The Trump Presidency

[Jaw]

When a group rises up to attack our most cherished fundamentals, I hope that an equal force will rise up to stop it.



Do you really think there is such a thing as a "peaceful" white nationalist protest? If they really wanted to put for a sensible, peaceful argument, why were they then flying the Nazi flag and yelling Nazi and and other hateful slogans?

You think the white nationalists, Nazis and Confederates should be given protect space to promote their causes. How about ISIS? Do you want to protect their speech too? Are not both are inherently evil and antithetical to a free and democratic society?

I think everyone should be able to peacefully protest in legal and approved areas, no matter how wrong their cause. Doing otherwise only keeps it in the dark, sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant. Let's see who these people are. Let's talk to them and convince them why they are wrong. They can't be very intelligent, so we should be able to outsmart them. But let's not take clubs and guns and pretend we totally went there to not start violence.

[bravesnumberone]

THe answer to that question is obvious.

Doesn't change my interpretation of what happened that day. Please show me where I've defended anyone donning Nazi gear on that day.

My stance has been clear. I do not approve of limited speech in this country and that is what has been going on for far too long now.

Whose speech was limited? Who there was arrested for the specific act of spewing bull**** as afforded to them by he Constitution?

[nsacpi]

John Podohertz wrote a very good column about this matter:

On Tuesday afternoon, we learned yet again that the president of the United States is against neo-Nazis, which is nice. They’re “very rough,” he said at an impromptu Trump Tower press conference — by which he likely meant some of the people he saw on TV in Charlottesville this past Saturday had beards and leather jackets and swastika tattoos and were overweight.

The night before, by contrast, Trump said there had been some “very good people” rallying with “a permit” by a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville. Maybe he thought so because the photographs we all saw showed clean-cut young men in Polo shirts and Dockers.

The rest of us also saw them engaging in Nazi salutes and carrying torches.

Those images seem to have eluded the president.

The president suggested many had been there on Friday night because they cared deeply about the fact that a Robert E. Lee statue in a Charlottesville park is due to be moved.

Trump did not note that they were not locals with aesthetic concerns but rather had been summoned from all over the country under the slogan “Unite the Right.”

The ad promoting the “Unite the Right” rally, which ran on far-right websites all week, did not even mention the statue. It was designed to evoke a fascist poster with birds similar to the Nazi eagle in the sky over the marchers and Confederate flags taking the place of swastikas.

It invited people to join speakers like Mike Enoch, who hosts a podcast called “The Daily Shoah.” And Augustus Invictus, an alt-right figure who once said, “I have prophesied for years that I was born for a Great War; that if I did not witness the coming of the Second American Civil War I would begin it myself.” And Christopher Cantwell, who calls himself a “fascist,” along with Johnny Monoxide, who just labels himself “fashy.” And Michael Hill, an ex-professor who said, in 2015, “Never underestimate the perfidy of the organized Jew.” And Matt Heimbach, who says only 27,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

The march’s own organizer, Jason Kessler, described the view of those who wanted to move the statue thus: “You don’t give a damn about white people. You people are implementing policies which are displacing us in our home countries, and we will not be allowed to survive.”

I don’t think statuary was his primary concern.
The president did something absolutely horrifying in that press conference. He bristled at the use of the term “alt-right” by a reporter and demanded to know from her what she meant by it. He drew a distinction between the neo-Nazis — “very rough” — and the members of the alt-right who rallied with torches on Friday night, chanting “Jews shall not replace us.”

It was this group, these alt-rightniks, that Trump said featured “some very good people.” By saying this, he was not only committing an infamy. He actually seemed to be doing constituent service for a group that supported him.

As David French writes, “When Trump carves [the alt-right] away from the Nazis and distinguishes them from the neo-Confederates, he’s doing exactly what they want. He’s making them respectable. He’s making them different.”

That such words could actually emerge from the mouth of the president of the United States is one of the most disheartening facts of my lifetime.

[thethe]

Whose speech was limited? Who there was arrested for the specific act of spewing bull**** as afforded to them by he Constitution?

You don't get speech limited quickly. Its a slow build by building a case that it incites violence (when the violence is partly the responsibility of the offended party) and that it negatively impacts peoples frail psyche. You limit speech by controlling the institution and changing the language that is taught.

This has been going on for some time now and its only progressing further.

[Julio3000]

Yeah, this is also a dangerous equivalence fallacy that I've seen happening in reverse fashion. You like Confederate statue? You Neo-Nazi. You like Trump? You White Nationalist.

