No Opinions on Trump Reaction to White Supremacists?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

Absolutely I think he could have handled the situation better, but I (seriously) don't automatically assume "moral equivalency" when I hear two people/groups being denounced. If a 12 year old and a 3 year old are arguing and their Dad says to them both that their behavior is unacceptable, I don't see that as saying that both children are equally responsible.

But if both of my children are pestering and annoying each other, but only one of them hauls off and socks the other one in the mouth, I'm not going to stop at saying both of them are wrong.  One was clearly more wrong and my response should indicate such.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

You also are making it difficult to keep this in the "serious" section.

One of those "parties" consisted of white supremacists and Nazis for Chrissakes!

Sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land on this forum.

I don't mind that you think I am not being serious, but just assume for a minute that I AM serious. Maybe you could learn something by trying to understand instead of criticize. Maybe I am not the only person here who thinks different from you and WANTS to understand and be understood.

For example, I don't believe those guys are really Nazis and probably not even white supremacists. I think they are that smart or motivated. I think they are pathetic little trolls who feel most important when they make people angry. I admit that I may be underestimating them and that doing so would minimize the importance of their actions and the actions of the counter-protesters.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't mind that you think I am not being serious, but just assume for a minute that I AM serious. Maybe you could learn something by trying to understand instead of criticize. Maybe I am not the only person here who thinks different from you and WANTS to understand and be understood.

For example, I don't believe those guys are really Nazis and probably not even white supremacists. I think they are that smart or motivated. I think they are pathetic little trolls who feel most important when they make people angry. I admit that I may be underestimating them and that doing so would minimize the importance of their actions and the actions of the counter-protesters.

I think you have your head in the sand if that last paragraph reflects your real views.  Does that mean that all of them are as committed as others?  Of course not.  There are some who are deluding themselves into thinking this is just about appreciating white heritage and culture and not anti-anyone else.  But those were neo-Nazis.  They are white supremacists.  There are many true believers in that bunch.  You don't drive to another city from out of state and show up with torches in hand reminiscent of a KKK ceremony just to be an annoying a**hole with no further motivations or ideology driving it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You don't drive to another city from out of state and show up with torches in hand reminiscent of a KKK ceremony just to be an annoying a**hole with no further motivations or ideology driving it

I'm curious about the events that led up to the rally. 

The white supremacist group applied months ago for a permit and it was eventually granted.

The counter-protestors decided to crash their rally much like they've done recently before. 

So the question is were there internet messages anongst the two groups that said something like  "it's going down." Because it seems like both sides were prepared and showed up ready to fight. 

I saw Faith Goldys video which included the death. That s*** was crazy. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

I'm curious about the events that led up to the rally. 

The white supremacist group applied months ago for a permit and it was eventually granted.

The counter-protestors decided to crash their rally much like they've done recently before. 

So the question is were there internet messages anongst the two groups that said something like  "it's going down." Because it seems like both sides were prepared and showed up ready to fight. 

I saw Faith Goldys video which included the death. That s*** was crazy. 

That's some of it.  Also, the white supremacist groups did not follow the protocol they agreed to with police on how they would enter and leave the park.   The police tried to set up access to the park in a way that they could keep the two groups separate.  The white nationalists ended up streaming in from several directions, including some that brought them right next to the counterprotesters.  

[cole256 17,043]

Coming from an African American....one of the most disrespectful and hurtful thing I can read personally is the people who say both sides are in the wrong.....it's like even with something like this you still have people with an agenda and they will never stand with you....it really do test your faith on will it EVER be a brotherhood here in the u.s.

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not yet convinced that the Democrats have pulled it together enough to understand why they lost to take advantage of this.  There's still way too much deflecting - blaming Hillary's loss on sexism, racism, etc. and refusing to understand that there are some who do not easily fit into these labels who would not vote for her.  Until they come to terms with the reasoning behind those folks' votes, they are prone to put forth more bad candidates in the future because they misread the electorate.

I wouldn't expect the Democrats to quickly reform itself into an efficient machine going in a different direction.  There's still time.  

[homersapien 11,366]

37 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I'm curious about the events that led up to the rally. 

The white supremacist group applied months ago for a permit and it was eventually granted.

The counter-protestors decided to crash their rally much like they've done recently before. 

So the question is were there internet messages anongst the two groups that said something like  "it's going down." Because it seems like both sides were prepared and showed up ready to fight. 

I saw Faith Goldys video which included the death. That s*** was crazy. 

