RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Trump's Charlottesville disgrace: White supremacists aren't just another 'side'

That wasn't what he said. He said if the evidence defends him fine. You however are bending over backwards for some nazi trash

Go ahead and give yourself a solid fist to the face to stand against fascism. #punchanazi*

*This is only because I'm not sure if it is legal to tell someone to kill his or her self on the internet any more.

And to think this started over Civil War statues (which weren't created until decades afterward during the rise of the Klan and Jim Crow laws butthat'snoneofmybusiness). I always thought that particular crowd was against participation trophies for losers...

Buht muh hairytudge!

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.



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.





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.



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.



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.




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.





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.



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.




80% identify as either "liberal" or very liberal". That's what I've cited, on multiple occasions. Cited from BIAS by Bernard Goldberg.



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.



That's just pure snarky opinion, with nothing to back it up.




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.




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.




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?



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 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.




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.



There's an extremely good chance Duke is self-serving, irregardless of Trump.




I addressed this above. You endorse lawlessness and mob violence, so long as it's your mob that comes out on top.



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).

• Alright, conservatives. What do you think about the Stars and Bars?

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.




The video I posted is an unbiased source. It is a record of what actually happened.




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: 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.





AGAIN:
discoverthenetworks.org, BLACK LIVES MATTER listing:



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.




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.



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).



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.

No, I'm not. I'm defending the rule of law, and the right to free speech, even free speech we don't like.

I'm confident that if the peaceful demonstration/dialogue were permitted, these neo-KKK white supremacists would lose in the open exchange of ideas. Denying them speech and beating them up in Charlottesville gives them martyrdom, and demonstrates the Antifa side are as thuggish and wrong as the supremacists.

If the Antifa side had simply limited themselves to a dialogue, they would have handily won. I don't defend anyone who marches with supremacist/Nazi flags and symbols. The white supremacist demonstrators lost all credibility at this point for me. They are as mired in hate ideology as the Black Lives Matter movement.

But ultimately, all this is about smearing Trump and conflating him with racist extremists.

You're a petty vindictive schmuck.
And you prove it every time you post.
End of story.

I don't know the specific dates these statues and other monuments were erected.

The Ku Klux Klan for most of its existence was in the tens of thousands. It reached a membership in the millions only for a brief time, in the early 1920's after World War I, due to:
1) White factory workers had gone of to war in Europe, and were replaced by black labor and immigrants who filled their jobs in factories and worked for lower wages. When the white men came back from the war, factory owners didn't want to give them back their jobs.
2) a huge surge in annual immigration that likewise was displacing and pricing out white workers

The KKK quickly declined in membership because of 1) scandal involving their leadership that swiftly delegitimized them, and 2) a lowering of annual immigration to 200,000-300,000 immigrants a year (that was previous to that over 1 million a year), a policy that lasted until 1965.

Here you're giving a false equivalence to the two sides again. Black Lives Matter isn't about racial superiority. The side you have been bending over backwards for does. And you know Jason Perkins, he's never been a mob rules guy but because it suits your needs you accuse him of that despite what he's said. On the other hand you're confident that the white supremacists would have been peaceful if nobody stood up to them. That's overly generous given their actions Friday night before the rally. And for those "fine folk" that were at a rally full of KKK, neo nazis and white supremacists, maybe they need to take a look in the mirror. The good guys don't draw that crowd

CNN: Robert E. Lee's great-great grandson OK with Confederate statues coming down

By Polo Sandoval and Darran Simon, CNN

CNN: Actually, Robert E. Lee was against erecting Confederate memorials

By Chris Boyette, CNN

That's a well-written and persuasive article.

Who could persuade those who wish to preserve the monuments better, than the one for whom the statue at the center of the controversy in Charlottesville was raised to commemorate!


I do agree with former governor Mike Huckabee, though, that in cities where a majority support keeping the monuments, they should stay in place. And in cities where a majority oppose them, they could be moved elsewhere, off government property.

Welp....that didn't take long:

Chicago Pastor Demands Washington Name be Removed from Park Because of Slavery Ties

'Hamilton' Star, Maybe Washington, Jefferson Statues Should Come Down

Yeah you can always find somebody making an argument for anything.

And every time some conservative brings up a slippery slope argument, the libtards poopoo it. And within a few years, sure enough, they're actually using it.

Assuming this board even exist in 10 years I guarantee you'll be on here telling us how we're all racist if we don't want to see statues of the founding fathers torn down.

Hypotheticals of course are just that. 10 years ago I never thought I would see a republican President get the David Dukes out there so happy.