Can we come up with some appropriate verbiage, then? You're right that liking a Confederate statue doesn't make you a neo-Nazi (though it certainly does align you with white supremacism, whether you personally endorse it or not) and liking Trump doesn't make you a white nationalist. But why all the hair-splitting about this event in particular?

Why is it objectionable to draw conclusions about someone who chose to attend the rally, knowing who the featured speakers were and who organized and promoted the event. If you supported this event and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with white supremacists and actual neo-nazis, it seems generous to append a primary worldview descriptor like "Confederate monument aficionado."

Considering your upthread comments, you demand a degree of semantic rigor, so what would you suggest? Neo-nazi sympathizer? Neo-nazi collaborator?

[Julio3000]

It is the militant method to silence opposition views. The fact that people are not seeing what is happening is all the more scary.

Anti-Fa has violently protested around the world for 18 months and people pretend that didn't happen. Then there was violence at a rally where both White Nationalists/Neo-Nazis and Anti-Fa was there and now all of a sudden the alt-right is the dangerous group. We are witnessing the ultimate con with the end goal of performing a coup here in the US.

So you believe there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and left activists?

[nsacpi]

Can we come up with some appropriate verbiage, then? You're right that liking a Confederate statue doesn't make you a neo-Nazi (though it certainly does align you with white supremacism, whether you personally endorse it or not) and liking Trump doesn't make you a white nationalist. But why all the hair-splitting about this event in particular?

Why is it objectionable to draw conclusions about someone who chose to attend the rally, knowing who the featured speakers were and who organized and promoted the event. If you supported this event and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with white supremacists and actual neo-nazis, it seems generous to append a primary worldview descriptor like "Confederate monument aficionado."

Considering your upthread comments, you demand a degree of semantic rigor, so what would you suggest? Neo-nazi sympathizer? Neo-nazi collaborator?

It should also be clear by now that the "Unite the Right" event actually had very little to do with statuary. The debate we have been having here about monuments and statues is worth having but misses the essential point of what has been happening.

[Julio3000]

It should also be clear by now that the "Unite the Right" event actually had very little to do with statuary. The debate we have been having here about monuments and statues is worth having but misses the essential point of what has been happening.

Yes, I agree that the debate is important and instructive.

[Julio3000]

We are witnessing the ultimate con with the end goal of performing a coup here in the US.

You've got to explain how you get to this conclusion.

[thethe]

So you believe there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and left activists?

Why does this question even matter?

[thethe]

We are witnessing the ultimate con with the end goal of performing a coup here in the US.

You've got to explain how you get to this conclusion.

I've said it numerous times. The progressive left thought they would have a stranglehold on the politics of the US after Obama won (and to a greater extent Europe but Brexit and the tandem of Poland/Hungry/CR). They assumed Hillary would win and the leftist/globalists views would continue. They have attempted to flood our nation with third world populations and buy their votes with entitlements.

Now that plan has been interrupted and with the success of traditional conservative economic plans are having currently they are nervous that the views of more Americans will change. Therefore, the globalists are teaming up with the media/silicon valley to villianize anyone on the right and scare people into thinking this is the absolute worst direction to go. They are training a violent militia to interrupt the exchange of free thoughts because on the ideological level freedom always wins. They are fabricating stories on Trump (Russian Dossier etc...) to delegitimize the will of the people. And now they are using false equivalency morality arguments to guilt people into sacrificing their core beliefs just because some disgusting people share some of those as well.

[nsacpi]

Why does this question even matter?

I'll offer my explanation for why it matters. On the one side you have neo-Nazis and their allies and fellow travelers. On the other people protesting against the neo-Nazis. The people in this second group are heroes in my book. It is true that among them are people who have engaged in violence and other questionable behavior. And I wish those people could be cleared out. But that does not change the basic fact that the two groups consist of neo-Nazis and demonstrations against neo-Nazis. Attempts to discern sub-divisions among those two groups are basically motivated by a desire to cloud what is really a very clear situation. And I have to question the motivations and good will of people like you who are doing this.

[nsacpi]

They have attempted to flood our nation with third world populations and buy their votes with entitlements.

I'm an immigrant from a third world country. Even if I weren't I would feel compelled to call you out for a very ugly strain of paranoia and xenophobia that goes well beyond the few words I quoted above.

[Hawk]

Can we come up with some appropriate verbiage, then? You're right that liking a Confederate statue doesn't make you a neo-Nazi (though it certainly does align you with white supremacism, whether you personally endorse it or not) and liking Trump doesn't make you a white nationalist. But why all the hair-splitting about this event in particular?

