President Trump is not known for holding back his rage and venom when he’s angered or feels threatened, or for struggling to “counter punch.” Typically, the easily triggered leader of the free world, his finger seemingly perpetually poised in hover position over the nuclear button, uses a cannon when a BB gun will do. But, curiously, he seems to lose his voice and his nerve when it comes to taking on Russian President Vladmir Putin for intervening in U.S. elections, or the white nationalists and Nazis — domestic terrorists — who marched with torches in Charlottesville, Va.
Notice whom Trump tiptoes around to understand to whom he feels beholden.
It’s becoming increasingly harder to deny that Trump’s actions and words make it appear as if he’s reluctant to cross a benefactor or those who comprise a disturbingly influential portion of what we must, if we are to be intellectually honest, accept and admit is his base.
Michigan insiders take you off the beaten path His tepid, tardy response to the shameful group of Americans (and it hurts to call them Americans) was stunning, coming on the heels of his knee-jerk “fire and fury” threat to North Korea’s Kim Jong Un after yet another missile test — and his equally reckless, violent follow-up threats about military action.
The gentler, vaguer “diplomatic” language used by Trump on alt-right white nationalists proudly using the Nazi salute and sporting swastikas is chilling. He didn’t name them or even blame them, in fact said “hatred, bigotry and violence” had been going on “for a long, long time” and came from “many sides.”
It was reminiscent of candidate Trump in Feburary 2016 finding it difficult to denounce former KKK leader David Duke for telling his followers it would be “treason to your heritage” to vote for anyone but Trump. He told CNN’s Jake Tapper he simply didn’t know enough about Duke and the KKK to condemn them.
In Charlottesville, Duke said on camera that the white supremacists were marching on behalf of President Trump, and that they viewed this as fulfilling the promises of Trump’s candidacy.
Trump gave him legitimacy by placing the KKK, Nazis and other white supremacists on par with, well, everyone else.
He’s “normalizing” them.
Top Trump aides Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller are widely associated with white nationalism or the “alt right.” Duke praised Bannon’s appointment to a senior White House position, telling CNN "You have an individual, Mr. Bannon, who's basically creating the ideological aspects of where we're going," and “ideology ultimately is the most important aspect of any government." Peter Brimelow, who runs the white nationalist site VDARE, said Bannon connects Trump to the alt-right movement online, adding: “I think it’s amazing.”
Miller, a hero of the alt-right, was influential in shaping Trump’s Muslim travel ban and his extreme immigration proposals. He’s now a top name Trump is considering as his latest communications director.
The escalation of blatant racial hatred by the white supremacists with their torches and Nazi salutes should have been addressed with at least the same “fire and fury” as Trump’s ill-advised cheap bravado on North Korea. Instead, after nearly a full day of silence, the president inexplicably claimed there was fault on “many” sides.
There are not “many” sides. We are Americans living our lives. We are Americans of all stripes, creeds, colors and ethnicity. To elevate Trump’s deplorable, evil fringe as a “side” equal to the rest of us united was extraordinary for a U.S. president — and nothing short of vile.
Donald Trump carefully, purposefully, and strategically established moral equivalency between the Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville, and those protesting them. Can you imagine Winston Churchill or Franklin D. Roosevelt bestowing similar moral equivalency on Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the millions of allied troops fighting and dying to rid the planet of such evil?
Charlottesville, tragically, will now serve as a mecca for white supremacists who firmly believe that with Trump, their day has finally, at long last, arrived.
Cheri Jacobus is a political consultant and commentator. She is president of Capitol Strategies PR. Follow her on twitter @CheriJacobus
I have no problem calling Trump a piece of shit. This is what a piece of shit does
It’s becoming increasingly harder to deny that Trump’s actions and words make it appear as if he’s reluctant to cross a benefactor or those who comprise a disturbingly influential portion of what we must, if we are to be intellectually honest, accept and admit is his base.