From his own party...
Republican Corker: Trump has not demonstrated ‘stability’ or ‘competence’ to lead effectively

Then you have a short memory. Because Reagan got similar endorsements from racist groups, that Reagan similarly quickly rejected and disowned.
The difference now is that the media back then kept some veneer of impartial objectivity, and wasn't quite as zealous about smearing a Republican president, and overtly acting as a PR wing of the Democrats.

A president can't control who endorses them, and who considers their agenda closer to their own than the opposition. But it can be used to selectively smear them, or be given a free pass.

When Obama was endorsed by the likes of Communist Party USA, or the Black Panthers, or Palestinian Authority, or Al Qaida, the 80% liberal media selectively did not cover that. In the case of Trump, they give it disproportionate coverage, and use it as a weapon to bring him down.



First off...



...this is not someone who ever gave Trump a chance, and is opportunistically using a moment of selective media-driven controversy to further twist the rusty knife in Trump's back.

Looking at Bob Corker's record, there is no indication he was ever a supporter or someone who gave Trump a fair chance. If he had criticism of Trump, the place to do it is to meet with the president privately and offer his suggestions to move the agenda in the right direction, not go to the 80% liberal media (and 93% among Washington-based reporters) and undermine both Trump and his entire party.

As is obvious, Trump is a reformer who seeks to break the system of both Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats who have a first loyalty to themselves and not the nation or its people. Trump is trying to reform the lobbyist system that enriches both sides at the expense of the national interest, and these Republicans would rather see Trump and the GOP fail, and would prefer to advance the Democrats than allow Trump to succeed in draining their bipartisan swamp.

WB, Trump first pretended he didn't know who David Duke was. For somebody who is quick to attack somebody's character, Trump struggled to call him out. It took him 3 hours to call out the Barcelona terror attacks but when a neo nazi runs over a crowd he needs days to get the facts. It's so bad it's left poor g arguing about hypotheticals to attack liberals.

When it actually starts happening, it's no longer a hypothetical.

Like nazis becoming just another part of the right?

Heather Heyer’s mother just brutally unmasked Trump’s racism and cruelty

That's a lying bastard's assertion.

How does every member of the right's complete scorn for these white supremacist protestors in Charlottesville possibly make them "become just another part of the right" ?

A few reminders for you of a few Democrats who have come closer to the racist protestors in Charlottesville:

• Robert Byrd (who Hillary Clinton described as her greatest mentor, and who eulogized his political career lovingly).
  
  Bill Clinton, who also had a racist mentor, and both Bill and Hillary were until a nanosecond ago big Confederate "Southern Heritage" advocates.
  
  Bill Clinton again, speaking about Barack Obama in late 2008, trying to get Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary instead: "A few years ago he [Obama] would have been bringing us coffee."
  
  Harry Reid in 2008 on Obama: Obama is a desireable black candidate "because he doesn't speak ethnic black dialect that would be offensive to white voters".
  
  And as I detailed in a prior topic, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who gloated as he passed civil rights legislation in 1964: "I'll have niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!"

You want to tell me again who the Nazis are a part of, M E M?

Hannity on his program cited the incredible dishonesty of this Democrat/liberal media narrative (narrative, as compared to the factual truth). The associated press and other mainstream /liberal media sources, reported that they observed BOTH SIDES initiating violence. And when you consider the white supremacist protestors were about 200, against a crowd of thousands, I really doubt they'd want to initiate anything, being so outnumbered.

From the Washington Post lying propaganda piece you linked:



and in the next paragraph:



Which is still vicious editorialized slanting that hides behind the face of being objective "news".
It's not.
It's incredibly presumptuous and dishonest coverage.

Donald Trump >>>DID<<<< condemn violence on both sides, even in the later meeting where he allegedly "reverted". It is objectively true what Trump said, that BOTH SIDES came with clubs and helmets and initiated violence.
In the second press conference, Trump chastised the media for suppressing the violence (some of which I youtubed here) of Antifa and the other protestors. Trump ALWAYS criticized both sides for the violence, but clearly and absolutely condemned the white supremacist rhetoric/ideology and said there was no place for them in the United States.

While some of the article contradicts itself and partly reveals Trump's real position disowning and rebuking the racist rhetoric, alleging Trump supports or in any way is reluctant to condemn the racists is an absolute lie.

This lying mother is the equivalent of Trump's Cindy Sheehan, a victim mom that no matter how dishonest her statements, it would be called a foul by the media if Trump responded or criticized her. She's demented.

The clear battle plan of Democrats and the liberal media:




Despite that there are actual Nazis, Trump has condemned them, unequivocally. He has only said that those opposing them were also initiating violence and were as much to blame. But the false narrative that Trump won't condemn the white supremacists (which is blatantly untrue) is repeated over and over, until it becomes "fact" in the public mind. At least enough of the public mind to hurt Trump politically.