Why is it objectionable to draw conclusions about someone who chose to attend the rally, knowing who the featured speakers were and who organized and promoted the event. If you supported this event and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with white supremacists and actual neo-nazis, it seems generous to append a primary worldview descriptor like "Confederate monument aficionado."

Considering your upthread comments, you demand a degree of semantic rigor, so what would you suggest? Neo-nazi sympathizer? Neo-nazi collaborator?

The bolded statement is where I get off the bus (and the perfect example of the equivalence I was referencing, so thank you for that). Do you not see where claiming that an individual is "aligned" with white supremacy is defamatory? How is that relevant beyond the context of the rally? Do you think that it is?

Your objection is to the players, not the game, and that's duly noted and perfectly reasonable.

Anyways, I agree. Why all the hair-splitting? Why is Trump's rebuke suddenly not a rebuke? Show me where, specifically, he refused to criticize white nationalists or neo-Nazis?

Maybe it's because I'm too rational. Maybe it's because I'm not sensitive enough. But it's really easy for me to separate the Nazis from the White Nationalists from the White Supremacists from the ALT-Right from the Redneck Revolt from the Anti-FA from the BL Movement. I can put the good players here, and the bad actors there, and the legitimate grounds for protest here, and the illegitimate grounds there. I don't need (or want) to blend it all together to make sense of it all.

[thethe]

I'll offer my explanation for why it matters. On the one side you have neo-Nazis and their allies and fellow travelers. On the other people protesting against the neo-Nazis. The people in this second group are heroes in my book. It is true that among them are people who have engaged in violence and other questionable behavior. And I wish those people could be cleared out. But that does not change the basic fact that the two groups consist of neo-Nazis and demonstrations against neo-Nazis. Attempts to discern sub-divisions among those two groups are basically motivated to cloud what is really a very clear situation. And I have to question the motivations and good will of people like you who are doing this.

But I have never defended the actions of the Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists.

I'm merely trying to understand why there is absolute silence on the violence that is caused by the violent left in actions such as restricting speakers at universities. In what world is that a positive and how morale is that that the left should blanketly embrace that.

We can have a conversation that simultaneously admonishes everything white supremacy stands for and speak to the evils of the activist left and where their escalation will take us in the future.

[thethe]

I'm an immigrant from a third world country. Even if I weren't I would feel compelled to call you out for a very ugly strain of paranoia and xenophobia that goes well beyond the few words I quoted above.

I'm fine with immigration as long as those immigrants support themselves. I do not feel that people should get to come into this country and receive benefits from taxpaying citizens.

[Runnin]

I think everyone should be able to peacefully protest in legal and approved areas, no matter how wrong their cause. Doing otherwise only keeps it in the dark, sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant. Let's see who these people are. Let's talk to them and convince them why they are wrong. They can't be very intelligent, so we should be able to outsmart them. But let's not take clubs and guns and pretend we totally went there to not start violence.

I disagree that any group or political view deserves a public forum.

Do you think pedophiles and rapists should be given a safe place on public streets to promote their views?

How about Satan worshipers?

White nationalists, nazis and confederates believe in the destruction of the democratic state. They should not be tolerated. If not, their numbers would be much fewer.

[nsacpi]

I'm fine with immigration as long as those immigrants support themselves. I do not feel that people should get to come into this country and receive benefits from taxpaying citizens.

And what do we do with the native born who lose their jobs or for whatever reason find themselves in need of the social safety net, including those who have never paid into the system.

[nsacpi]

But I have never defended the actions of the Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists.

I'm merely trying to understand why there is absolute silence on the violence that is caused by the violent left in actions such as restricting speakers at universities. In what world is that a positive and how morale is that that the left should blanketly embrace that.

We can have a conversation that simultaneously admonishes everything white supremacy stands for and speak to the evils of the activist left and where their escalation will take us in the future.

I have lived in Berkeley and Oakland and have seen in person the destructive actions of hard left groups and anarchists. I'm not sure there is anyone around here who would not denounce the violence of such groups. Some elements of those groups were present in Charlottesville. To focus on that is to miss entirely what really happened there.

[nsacpi]

I disagree that any group or political view deserves a public forum.

Do you think pedophiles and rapists should be given a safe place on public streets to promote their views?

How about Satan worshipers?

White nationalists, nazis and confederates believe in the destruction of the democratic state. They should not be tolerated. If not, their numbers would be much fewer.

I think it is better that those groups be free to express their views publicly. But I would hope that when they hold their big demonstration our president will not say that part of the crowd consisted of really fine people. And that they were some really bad hombres in the group demonstrating against them (even if it were true that there were some).