The "worst", "sickening" President Trump at 4:30 today:
"It's not just the one statue, they're taking down statues all over. We take down Robert E. Lee today... do we take down Washington tomorrow and Jefferson the next day?"
This is a ridiculous argument.
No, it's not. Because that is precisely where groups of the Left have said they would like to take it.
And I've seen multiple pundits across the airwaves raise the same question. AS I ALREADY SAID, Cultural Marxists want to undermine the foundations of our government. It is not a ridiculous argument, it is one endlessly fronted by the Left.
Two are Founding Fathers and American presidents. The other is a piece of shit who betrayed his country when he lead a war against it to preserve the slavery of an entire race.
This isn't a slippery slope. The difference is clear.
Then I think you don't know much about Robert E. Lee. Lee was a kind and honorable man, and an exceptional officer, who was torn between two heartfelt loyalties. As were millions in the Civil War. I'm not a Civil War enthusiast or a pro-Confederacy guy, but the Civil War documentaries I've seen about Robert E. Lee, he was a man of exceptional character. As was Irwin Rommel in the German army. Rommel served Hitler reluctantly, but finally participated in the Valkyrie coup against Hitler, and was forced to commit suicide to prevent further retribution by the Nazis against his family.
REALITY CHECK: History is filled with men who did both good and bad. You don't erase the pillars of human civilization and take down their statues and erase them from history just because they had flaws and made some bad decisions.
Right. Like those statues of Benedict Arnold and John Wilkes Booth all over the place.
Benedict Arnold attempted to betray the U.S. to the British out of a mixture of vanity and financial gain. His was the ultimate betrayal, by one of Washington's most trusted officers.
John Wilkes Booth likewise did nothing valiant before he snuck up behind a president and shot him in the back of the head.
And show me one traitor or assassin in all of history who has statues built in his honor. Your comparison is a non-sequitur.
But let's get to the nuts and bolts of this. No, deciding that it's not appropriate to commemorate villains is not the same as erasing them from history. Germany has zero statues of Hitler, but every German citizen knows who he was and what he did.
Wrong again. My father worked for IBM 25 years before he retired. One of the places we were sent in the 1960's was Stuttgart, Germany, for 2 years. My parents would travel both with and without us, and he said that every city and town had monuments with the names of all the men from the town who had died in World War II. These were soldiers who fought for their country, but one could argue (like slave-holders in the U.S., or Confederate soldiers) that they don't warrant a monument.
Granted, there aren't state monuments to Hitler. But Germany still honors those from that era who historically served their country. And Germany is a nation that was uniquely forced by their conquerors to be fully conscious of their national atrocities during the Nazi Era, and educate generations of future Germans in schools of these atrocities.
Read THE RAPE OF NANKING by Iris Chang, highlighting the atrocities in Japan during the same era. Atrocities that
at least match the worst of the Nazis: genocide, human experiments, mass raping of women, "comfort women" (about 200,000 women from conquered nations conscripted into brutal service as sex slaves to service Japanese troops) very little of which most Japanese are aware of, their education of it is not required as it is for similar national crimes in Germany.
The truth is, even if the vast majority of these monuments weren't erected during the Jim Crow era to paint the Southern cause as just and white supremacy as legitimate, you still wouldn't have a point.
They're statues of generals and soldiers of the Civil War. One of them, a mass grave of Confederate soldiers, was created by Union soldiers who buried them. Despite that they were the enemy, the Union still honored them. The Civil War is unique in that the North and South were fighting their fellow Americans.
There's a bumper sticker I saw once, with a Confederate flag, that said "Heritage, not hate." I'm for displaying these monuments in added context, not tearing them down. In some cases maybe moving them to museums or private property.
Should we similarly tear down the statues of Martin Luther King and erase his holiday because he was a womanizer and adulterer, and on a few occasions advocated violence to advance his civil rights agenda?
Absolutely not, because calling slavery and treason the same as courting violence upon protestors for the greater goal of America finally seeing itself, which it did, would be a false equivalence and false equivalences are stupid.
So you openly advocate mob violence on people you disagree with?
You advocate lawlessness, so long as it is unleashed on people you don't like.
And that is different from advocating the lynching of blacks, or the lynching of white students working for civil rights in the early 1960's... how?
You embrace lawlessness, so long as it is lawlessness and violence against people you don't like. You find a context where lawlessness and violence is okay, so long as it isn't YOUR side that's attacked. Because in your subjective self-righteousness, the people you don't like are immoral and wrong, and therefore should have no free speech or protection under the law.
You've just voiced the same mentality of Nazi Germany against the Jews.