Trump condemned violent actions by either side. Again, the liberal media despises Trump, and will use any crumb of ambiguity to insinuate Trump is a racist, or whatever else they can pin on him. In language that condemns violence on both sides, Trump has condemned the violence in Charlottsville. Period.
I can think of a dozen incidents of black violence where Obama condemned his conservative opposition, but wouldn't condemn his own supporters who were violent AT ALL. Remember less than a year ago where cops nationwide were being shot during Black Lives Matter protests.
It's also slanderously overstated to say that Klansman/white supremacists are a "disturbingly influential portion" of Trump's support. Last I looked, Wikipedia estimated the KKK's total membership as somewhere around 5,000 to 6,000. If you expand that to include all white supremacists, that brings the number to maybe 40,000. In a nation of 326 million, that is statistically insignificant.
These white supremacist thugs, if they have any serious point at all, have not articulated it in any coherent way. They express an opinion I don't agree with, but they do have a right to peacefully have a rally and express their views. It is possible that they were not violent until provoked, and that the Left sent provocateurs there to deliberately stoke violence. (Similar to what the DNC did at Trump rallies, to change the subject to violence rather than the Trump campaign message.)
I think Trump's ambiguous language stems from the fact that we don't know all the facts yet about what actually happened. At one point, police took peaceful white racist protestors and instructed them to move to another location, where they were isolated and outnumbered, and beaten with weapons by minority/liberal protestors.
A white person can have legitimate concerns about reverse discrimination and/or the excessive flood of illegal immigration, and not be a white supremacist. But --of course!-- the leftist/anti-Trump media will use this to smear all white voters who support Trump, despite their not being white supremacists.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
You miss the point about the "sides". We do know what the white supremacist side stands for. They have a right to free speech but the trump's false equivalence about sides is terrible.
"A lot of Republicans" were sickened by Black Lives Matter shooting cops in multiple cities too.
And like myself, were sickened by Obama and the broader Democrat party's refusal to criticize the violent rhetoric and actual violence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Democrats similarly said "both sides need to calm down the rhetoric" regarding BLM.
And Barack Obama had Black Lives Matter representatives meet him in the White House. Gee, I missed that similar moment where Trump invited the KKK or other white supremacists to the White House!
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Black lives matter is about people wanting not to be shot when the police pull them over. The kkk/alt right have no agenda that I find acceptable. It is evil powered by ignorance. You can try false equivalency but they truly are not just different sides.
You miss the point about the "sides". We do know what the white supremacist side stands for. They have a right to free speech but the trump's false equivalence about sides is terrible.
There were incidents of white supremacists beaten up by minority/liberal opposition protesters, were there not? So there were two sides (white supremacists, and Antifa/minority/liberals) committing violence, were there not?
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Black lives matter is about people wanting not to be shot when the police pull them over. The kkk/alt right have no agenda that I find acceptable. It is evil powered by ignorance. You can try false equivalency but they truly are not just different sides.
They are two sides that both have engaged in violence to advance their agenda.
And arguably, Black Lives Matter has killed cops in multiple cities in the last year, far more violence than the white supremascists. If you go back to 1963, maybe, you might be able to make the argument that white supremacists are more dangerous. But not in roughly half a century. I would argue that Black Lives Matter is about hating white America. Or really, hating any non-black America.
Quote:
•Established in 2013, in response to the acquittal of the man who killed black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin •Seeks to stoke black rage over the “virulent anti-Black racism” that “permeates our society” •Says America was originally “built on Indigenous genocide and chattel slavery” and “continues to thrive on the brutal exploitation of people of color
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!"
Originally Posted By: from the USA Today article above
Trump gave him legitimacy by placing the KKK, Nazis and other white supremacists on par with, well, everyone else.
He’s “normalizing” them.