Social media has been a "game changer" for popular political movements.  It made the "Arab spring" possible.

Prior to social media and cellphones,  such a white supremacy demonstration in Charlottesburg would have drawn maybe a few dozen people.  Now it draws hundreds.

This is not to say that far right groups haven't grown and proliferated at the same time.

[homersapien 11,366]

22 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Coming from an African American....one of the most disrespectful and hurtful thing I can read personally is the people who say both sides are in the wrong.....it's like even with something like this you still have people with an agenda and they will never stand with you....it really do test your faith on will it EVER be a brotherhood here in the u.s.

In the words of Tavis Smiley,  keep the faith brother.   

[aujeff11 6,243]

41 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Coming from an African American....one of the most disrespectful and hurtful thing I can read personally is the people who say both sides are in the wrong.....it's like even with something like this you still have people with an agenda and they will never stand with you....it really do test your faith on will it EVER be a brotherhood here in the u.s.

Both sides were in the wrong no matter how you spin it. It takes two to tango and they didn't have a permit at all to protest. The antifa keeps showing up to these rallys expecting a throwdown apparently.

Its basically like the Joe Mixon incident. The girl was in the wrong for angrily hitting Mixon with her feeble muscles.  However, even though she was in the wrong, it doesn't compare to Mixon knocking her out. It doesn't compare and I admit that, but let's not pretend one side is innocent from all wrong doing.

[homersapien 11,366]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I don't mind that you think I am not being serious, but just assume for a minute that I AM serious. Maybe you could learn something by trying to understand instead of criticize. Maybe I am not the only person here who thinks different from you and WANTS to understand and be understood.

For example, I don't believe those guys are really Nazis and probably not even white supremacists. I think they are that smart or motivated. I think they are pathetic little trolls who feel most important when they make people angry. I admit that I may be underestimating them and that doing so would minimize the importance of their actions and the actions of the counter-protesters.

If that's true, then my posts were obviously irrelevant.   

But that's sort of a significant qualifier you should have lead with.

[homersapien 11,366]

13 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Both sides were in the wrong no matter how you spin it. It takes two to tango and they didn't have a permit at all to protest. The antifa keeps showing up to these rallys expecting a throwdown apparently.

Its basically like the Joe Mixon incident. The girl was in the wrong for angrily hitting Mixon with her feeble muscles.  However, even though she was in the wrong, it doesn't compare to Mixon knocking her out. It doesn't compare and I admit that, but let's not pretend one side is innocent from all wrong doing.

I think Cole was referring to the message each group represented, not how a few given individuals might have acted.

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, cole256 said:

Coming from an African American....one of the most disrespectful and hurtful thing I can read personally is the people who say both sides are in the wrong.....it's like even with something like this you still have people with an agenda and they will never stand with you....it really do test your faith on will it EVER be a brotherhood here in the u.s.

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to say that, and I apologize for being offensive. I see this situation not as an US vs. THEM, but as a THEM vs. THEM. I don't relate to white supremacists (or even white southern heritage supporters) and I don't relate to opposition groups who think that confronting the idiots in that format is a good idea.

I understand that growing up in the majority makes it very hard-to-impossible for me to understand why you feel disrespected by my feelings. I pray that I can learn to see things more from your perspective. Like you, I think that people usually have an agenda.

[AUbritt 611]

Welp, Trump just came out and blamed both sides again. It was clear he didn't want to disavow the hate groups yesterday. Now he's speaking from the heart.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

 

3 hours ago, AUbritt said:

Welp, Trump just came out and blamed both sides again. It was clear he didn't want to disavow the hate groups yesterday. Now he's speaking from the heart.

I stated early in another thread that this will split primarily on party lines and/or like or dislike of Trump. I've been dead on thus far and see no sign that changes. 

So here's the deal. Trump handled this wrong from the beginning IMO. It really doesn't matter that there may have been "all sides," you don't say it!  Leave it for another day another time. But this guy is a horrible orator and some of his decision making simply sucks! He brings this crap on himself. Let him deal with it.

Having said that, some of these people claiming to know his real side are so fake. How in the hell do you think you know his real side? Speaking from his heart? (not picking on you Britt. I appreciate the thread and also think it is important. You are certainly not alone with this statement.) Did you have a conversation with the man? Did you read it on your favorite news site? Just stop with that nonsense. We have enough lies in the press and don't need anymore here. People should submit their biased ideas as nothing more as you and I both know it is merely an opinion. And that opinion isn't necessarily correct. 