The same mentality as the Jim Crow South against blacks, only with the races reversed. Your brethren on the Left have ALREADY engaged in violence for years against people who aren't racist, but have simply expressed conservative views, and been subject to intimidation, silenced free speech, and violence, including Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Trump supporters at rallies, Condoleezza Rice, and Milo Yianopoulos, among many others. At some point will anyone with a Republican/conservative view be subject to loss of free speech and/or violence, because opposition on the Left deems their views to be "hate speech"? That's already a prevalent mentality among liberals, that ANY Republican, or ANY Trump supporter is basically is an intolerant racist bigot who does not deserve free speech or protection from violence.
I got some heat a year or so ago from Iggy for saying "Republicans are the scapegoated Jews in Obama's Germany", but even after Obama, that is increasingly true in the mentality AND VIOLENT ACTIONS of the Left.
First, I've noticed you brand a lot of information that comes from liberal outlets as inaccurate because the outlets are liberal, but don't do the same for books from Fox pundits, conservative websites, and so forth.
There's not any point to that. It's not very surprising. But it is always very interesting.
I certainly do that with liberal hit pieces that cite anonymous sources, and there are many examples of false stories in just the last year from the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post, and broadcast liberal media like CNN and NBC, where these stories were quickly proven false (i.e., Fake News).
What I cited above is a researched sourced study by Harvard. Definitely not what I would call right wing media. All the more shocking because it is corroborated by Harvard, and not Media Research Center.
Second, are you talking about journalists? The only polls I could find that upheld that 7% number you gave were polls of journalists themselves, and while I could go on and on about how polls that ask people about their own political leanings don't actually prove anything, I'd rather bring attention to the fact that the vast majority of journalists in those polls self-identified as independent or "other."
I've been clear many times in citing that. It is journalists themselves who self-identify as 80% liberal, and 7% conservative.
And increasingly, journalists in more recent polls identify as "independent" out of self-consciousness that they are admitting their bias if they honestly say "liberal". But in the last election, it was revealed BY DONATIONS TO CAMPAIGNS their overwhelming bias by these ratios remains.
Likewise among FBI, State Department, IRS and other federal agencies that are attacking and leaking on Trump.
Likewise college professors.
Likewise NEA unionized teachers.
To get to that 80% number, you'd have to label everyone who self identified as an independent a liberal and everyone who self-identified as a Democrat as "very liberal." Is that what you're doing?
80% identify as either "liberal" or very liberal". That's what I've cited, on multiple occasions. Cited from BIAS by Bernard Goldberg.
Third, JESUS H.! Even Fox News can't love Trump. I knew even they were talking about his gaffes--I've watched way more Fox News than I care to admit--but they still can't come up positive, even as they try to spin his shit as something other than shit.
That's overstating it. Fox News's coverage is cited above in that giant graph as 52% negative/48% positive. Unlike the other networks, they have a balanced representation of both sides regarding Trump and other issues.
Maybe when he actually does something right, he'll get in the green, at least at Fox News. I mean, I think the overall effect of his handling of North Korea has been positive, but that was more of a "crazy meets crazy with a bigger army" kinda thing.
That's just pure snarky opinion, with nothing to back it up.
AGAIN: Trump has condemned violence on both sides.
And again, not good enough. When you're dealing with a hate group, you should call it out by name, instead of giving them the wink and the nod they need to believe you're on their side.
Again, that's your snarky subjective opinion, with nothing to back it up. Trump condemned both sides who engaged in violence in the Charlottesville protests.
Also, you maybe condemn racism itself because that's bad too.
I definitely condemn racism. But apparently you don't recognize that racism is a two-way street. In the realm of Political Correctness, only whites are accountable, and minority racism and violence toward whites is invisible, not held accountable, virtually unreported by the [liberal] media, and not held accountable by law enforcement and courts.
And is approved of with a "Good." from you, because racists (or really, any Republican you disagree with) are not entitled to free speech or protection from violence under the law. Because (in your subjective opinion) you're morally right, and anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot and morally wrong.
Unlike Obama who >>>>NEVER<<<< condemned Black Lives Matter, and who even invited the Black Lives Matter leadership to the White House after they were killing cops, Trump >>>DID<<< condemn white supremacist violence, and >>>DID NOT<<<< similarly give legitimacy to white supremacists.
You said the stuff about BLM before. I responded to it before. I won't even bother doing it again. But I will say that insisting that he did not give the white supremacists legitimacy doesn't make it so.
Trump condemned the supremacist protestors' violence
and their racist views repeatedly, what more do you want? It just galls you that he holds the Left to the same standard and condemns them too. Trump said both sides came with helmets and shields and baseball bats, and engaged in violence. How much more fair could he be in his condemnation?
Most people see his three remarks as a showing of support.