Top Trump aides Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller are widely associated with white nationalism or the “alt right.” Duke praised Bannon’s appointment to a senior White House position, telling CNN "You have an individual, Mr. Bannon, who's basically creating the ideological aspects of where we're going," and “ideology ultimately is the most important aspect of any government." Peter Brimelow, who runs the white nationalist site VDARE, said Bannon connects Trump to the alt-right movement online, adding: “I think it’s amazing.”
Miller, a hero of the alt-right, was influential in shaping Trump’s Muslim travel ban and his extreme immigration proposals. He’s now a top name Trump is considering as his latest communications director.
This is just a piling on of lies.
I don't see that Trump "gave legitimacy" to David Duke or white nationalists. He condemned violence on both sides of the Charlottesville rioting. That's not "normalizing" them. Normalizing is a term I've only heard in connection to Marxist conquest over a western democracy, normalizing being the stage where they've consolidated power and completed the takeover.
I've looked up Steve Bannon multiple times, and 1) aside from running Breitbart.com and possibly having a white nationalist fringe post on his comments section, I don't see that he has ever been overtly or at all white nationalist. And 2) He was quickly marginalized as a member of Trump's administration. EVEN IF Bannon were a white nationalist, he is not someone who is in favor with Trump, or a rising star at this point.
VDARE is another that is misrepresented as "white nationalist". I actually first discovered the site as a source listed by Pat Buchanan in his book STATE OF EMERGENCY (2006). VDARE is named after Virginia Dare, the first European settler born in the former English colonial town of Roanoke, VA, before that colony was killed off by native Americans. It is not white nationalist that I've observed, but is a site devoted to the topic of illegal immigration.
The term "Alt-Right" is used by the left to imply white racism, but again, "alt-right" is a vast undefined movement that possibly has a tiny fringe of white nationalists, but is far from defined by a fringe who basically just comment on alt-right websites.
So... I don't see one clearly defined there that gives any example or fact of anything truly white racist about the above cited individuals or groups associated with Bannon or Trump. Just pure insinuation.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
A Perkins sighting in the wild. Truly a rare sight
big_pimp_tim-made it cool to roll in the first damn place! Mon Jun 11 2007 09:27 PM-harley finally rolled with me "I'm working with him...he's young but, there is much potential. He can apprentice with me and then he's yours for final training. He will remember the face of his father...
Some day, Knutreturns just may be the greatest of us all...."-THE bastard
I rarely come back here and never actually post, but I just gotta know what MEM has done that sickens you so, G-man.
I hope you were not expecting him to actually answer. I think the simple sad truth is it's easier to be upset at the gay liberal for g than somebody from his "side". So if a neo nazi runs over some fellow Americans I'm the one g actually attacks.
I rarely come back here and never actually post, but I just gotta know what MEM has done that sickens you so, G-man.
I hope you were not expecting him to actually answer. I think the simple sad truth is it's easier to be upset at the gay liberal for g than somebody from his "side". So if a neo nazi runs over some fellow Americans I'm the one g actually attacks.
I have absolutely no problem condemning this 20-year-old Hitler-worshipping kid who ran over 19 people and killed one of them. The only possible extenuating circumstance is if the mob was attacking him in his car and he hit the gas to escape them. But I don't see that being raised as a possible defense, at least not yet.
Again, I don't believe this was the case, this 20 year old driver seems very motivated by neo-Nazi ideology. I would call it murder, and a hate-crime. But I would draw the line short of calling it "domestic terrorism". Like Dylan Root or Jared Loughner, there is a lot going on in these kids' heads that even their fellow racists would not endorse. They are not part of a movement telling them to kill people, they were not given a battle plan by a Nazi/racist book or website telling them to kill or how to kill. It is racist, it is a hate-crime, but it is not domestic terrorism.
That said, if it was self-defense (which again, I doubt) it could be a situation like the shooting of Trayvon Martin, or the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. In both cases it appeared to be a purely racist shooting, but facts and witnesses came forward to prove that both shooters were assaulted by the black men they killed. But the victim in this case being a career woman with no record who worked in a law office (unlike the two violent thugs in the previous cases, both with records of crimes and violence), not to mention the other 19 people the driver attempted to run over, it seems highly unlikely to have been self-defense in protection from a mob. What I saw of the video, he was driving by at a distance and, unprovoked, just swerved and drove into the crowd.