 

[AUDub 11,147]

3 hours ago, AUbritt said:

Welp, Trump just came out and blamed both sides again. It was clear he didn't want to disavow the hate groups yesterday. Now he's speaking from the heart.

He said there were "good people" marching on Friday night.

They were literally chanting Jew will not replace us and blood and soil.

If you are marching with a group of people and the crowd starts chanting blood and soil, and you don't nope the **** right out of there, you are not good people.

[homersapien 11,366]

29 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

I stated early in another thread that this will split primarily on party lines and/or like or dislike of Trump. I've been dead on thus far and see no sign that changes. 

So here's the deal. Trump handled this wrong from the beginning IMO. It really doesn't matter that there may have been "all sides," you don't say it!  Leave it for another day another time. But this guy is a horrible orator and some of his decision making simply sucks! He brings this crap on himself. Let him deal with it.

Having said that, some of these people claiming to know his real side are so fake. How in the hell do you think you know his real side? Speaking from his heart? (not picking on you Britt. I appreciate the thread and also think it is important. You are certainly not alone with this statement.) Did you have a conversation with the man? Did you read it on your favorite news site? Just stop with that nonsense. We have enough lies in the press and don't need anymore here. People should submit their biased ideas as nothing more as you and I both know it is merely an opinion. And that opinion isn't necessarily correct. 

 

Yeah, everyone is just miss interpreting what he says and confusing his "opinion" with what he actually thinks, huh?  

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, everyone is just miss interpreting what he says and confusing his "opinion" with what he actually thinks, huh?  

 

Read my first sentence. Pretty much sums up what's happening here.

[homersapien 11,366]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Read my first sentence. Pretty much sums up what's happening here.

Yep, we got people who are critical thinkers - or at least are capable of seeing what's right in front of them - then we got people with their heads up their ass.

That's my summary of what's happening here.   

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

True.  But I do find it troubling that they felt the tide had shifted enough that they no longer had to do this.  Something emboldened them to put aside such precautions that have more or less been in place since the late 60s for people who persisted in holding these abhorrent views.

 

I think given the open support by these groups for Trump's candidacy, and the fact that someone from these groups had literally just run over and killed someone for opposing them, it was incumbent upon Trump to call them out by name - not only to disassociate himself from them and their support, but also because despite whatever wrongs the counterprotestors did, they didn't murder or attempt to murder anyone.  In not doing so, and just saying "on many sides," he put out a false equivalency on the respective guilt and responsibility each side had this past weekend.

 

So only in this situation and circumstance does one side and only one side need to be called out?

If you think so that's fine, but what about other situations in recent history where the shoe was on the other foot but both sides were called out as being at fault for the event that happened? Why is it only in certain situation does one side get all the blame but in others where it's obvious  that only one side was at fault but both sides still get blamed?

Does it depend on who the guilty party is?  What the's qualifier where only one side should be given all the blame?

[homersapien 11,366]

3 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

 

So only in this situation and circumstance does one side and only one side need to be called out?

If you think so that's fine, but what about other situations in recent history where the shoe was on the other foot but both sides were called out as being at fault for the event that happened? Why is it only in certain situation does one side get all the blame but in others where it's obvious  that only one side was at fault but both sides still get blamed?

Does it depend on who the guilty party is?  What the's qualifier where only one side should be given all the blame?

You are confusing balance with objectivity.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

 

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Yep, we got people who are critical thinkers - or at least are capable of seeing what's right in front of them, then we got people with their heads up their ass.

That's my summary of what's happening here.   

Love me some self described critical thinkers. Usually espousing some talking point from their favorite political rag. Well they read it, so I guess you win. It was right in front of them in print. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

I've labeled Trump a racist but I read something today that made me rethink that. Trump loves Trump so anyone who supports Trump is good. Neo Nazis, KKK, white supremacists, the alt right- no matter how evil,  Trump sees them as good and will be reluctant to condemn. His thinking is simplistic, you love Trump, he loves you. You hate Trump or disagree with Trump, he hates you. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, homersapien said:

You are confusing balance with objectivity.

So you don't care about consistency?

Is it because some groups are more socially acceptable than others?

Is it only socially unacceptable groups that it's ok to give all the blame too? 

If a socially acceptable group is at fault and clearly the only side that did wrong in a given situation but a leader wants to blame both sides because it's politically convenient, then why should that be given a pass? 

 

[RunInRed 16,396]

I posted this in another thread ... but watch this video.