Wow! Former Rep. Allen West just appeared on Judge Jeanine, and pointed out that George Soros (a Hungarian Jew, who sold out other Jews to the Nazis during WW II) is a Democrat who funds Code Pink, Media Matters, MoveOn.org, Center For American Progress, and literally hundreds of leftist groups, that the Democrat/Left/liberal media voice no objection to, even as they rail on Civil War monuments, and talk now about wanting to tear down the monuments to Washington, Jefferson and other national founders.

As usual, when the Left does it, it's perfectly okay, it doesn't even warrant a mention, despite the incredible hypocrisy. But a different standard is held for everyone else.

____


There's an exaggerated claim that Soros was an SS officer who more directly processed Jews. Snopes (a liberal propaganda site, disguised as an objective political rumor debunker site) likes to leave it there and say that it's absolutely false.

But another site, however grudgingly, admits this much is true



Soros also describes 1944, one of the years he was doing this, as "one of the best years of my life."

Wow some more:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/po...uld-be-dictator



Preaching "anti-hate" while burning Trump in effigy....


and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJ5DlzG-K


Great, and very funny at many points, commentary by Rush Limbaugh. The absurdity of the liberal media conflating the Islamic bombing/car attack in Barcelona, Spain as "possibly being inspired" by the white supremacists in Charlottesville, VA !

He also discusses the push to remove Civil War monuments as part of a larger Cultural Marxist attempt to discredit the United States as unworthy at its ideological core of being defended and preserved, to pave the way for replacing it with a socialist/globalist utopia.

A week after the clash in Charlottesville, a "free speech rally" was held in Boston, by conservatives.

Counter-protesters dwarf far-right marchers at Boston rally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHpctDgUFU8

According to Molly Line of Fox News, there were about40,000 protestors total, that she speculated were "100 free speech protestors, and 39,900 liberal/Antifa types."

Even in the PBS footage above, there were no visible "white supremacist/white nationalist" flags or symbols. Boston police (unlike Charlottesville) kept the protest groups apart.



Another interesting take:

Boston Free Speech Rally: What The News did NOT Cover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9X2ZRB9GCU

It's hard to hear, because the larger Antifa/liberal crowd is trying to silence the free speech they are trying to exercise.



And here's CBS news portraying it as "white nationalist":

Boston Rival Rallies: Thousands march against hate speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKowQfGD09I

Clearly favoring the left side, they cite Trump's Twitter post calling the Antifa/Left "agitators", as if Trump were making it up. But I believe the Boston police themselves would likewise call the many Antifa they restrained and the 20 that they had to arrest "agitators" as well.



Here's Molly Line giving an overview of the protests:

Boston rally for free speech, Molly Line reporting (Fox and Friends)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz_wlImAwTM

Is it just me, or is this the most objective coverage of the mainstream network coverage shown here?

Here's a female reporter for Infowars (Alex Jones) at the Charlottesville demonstrations, Another view of the police pushing the Alt-right guys out. She details how the Antifa crowd pelts the white nationalists in bags of urine mixed with other stuff. She asks some white nationalists what it is, and they matter-of-factly tell her. They also describe carrying their own riot gear so they can protect themselves if the police don't, and again, it seems like a routine expectation that the police at protest marches won't protect them in city after city, so they have to protect themselves. She was clearly afraid and wanted to leave, but the police wouldn't let her, and she had to walk out into Antifa from the safe area, same as the supremacists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxECY1PXjiM

Man...

Charlottesville, Va. protest...what really went down (Douglas M. Ducote Sr. )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWLjiA-_l4g

...a retired law enforcement officer, giving the very best commentary and overview of the Charlottesville rioting. And how it manifests a similar recurring free speech problem in Berkeley, Ferguson MO, Baltimore MD, New Orleans LA, and other major cities.

He also explains why veterans and retired law enforcement would still march in a rally with those among them who were overtly white supremacist: they were there to try and keep the peace. But they too were pushed by police out of the LEGALLY PERMITTED safe zone, and to take their chances walking a gauntlet through a violent armed Antifa mob for miles to their cars, with absolutely no protection from the police.

Charlottesville, from this perspective, is manifestation of a much larger problem: The weaponizing of government to suppress free speech, by witholding law enforcement protection from one political side, while letting the other side run wild on them. That involves 1) government (all Democrat in Charlottesville), 2) local police, and 3) message-control of a complicit news media.

Another video about the driver who killed the girl, that again at least explores the possibility that he could have been attacked and trying to get away before killed in his car.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLIOrZA2SkE

Again, his personal violent history and Hitler obsession doesn't help his credibility. But innocent until proven guilty. And I haven't yet seen a continuous video that shows the entire buildup to the impact.