You miss the point about the "sides". We do know what the white supremacist side stands for. They have a right to free speech but the trump's false equivalence about sides is terrible.
There were incidents of white supremacists beaten up by minority/liberal opposition protesters, were there not? So there were two sides (white supremacists, and minority/liberals) committing violence, were there not?
Some good commentary in the opening minutes of Mediabuzz commentary on media coverage yesterday, 8-13-2017, about the double standard of Black Lives Matter killing cops in multiple cities where Obama did not condemn them, where the same media condemns Trump who actually did condemn all violence, but is demagogued by the media and Democrats for not specifically naming neo-nazis/racists.
It does look like they were mobbed around his car with clubs ready to bash his head in. If he'd suddenly unprovoked driven into the crowd, I don't think they'd be carrying clubs, be chasing after him, and be climbing on his car. It looks like if he'd stopped, he would have been pulled out of the car and beaten to death.
As one of the YouTube comments said: "So, peaceful protestors with baseball bats and batons? For sure..."
It's at least possible the racist supremacist protestors were protesting peacefully and vocally, before the other side provoked and escalated it with weapons. And outnumbered by a mob of at least 50 or so with baseball bats, the Hitler enthusiast in the car just tried to get out of there. It sure looks that way from this particular video footage.
Rush Limbaugh had some good commentary on the Charlottesville violence:
"It's not just the neo-nazis... there are two sides involved in violence, why is only one side being condemned?"
Also, the double standard in the media going after Trump for not directly condemning the supremacists. Whereas Obama never similarly condemned black violence, and in TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS invited Black Lives Matter leaders (the black equivalent of the Klan and white supremacists) on those TWO occasions (after Ferguson, MO, and after Baltimore MD) to the White House, in doing so not condemning them (where Trump DID) and giving legitimacy to their violence (which Trump DIDN'T).
It does look like they were mobbed around his car with clubs ready to bash his head in. If he'd suddenly unprovoked driven into the crowd, I don't think they'd be carrying clubs, be chasing after him, and be climbing on his car. It looks like if he'd stopped, he would have been pulled out of the car and beaten to death.
It's amazing how easily you came to that conclusion, especially since that video begins at the point of impact. In fact, that might be the only video you could have found that supported the idea that he was defending himself.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
As one of the YouTube comments said: "So, peaceful protestors with baseball bats and batons? For sure..."
It's at least possible the racist supremacist protestors were protesting peacefully and vocally, before the other side provoked and escalated it with weapons. And outnumbered by a mob of at least 50 or so with baseball bats, the Hitler enthusiast in the car just tried to get out of there. It sure looks that way from this particular video footage.
Are you saying that you completely missed all the videos and photos of white supremacist protestors in riot gear, carrying clubs, bottles, and other weapons?
You know they came to their "peaceful" protest with that stuff, yes?
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Rush Limbaugh had some good commentary on the Charlottesville violence:
"It's not just the neo-nazis... there are two sides involved in violence, why is only one side being condemned?"
First off, both sides are being condemned. Do you, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the right-leaning media realize that they are part of the media too?
Seriously, I'm amazed that entire networks, radio shows, and websites have been able to keep up this narrative that "the mainstream media is left-leaning" when there are entire networks, radio shows, and websites devoted to this narrative.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Also, the double standard in the media going after Trump for not directly condemning the supremacists. Whereas Obama never similarly condemned black violence, and in TWO DIFFERENT EVENTS invited Black Lives Matter leaders (the black equivalent of the Klan and white supremacists) on those TWO occasions (after Ferguson, MO, and after Baltimore MD) to the White House, in doing so not condemning them (where Trump DID) and giving legitimacy to their violence (which Trump DIDN'T).