And by that you mean: most partisan liberals like yourself. There is absolutely nothing Trump could say that would be satisfactory to you and other Democrats. You will always spin it negatively, no matter how right he is.
Many members of his own party see them as support. Members of the president's staff see them as support.
Many like McCain and Graham WHO SIDED AGAINST TRUMP IN THE 2016 ELECTION (i.e., opposing Republican Establishment, or Never-Trumpers )have condemned Trump's response. There are Republicans who never supported Trump, and criticize him at every opportunity. This is another opportunity.
The racists themselves see them as support.
This is quantifiably not true, or half true at best. David Duke and others have repeatedly condemned Trump for "abandoning his supporters" (i.e., them). Duke has been intermittent with praise and condemnation of Trump's comments about Charlottesville, when he feels it serves him, not Trump.
But you can't control who supports you. I recall the Black Panthers, Palestinian Authority, and even Al Qaida supported Obama. And I recall the liberal media reacted very differently (i.e., with selective omission and absolute silence) to those endorsements.
“Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth.” If David Duke likes what's coming out of your mouth, there's an extremely good chance you're on the wrong side.
There's an extremely good chance Duke is self-serving, irregardless of Trump.
It is a fact that BOTH sides came to the Charlottesville protests with helmets and clubs, and both have a share of blame in the violence. I don't support either the white supremacist dipshits, or the "Antifa" dipshits (who are as fascist and violent as what they claim to oppose). But unlike M E M, Mr. Jason Perkins, and the liberal media, I do hold both sides to the same standard.
Damn right I don't. I don't think fighting for the plight of Nazis, klansmen, and white supremacists is the same as fighting against them.
I don't, and I don't apologize for that.
I addressed this above. You endorse lawlessness and mob violence, so long as it's your mob that comes out on top.
And I'm guessing none of the brave men and women who fought on the right side in World War II do either.
I cited in a topic 2 years ago on the Confederate Flag (covering similar politics of what Confederate monuments and history represent) before that military units in W W II fought under the banner of the Confederate flag (cited from Wikipedia Confederate Flag).
The only difference I can possibly see is if Antifa attacked first. Do you have any solid evidence that shows they did?
I posted multiple videos showing the white supremacist demonstrators marching down the street, and being swarmed multiple times unprovoked by Antifa protestors who vastly outnumbered them.
When I watched the coverage, I only ever saw about 200 at most white supremacist protestors, vastly outnumbered by thousands of "Antifa" (anti-fascist) counter-protestors.
Good.
I can't find any legit source that gives a count of the people on both sides, and, frankly, your eyes aren't unbiased sources, but I'd be thrilled to find out that the anti-racists outnumbered the racists by that much.
The video I posted is an unbiased source. It is a record of what actually happened.
Some white supremacists there I saw interviewed were belligerent and clearly wanted to kick some ass. Others I saw interviewed said they were carrying weapons "just in case" to protect themselves if attacked. And they knew going in they would be vastly outnumbered.
Are you alluding to the idea that the white supremacists were calmer and less violent than the counter-protestors, or that there was a lower number of violent white supremacists there? Are you saying that there weren't any Antifa protesters there who carried weapons 'just in case"? If so, I'd like to see your evidence of that.
You just completely manufactured those ideas. I said what is quoted above, loud and clear.
I saw interviews on Fox of supremacists who said "I've got this [packing handgun in holster], just in case." Since there were no shots fired, he obviously, despite everything, had the restraint not to use it.
The footage I saw (and youtube linked) shows Antifa brandishing clubs and running at the white supremacist marchers. I said both sides had belligerents who came to kick some ass. But in the video, it shows Antifa saying "Here they come!" about the supremacist marchers, and ambushing them when they got them in position.
Similarly, when police drove the supremacists from the area they LEGALLY PETITIONED to be at, and police drove them right into the wielding Antifa mob waiting to ambush them.
Draw your own conclusions. The math isn't hard.
AGAIN: Trump NEVER in any way supported the white supremacists, has been more critical of violence on both sides, than Obama ever was less than a year ago of even greater violence by Black Lives Matter, which he NEVER condemned, never questioned the legitimacy of the rhetoric that led to the shootings, in multiple cities.
He [Trump?] supported them when he [Trump?] was asked if he {Trump?]condemned the white supremacists and chose to walk out of the room instead.
AGAIN: In your subjective opinion. Trump made a public statement and clearly condemned the white supremacist message, and violence by both sides.
At some point Trump (or Obama before him) has to end a press conference, and only declined to repeat what he had already said.
He supported white supremacists when he gave moral equivalence to klansmen and BLM, as you have.
