The Dink Network

the organization can say whatever they want
Sure. But if they say "we want to fund peaceful protests" and they give money to an organization that clearly does peaceful protests, how can that possibly lead to the conclusion that they want riots?

Some supporters of BLM turned violent. (Thanks for reminding about the Milwaukee riots; I had forgotten about them.) But while the sources you cite like to pretend that the violence came from nowhere, remember that those protesters and their friends and family are getting harassed, jailed (for no good reason) and killed by police all the time; the police is obviously the source of the violence, the black people are just responding.

I agree that you shouldn't respond to violence with violence, but it is hypocritical to ignore the violence done to them by the police, even to blame them for inciting violence by pointing out that it happens, and when some of them punch back it's all their fault. Sure, telling your community about being mistreated by the police might lead to some of them becoming violent. But is that a reason to keep quiet? Not if it's true! It should instead be a reason for the police to reform.

I saw an interview with the brother of the guy that was killed by police that triggered those riots. He was asked when the riots would stop. His answer was exactly right: "We aren't killing us; they are killing us. We're not the ones that need to stop. They need to stop."

To make this even more clear, here's an analogy: Suppose that some person, let's name hir "Time", sets your house on fire three times a week. Every time zi does that, you get the fire hose and put out the fire. Sometimes you're really annoyed and you hit your neighbor with the water as well. Imagine that bystanders are completely ignoring that Time is setting your house on fire all the time, and are outraged that you hit your neighbor with the fire hose. Wouldn't your response be: "Let's focus at the real problem, which is Time setting my house on fire!"?

But to get back to BLM and Soros: note that BLM did not organize the violence in Milwaukee. So from what I can tell, they are a peaceful group, but some of their supporters can be violent sometimes (which I find completely understandable, even if it would be better if they wouldn't). Does that make them a bad organization? Does it make Soros a bad guy for supporting them? I don't think so.

the article did say this was the intent of soros's donations and soros's words on "destroying the west to bring about the NWO" fits in as well.
I'm sure he never said that. If you look at his web page, you see it is about "peace, justice and human rights". Their mission includes: We seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments; and a civil society that helps keep government power in check. Obviously violence and "destroying the west" are not part of the path the get there.

Can he be lying? Sure he can. But why would he say publicly that he wants to destroy the west, but then lie about it somewhere else? Also, where does he say that he wants to destroy the west? I think they just made that up. The video I linked above about the UN is the reason I don't trust sources like infowars or Fox "news". They make stuff up all the time. And based on their fantasies they always predict that something horrible is about to happen, and every single one of those predictions have been false.

if this was a response to violence against the police, why are the police stomping on and gang banging citizens who are not fighting back, struggling, and have screamed for help?
Excellent question! There are two options: either the blacks are lying about it and have been for hundreds of years, they are just violent and the police needs to keep them down. Or the police is lying about it and are just violent against blacks for no apparent reason.

Given that we can see the massive violence by police, and we see top people in police unions get outraged when people ask for justice (Think about that for a moment... The police is against justice... What was their job again?) Given all that, which side do you think is lying when they say "I'm just reacting, they started it"?

i have heard that our army has lost to farmers with shotguns before or something along those lines.
You must be talking about Cliven Bundy. The problem here wasn't that the government didn't have the firepower; it was that they let him get away with it. He and his friends pointed guns at the police, and they said "sure, sorry we bothered you, we'll leave you alone". In fact, that shows that they don't want to attack their own citizens. Which is a good thing, but it's remarkable how with black citizens they don't seem to have a problem with it.

But there is a semi-positive ending here: his son took over a building with some armed friends and they were eventually arrested (and the father, too).

the absurd money
Ah yes, the corruption. Here's how it works: the companies that build the weapons donate some money to politicians (a few hundred million dollars, I think). Then the politicians buy lots of expensive equipment from them (trillions of taxpayer money). The people would get angry if those weapons would just be stored all the time, so they have to find a way to use them. So they invade Iraq, for example. And they give weapons to Saudi Arabia and Israel and rebels in Syria and Iraq and Libya and the list goes on. They do this while claiming to try to help, but they are really doing two things: make sure they get rid of the weapons, so they can buy new ones, and keeping conflicts alive, so they can keep sending weapons there.

Using the weapons inside the US to attack civilians would work for getting rid of them, but it would also cause mass protests and they don't want that. So instead they kill civilians in the middle east. The mass protest that that causes is called Isis (well, it's more complicated than that, but it's a part of it) and Americans have no sympathy for them, so they can keep doing this.

trump wouldn't be able to organize such a thing as the nazis did.
I agree, and that's why I believe that he is actually the lesser of the two evils. He wants to do more evil, but he won't get anything done.

But that's a giant gamble to take; if other evil people organize a system around him that does get things done, the world is in big trouble with president Trump.

not voting, because votes don't count
Actually, they do. That's exactly what they do. Always vote. If you like neither Trump nor Clinton (you are not alone!), there are more people you can vote for. Jill Stein is a liberal who wants many of the same things as Bernie Sanders, and Gary Johnson is a libertarian who I think is an idiot, but maybe you like him. Voting for those people also makes a difference; even if they don't win, the major candidates will adopt some of their positions if they see those are very popular.

So yes, you are obviously interested in politics, so get informed about the candidates (all four of them) and vote. But don't get me wrong: If you want to change society, voting is not your main weapon. You should vote, but also get involved with activism. Personally, I think the corruption is the main problem in the US, and nothing can get done until that is fixed. And of course, there are groups that try to do that. Wolf-Pac is trying to get a constitutional amendment to fix the corruption. You may want to consider joining them.

I would vote in the presidential election if I could, but I'm not a US citizen (and now I don't even live there anymore), so I can't.