Please show me examples of Black Lives Matter committing violence. The one example I think you could be confusing is Micah Johnson, who followed the hate group the African American Defense League, but said he sympathized with BLM. Obviously, he wasn't a member of BLM. Or are you conflating the Ferguson riots with today's BLM?
I'm not saying examples don't exist, by the way, but I do know that crimes perpetrated by black people against police officers and others have often been attributed to BLM when no actual relation existed. I also know that, while I follow some right-wing media, you are far more likely to see a right-wing talking point like BLM violence than I am.
Also, yes, Obama should have condemned racism. Personally, I think he tended to avoid calling out racism from any side when violence happened (he was much more likely to talk about guns or the victims themselves), but I would have liked to have seen him call out groups like the African American Defense League by name. But that's still far better than trying to equate BLM and the KKK/neo-Nazis as equally guilty.
Last edited by Jason E. Perkins; 2017-08-155:11 PM.
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?"
That's where this is headed. It's not just abolishing the monuments to Civil War history. It's ultimately a cultural Marxist siege against all of American history, the moral right for the United States to exist at all. To undermine patriotism and public belief in our western/capitalist Democracy, to pave the way for the socialist/globalist utopia planned to replace it (i.e., basically Orwell's 1984).
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. 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? A bartender I knew once said "There was only one perfect man, and they nailed him to a cross." Arguably, no one is so perfect that it wouldn't be justified to erase them from history.
Add context to their monuments, but don't erase them from history.
Regarding Jason Perkins' comment about there being conservative media too, we've been over this about a billion times. Conservative media is a very tiny drop in an ocean of liberal spin. As I cited from Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS, the media in every poll for at least 50 years self-identifies as at least 80% "liberal" or "very liberal". Only 7% identify as conservative.
And beginning with the 2008 election, Tim Groseclose, college professor and author of the book LEFT TURN on media bias, cites that an overwhelming 93% of Washington-based reporters supported Obama.
AGAIN: Trump has condemned violence on both sides. 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.
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 supremacists 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.
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. 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.
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.
Last edited by Wonder Boy; 2017-08-168:34 AM. Reason: links and graph added
Jason, I watched your ABC News video on the Charlottesville car attack, and frankly thought it was pretty uninformative. It showed a brief few seconds at the beginning that show the car approaching the crowd from a distance, but mostly just uninformed speculation by the ABC field reporter and news anchor.
You allege that I selectively chose the video I posted of the crash to support the argument that the driver could have possibly been just trying to escape an angry club-wielding mob who outnumbered him. But I just picked the first video I googled up on YouTube.
Here's another that was linked from your video, that shows a lot more of the crash, and multiple crowd clashes, without commentary:
It clearly stated, from its title, that the car attack was unprovoked, and AGAIN, AS I SAID ABOVE, I think that is very likely the case. But I at least explore the possibility that it could have been provoked, with video to show the angry club-wielding mob chasing him, before, during and after the impact. The guy's "Hitler obsessed" ideology and the fact that he had previously assaulted his mother beginning at age 14 doesn't add to his self-defense credibility.
Also in this above video, you can see over and over that the white supremacist types, whatever their beliefs, are over and over marching peacefully when the "Antifa" mob on either side periodically surges and attacks them. It's often hard to see which side is which, but it looks to me like both sides tried to get in their hits.
And here's an outstanding commentary by Jesse Waters, again citing the violence on both sides, and the incredible hypocrisy of the Democrat/Left's and liberal media's condemnation of Trump, who has been far more more critical of violence and condemning it on both sides, while these same media Trump-bashers give a complete free pass to Obama and the Left violence, failure to name the guilty parties in multiple incidents, including the Hodgkinson shooting of Republican congressmen, Islamic car attacks, and multiple Black Lives Matter shootings.
I don't have a problem with Trump's initial tweet because the violence on both sides should be condemned.