AGAIN:
discoverthenetworks.org, BLACK LIVES MATTER listing:
Founded by Marxist revolutionaries in 2013, Black Lives Matter (BLM) depicts the United States as a nation awash in racism, sexism, and homophobia, and openly promotes the murder of white police officers. Demonstrators at BLM events routinely: smear white police as trigger-happy bigots who are intent upon killing innocent, unarmed black males; taunt, and direct obscenities at, uniformed police officers who are on duty; throw rocks at police and threaten to kill them; and celebrate in the streets when a police officer is killed. Some examples of BLM's racist and incendiary rhetoric:
•At a December 2014 BLM rally in New York City, marchers chanted in unison: "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now."
•At a BLM march in August 2015, protesters chanted : “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” (“Pigs” was a reference to police officers, and "blanket" was a reference to body bags.)
•On a BLM-affiliated radio program the following month, the hosts laughed at the recent assassination of a white Texas deputy; boasted that blacks were like lions who could prevail in a “race war” against whites; happily predicted that "we will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before"; and declared that "It's open season on killing white people and crackas.”
•In November 2015, a group of approximately 150 BLM protesters shouting "Black Lives Matter," stormed Dartmouth University's library, screaming, “Fu** you, you filthy white fu**s!," "Fu** you and your comfort!," and "Fu** you, you racist sh**!”
•In July 2016, a BLM activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: "The less white babies on this planet, the less of you [white adults] we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill 'em all right now! Kill 'em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!"
At all BLM events, demonstrators invoke the words that the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, convicted cop-killer, and longtime fugitive Assata Shakur once wrote in a letter titled “To My People”: “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.” (The fourth line was drawn from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.) In Shakur's original letter, she described herself as a “Black revolutionary” who had “declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heart-less robots [police] who protect them and their property.”
Another figure greatly admired by BLM is Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, who in the 1960s was renowned for threatening that blacks would "burn America down," and for urging blacks to murder "honkies." In the spring of 2000, Al-Amin shot two black law-enforcement officers in downtown Atlanta, killing one of them. ....
I see a lot of rhetoric there that is identical to the Ku Klux Klan: eagerly anticipating a race war on whites, wanting to exterminate whites, virulently hate-filled racist rhetoric.
They are identical in rhetoric. Clearly!
The difference only exists in your partisan mind.
He [Trump] supported them[Charlottesville protestors?] when, after insisting that others must call radical Islamic terrorism by its name, he had to be pressured into reading a denouncement of the KKK "and other hate groups" off a piece of paper.
Did you even watch either press conference I posted of Trump's reaction to Charlottesville?
He made some prepared remarks, but he certainly condemned the supremacist protestors repeatedly and in his own words. It again just galls you that he held the opposing Antifa side's violence to the same condemnation.
He supported them when he used the same speech to tout employment numbers.
Good God. You want him to stop all the nation's business just to acknowledge some belligerents went at each other in Charlottesville with sticks?
That is not reasonable.
And I think that is precisely the goal of the Left and the liberal media, every day they are trying to create distractions and side issues, to take President Trump off message and one day further away from enacting any reforms.
I don't fault Trump for quietly not allowing them to derail him from enacting things more important to most Americans. If he is re-elected, it will be because he creates jobs and prosperity, not because he made a PC verbal stand on Charlottesville. Liberals and the media will NEVER NEVER be satisfied with any position Trump voices.
There are multiple examples where Obama said virtually the same thing in a similar situation, and was not subject to the same criticism by the Democrat/Left and the liberal media (which are really one and the same).
He[Trump] supported them when he said there were very fine people on the side that shouted "Jews will not replace us!"
I actually thought the torchlight white supremacist protestors were saying "YOU will not replace us."
I saw stories today that verify it was "JEWS".
And you are absolutely insane if you truly believe that Trump supports that message.
Trump said that AMONG the protestors, some were white racists, and some were there advocating a "heritage, not hate" preservation of the Robert E. Lee statue and other Confederate historic monuments, who were NOT racists.
In the Confederate flag topic a few years ago, I even cited a group of blacks who advocated preservation of Confederate monuments.
You seem incapable of processing the idea that someone can advocate preservation of monuments without being a racist. And you extend that same intolerant "defending free speech=racism" conflation to Trump, no matter how much he condemns the racist message, and racist-motivated violence.
I happen to like having a president who holds all protestor violence in condemnation, on all sides. Unlike Obama who chose sides in what a black historian Thomas Sowell called a "revenge/payback society" instead of the post-racial society Obama was elected to reign in. Obama took us backward into an ugly place, and polls on the widespread perception of a decline in race relations under Obama overwhelmingly confirm that.
The Left wants one-sided justice. The rest of America wants equal protection (and equal punishment) under the law. I hope Trump can reverse the descent into lawlessness that you endorse.