One last one, an apparent 20/20 report profiling both two white supremacist/Alt-Right leaders and their movement, and two Antifa leaders and their movement.


Who are the white nationalists and Antifa: Part 1 ( ABC News, 20/20 )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ThtCIKL7qo


It has two additional parts 2 and 3, that are about another 10 minutes, and another 6 minutes.

The guy with the beard to me looks like a comic store owner!

Romney Tells Trump to Apologize for Causing ‘Racists to Rejoice’
This isn't just the Dems.

Again, from the crowd of establishment "Never Trumpers" who were predisposed to attack Trump and destroy his candidacy and presidency from the get-go.

Trump is a champion of reforms they will do anything to prevent. That is the real issue behind their attacks on him.

That is how you rationalize any criticism to Trump imho. Reguardless you can't keep painting this as just the Dems being political. That clearly isn't so with members of his own party having some serious criticisms of Trump. And who's criticism does count? Was all yours for any democrats be dismissed the same way? The standard you apply isn't an equal one.

The Dems just kneejerk reject everything Trump proposes, and lyingly accuse him of things they know to be false.

The branch of Establishment Republicans likewise have ulterior motives, and attack Trump to leverage their own agenda (what they are trying to do I can barely speculate. Because without Trump the Republicans achieve nothing, and only serve to hurt their own re-election chances by obstructing any meaningful reforms.)

But yeah, I have to agree it isn't "Just the Democrats" to some degree. But even so, the Republicans still side with Trump on many issues, even as they attack him for ulterior reasons on others.


Conversely, for example, the Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction in 2009-2010, after Obama's Stimulus bill had failed to create jobs. So they proposed a "Stimulus 2" bill. Which was widely unpopular with voters. They focus-group tested different names, and lyingly re-named it a "Jobs bill" because "jobs" focus-tested the best with their sampling. But still no traction in getting it passed.
Dem leaders blamed "Republican obstructionism", so Mitch McConnell went on the Senate floor and said "Hey, if Democrats want to put this up for a vote, let's vote on it!" But as the liberal media on PBS reported, Harry Reid said there were "other priorities" and tabled the bill.
ONLY ON FOX NEWS was it reported that the Democrats (prior to Nov 2010) had overwhelming majorities in both houses, and could have passed the bill without a single Republican vote. But they blamed Republicans. The Fox News story also reported that the bill was unpopular even in many Democrat districts, and that Democrats didn't ram it through because it would have resulted in many of them not getting re-elected if they HAD used their majorities to vote for it without the GOP.

In the case of Trump, as I've said before, he is essentially an independent elected on the GOP ticket, and therefore has resistance from the party leadership on both sides. That doesn't make the Democrat partisanship less contemptible.

I believe I've been very clear in my criticism as well of the anti-Trump obstructionism within the GOP.




See above. I think it is.

When I think news or pundit sources are fair and informative, I cite them.

When I think news or pundit sources are partisan and/or pure lies, I cite that, often with sources proving its false assertions.

Just what is it that you think the "RiNOs" are obstructing Trumpertino on at this point, man? Are they keeping him from magically winding back the clock to the 19th century and making coal great again, ignoring the preexisting shift in energy infrastructure resulting in reduced demand and, oh yeah, the sweeping automation eliminating the need for most mining jobs? Is a guy whose personal indiscretions have easily resulted in double-digit unplanned pregnancies going to hit the brakes on abortion, without providing sustainable solutions for women's healthcare and irrespective of the abhorrent limitation of civil liberties? Is an inner circle of industrialists whose business model is primarily contingent on cheap, expendable labor really going to shut our borders against migrant workers... and the critically-needed supply of, say, H1B physicians needed to fill critical doctor shortfalls in mostly red rural counties?

I hear this overriding theme of how Trump is somehow our last line of defense against globalism. Being angry about globalism is like being angry about a tornado. Shake your fist and unleash as much profanity as you like, that sumbitch is comin' through with or without your approval. And yeah, it has the potential to completely reshape what we thought was our way of life. But guess what? What we thought was our way of life - the old paradigms of education, 'career' employment, vocational segmentation, and yes, our hallowed 'demographics' - was already obsolete and inadequate, or globalism would never have gained its momentum in the first place. Is the fear of something that'll happen anyway with no regard to anyone's sentiments worth hanging onto a guy with no political leadership acumen, with no redeemable character traits pertinent to the office, with no sustainable plan for even the immediate future? Or does it all just wrap around to tribalism, to the all-important "us vs. them" and the alleged barbarians at the notional gates?