To argue otherwise is really just a variation on people saying "it's only okay when my side does it."
That being said, there is simply no evidence to justify what that asshole with the car did. People trying to say "well, the liberals started it" in this case are wrong and should just shut up.
In a nutshell, Democrat officials set up protest zones for the counter-protestors (ANTIFA) in two zones right up against the pro-Robert E. Lee statue protestors, instead of apart and separated by police, as they are at more responsibly city-approved/orchestrated protests in other cities. So inevitably, they would clash. And responsible city planning for the protest and adequate placement of law enforcement would have prevented it, and even (at 10:30 in the video) would have prevented the driver's ability to strike the crowd with his car.
So at every point, Democrat officials set up the event to inevitably lead to a violent clash, which they wanted, so the news coverage would be about the violence, and not the issues raised by the protestors.
A play-by-play, from a guy who was at the organizational center of the protests, and how they were suppressed and led by police into an ambush by Leftists, to prevent them from making their peaceful prepared speeches. He says that the majority were not KKK/supremacist types.
I'd like to hear what they actually wanted to say, so I could judge for myself. In all the footage, I saw people walking with Confederate, white supremacist and Nazi flags and symbols. Maybe that's what the mainstream media, including Fox News, chose to show, to portray it that way. The one I could see them logically carrying is the Confederate flag, since this is about preserving Confederate monuments and history. But even in a crowd of 200 or 300 "heritage" supporters, who would have any part of a march that included Nazi flags or white supremacist/KKK symbols?
I don't have a problem with Trump's initial tweet because the violence on both sides should be condemned.
To argue otherwise is really just a variation on people saying "it's only okay when my side does it."
Yes. And that's exactly what Obama did with Black Lives Matter, and protestors over Ferguson MO and Trayvon Martin.
Originally Posted By: the G-Man
That being said, there is simply no evidence to justify what that asshole with the car did. People trying to say "well, the liberals started it" in this case are wrong and should just shut up.
In the incident with the car, yes, it looks like he drove into the crowd from a long distance unprovoked.
Maybe he was part of the white supremacist crowd who got clubbed, and came back in his car for payback. But even if he and/or his friends were clubbed by the Antifa guys first, that's no excuse for what he did. He should have never gone in with his car.
As Jason Perkins pointed out, when he initially drove into the crowd from a few hundred yards away, there was no one around him. It appears to me he got mobbed by people with clubs when he got to the point of impact.
Pay special attention to the part between 5:00 and 7:00 in the video. Where they petitioned the city to lawfully and peacefully protest, it was first unlawfully denied, until they then sued with the assistance of the ACLU, no less, and got a legal approval for their protest.
Then they showed up as lawfully permitted by the city, and once they got all the way to the protest site, the police shoved them out of the safe barricaded planned area of their protest, and pushed them (with video footage showing the cops doing it) into the waiting arms of the Antifa rioters, who clubbed and threw rocks at them all the way to the parking lot. They followed legal procedure, but then the procedure they followed was bait-and-switched, and suddenly declared illegal, leaving them nowhere to go. Certainly nowhere safe.
Definitely not endorsing the message, but these guys weren't hurting anyone. It's disturbing what the Charlottesville police did (or actually, I assume the VSP on their helmets are the Virginia State Police. The Charlottsville city police were MIA and only showed up later.) At the end they're shouting at the police pushing them, that they're being pushed right into the opposing Antifa protestors, who are waiting for them with rocks and clubs. And as is visible, the police just stood there and let them be beaten. The police did the polar opposite of keeping the hostile sides apart, they pushed the white nationalist protestors right into the waiting clubs of the Antifa mob that vastly outnumbered them. The police CREATED the violence.
His actual words, as opposed to the Democrat/ Liberal media and backstabbing establishment Republicans' distortions of what he actually said. He condemned all sides that were visibly stoking violence in Charlottesville.
And Trump's no-holds-barred press conference Yesterday. Where he absolutely refused to be boxed in by the liberal media who tried to spin it their way.
