate it, I will update this article with a link.

So looking over the evidence presented here thus far, I was not able to find a single Donald Trump insult attack before the Fox News Debate on August 6, 2016.  It does appear to me that Carly Fiorina did throw the first stone.

But I did discover a video posted by Carly Fiorina regarding Hillary Clinton from a Fox and Friends interview on July 8, 2015:

Question: "What did you think of Mrs. Clinton saying Republicans pretty much all coming from the same point of view that they are "hostile to hispanics"? 
Carly: "Well I think it's entirely predictable and I think it's vintage Clinton that she would equate not supporting a pathway to citizenship for those who have come here and stayed here illegally . I certainly do not and never have. She would equate that hostility to immigration, that's simply false. But of course it serves her political narrative which is to continue the Democrat playbook of identity politics - lump Americans into various identity groups, make them victims, pit one identity group against another. I think it was vintage Clinton in another way. Didn't accept accoutablity for nothing. She was not asked a single question about her state department time and she blamed the vast right wing conspiracy for everything."
The video can be found here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBDegZZ3hws

Carly Fiorina clearly believed in July that dividing people based on how they identify was a move from the Democrat playbook and yet no one held her accountable when she tried to claim she was a "victim of misogyny" at the hands of Donald Trump.

In fact, she famously said at the CNN Debate on September 16, 2015

Finally, on September 20, 2015 with Fox News Sunday, she was enjoying the additional name recognition from the CNN Debate and the Donald Trump Feud:

In conclusion, Carly Fiorina violated her principles to divide people by political identity by starting a battle against Donald Trump.. She knew based on his history, he would retort her accusations with insults because he sees anyone who attacks him as fair game.  In my opinion based on the evidence presented here, Donald Trump did not attack Carly Fiorina because she is a woman.


Monday, March 21, 2016

Claims I am currently Fact Checking

Here is the current list of claims I'm fact checking as time and leads permit.
  1. “26,000 unreported sexual assults [sic] in the military — only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?"
  2. “He’s not a war hero,” said of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
  3. Here is a guy who insists Mexico is going to pay for a wall that will do nothing, because those that cross the border illegally use tunnels. 
  4. Do you believe Ronald Reagan would approve of the above quotes? Would he say the same thing? 
Please keep in mind that I'm one man with only so much free time on my hands. As I gather the facts, I will post them as quickly as I can.
In the meantime, if you have any claims that you would like to have me fact check, please comment your request on this post.