I love how he started with bureaucracy he eliminated with executive order, that will bring manufacturing back to the United States. Then as soon as he finished, the very first question was about business executive who resigned from his jobs program allegedly because of his Saturday statement about Charlottesville. Trump took control of that onslaught beautifully.
He pleased his hard base but that isn't being President. White supremacists were also pleased with his performance yesterday. They went through the campus the night before the "unite the right" rally with their tiki torches and their chants. And now we have a President that really has a hard time calling that evil out. You have to know he wasn't being sincere when he said he was waiting for the facts.
He pleased his hard base but that isn't being President. White supremacists were also pleased with his performance yesterday. They went through the campus the night before the "unite the right" rally with their tiki torches and their chants. And now we have a President that really has a hard time calling that evil out. You have to know he wasn't being sincere when he said he was waiting for the facts.
AGAIN: Trump condemned both sides. He called evil out! On both sides! Wouldn't a president who's didn't just "please his base" condemn both sides? I recall news stories about David Duke, citing Duke's Twitter posts, being unhappy with Trump's blanket condemnation, so that manifests white supremacists weren't "pleased" with Trump's performance. I posted both of Trump's entire press conference, and Trump repeatedly described the supremacist portion of the protestors as disgusting, a national embarrassment, and completely unacceptable in America. Whereas Obama >>>NEVER<<< condemned Black Lives Matter, even after they were killing cops. And Obama even further gave BLM endorsement and legitimacy and invited them to the White House on multiple occasions.
Polls overwhelmingly show the public sees race relations as more damaged and wider apart because of Obama's actions as president.
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.
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.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Regarding Jason Perkins' comment about there being conservative media too, we've been over this about a billion times. Conservative media is a very tiny drop in an ocean of liberal spin. As I cited from Bernard Goldberg's book BIAS, the media in every poll for at least 50 years self-identifies as at least 80% "liberal" or "very liberal". Only 7% identify as conservative.
And beginning with the 2008 election, Tim Groseclose, college professor and author of the book LEFT TURN on media bias, cites that an overwhelming 93% of Washington-based reporters supported Obama.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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.
Also, you maybe condemn racism itself because that's bad too.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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.
Most people see his three remarks as a showing of support. Many members of his own party see them as support. Members of the president's staff see them as support. The racists themselves see them as support.
“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.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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 supremacists 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.
And I'm guessing none of the brave men and women who fought on the right side in World War II do either.
The only difference I can possibly see is if Antifa attacked first. Do you have any solid evidence that shows they did?
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
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 supported them when he was asked if he condemned the white supremacists and chose to walk out of the room instead.
He supported white supremacists when he gave moral equivalence to klansmen and BLM, as you have.
He supported them 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.
He supported them when he used the same speech to tout employment numbers.
He supported them when he said there were very fine people on the side that shouted "Jews will not replace us!"
I don't have a problem with Trump's initial tweet because the violence on both sides should be condemned.
To argue otherwise is really just a variation on people saying "it's only okay when my side does it."
I think the difference between you, Wonder Boy, Trump, and the conservative media and "M E M, Mr. Jason Perkins, and the liberal media" is that we don't put people who chant "Jews will not replace us," "Blood and soil!" and "Fuck you, fa***ts," on the same level as people who chant "No Trump! No KKK! No fascist USA!" and "Black lives matter!" We don't answer requests to denounce white supremacists with "Well, what about the other guys!"
You ask me to denounce racists specifically, I denounce those racists specifically. I don't also denounce the people fighting against those racists in an attempt to soften the blow.
And we don't work super hard to give racist fucks who plow through protesters the benefit of the doubt. If the evidence defends him, fine. We'll accept it. But "maybe it was self defense" ain't our first reply.
Jason Perkins basically said that when people agree with him, they can bash in heads. And people who disagree with him should have no protection under the law, or even protection from bat-wielding thugs.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
