Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 184
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,470
Subj: Re: This is my take
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 06:10:11 pm EDT (Viewed 1343 times)
Reply Subj: Re: This is my take
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 04:47:06 pm EDT (Viewed 1258 times)

    Trump said, “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now.” That false equivalency is revealed as soon as you answer which side hit people with a car and killed someone from the other. Hint: it wasn’t the “very violent” side.

The fact that one hateful person one side proved to be more deadly does not change the fact that both sides were violent. The Antifa group showed up with helmets, clubs and other weapons. Both sides were spoiling for a fight, and they got what they wanted. Antifa are in many cases violence junkies. Violence for many of them is the preferred method of enacting change. Before the outrage against Trump, this was an accepted fact.

See here from the AP:


And here from the NY Times:


Neither article is from what anyone could consider a right-wing source, yet both frame the two groups similar to Trump.

The AP story says "Adversaries fought", and they "beat each other with clubs". There is no weight of blame placed on the pro-nazi group. Similarly the Times story places no weight of blame on the pro-nazi group. And they recognize the frequent violence of Antifa.

Members of Antifa have assaulted journalists. Such as this one from a local CBS station who was sent to the hospital and needed stitches in his head:


CNN's Jake Tapper's twitter feed also notes multiple "unprovoked assaults on journalists doing their jobs -- by those marching *against* the hateful racists".

That Antifa is very violent is a fact. That there was violence on both sides is a fact.

    Trump has called out everyone under the sun by name when he wants to lambast them. He criticized Obama for not using the words “Islamic terrorism.” Trump never minces words unless he’s purposefully equivocating. What is he equivocating here? Racist hatemongers and their protesters when he says that “many sides” are to blame for the violence in Charlottesville and he emphasized the words “many sides” by repeating them.

    On a very technical level, that’s true. If protesters weren’t there, they wouldn’t have clashed with the racists. If Heather Heyer had not been there, an alt-right neo-Nazi would not have killed her. But she was there and she was killed. Is she responsible or is James Fields, Jr., the man who purposefully ran her over with a car? Trump thinks both Heyer and Fields are to blame!

It is disgusting to say that Trump put any blame on Heather Heyer. The different sides Trump referres to is to the hateful nazi group, and to the Antifa group.

    Trump’s blaming both sides is only important if the message he’s trying to convey is a wink to the white supremacists who helped put Trump in office that he is sympathetic to them. And this is exactly how many white supremacists have interpreted it.

Incorrect. Trump's blaming both sides is important to anyone interested in the truth of what happened that day.

    Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke responded, “Thank you President Trump for your honesty and courage to tell the truth.” White nationalist leader Richard B. Spencer wrote, “Trump’s statement was fair and down to earth.” Chuck Schumer fittingly remarked, “By saying he is not taking sides, Donald Trump clearly is. When David Duke and white supremacists cheer, you’re doing it very, very wrong.”

I've mentioned in previous posts that the faults of individuals should not be placed on the politicians they support. Seddique Mir Mateen, the father of Omar Mateen, who shot up the Orlando nightclub, was a big Hillary supporter. He also supports the Taliban. Should we make a connection between the Mateens and Hillary which puts their beliefs on her? No, we shouldn't.

Robert Byrd was also a member of the KKK and Hillary Clinton's mentor. Bill Clinton excused Byrd's membership in that ugly organization by saying he did it just to get elected. Is spouting ugly racist slogans and recruitment for the KKK okay as long as it gets you elected as a democrat? The Clintons seem to think so. The outrage regarding KKK supporters is strangely one-sided.

William Fulbright has been cited by Bill Clinton as one of his mentors. Hillary's name shares the title of the "J. William Fulbright-Hillary Rodham Clinton Public Policy Fellowship". Fulbright was a horrible racist who opposed Hawaii statehood due to the non-white inhabitants. He also not only signed the Southern Manifesto, he helped edit it. Yet the Clintons get a pass here again. I'm not claiming guilt by association. I'm not saying the Clintons are racists because they freely associate with many racists, but that seems to be your logic.

Al Gore Sr. was also a horrible racist. How many times was his sone asked to repudiate the father's racist legacy when Gore Jr. was running for VP or President? None that I'm aware of, but if he was, it certainly wasn't as many times as Trump has been asked to repudiate a man he never met. And it's my opinion that Gore shouldn't have to answer for faults of his father.

I propose we keep conversations to the direct people being discussed, and not try to paint people with sins of associates or supporters.

    That Trump even took two days to denounce the white nationalists who lauded his name at the Charlottesville rally speaks volumes. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch tweeted, “We should call evil by its name. My brother didn’t give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home.” But it’s clear now that Trump’s denunciation of white supremacists on Monday was forced upon him by staff, that he resented it,

It's not clear that it was forced upon him or that he resented that. You don't know that. You're simply making things up. If I'm wrong, provide evidence. I'm looking for evidence, not what you think or feel. Otherwise this is no different than birthers claiming they "know" Obama's sympathies are with muslim terrorists. Your're trafficing in the same style personal attacks.

    and because he has no discipline,

That Trump needs to discipline his reactions I agree with.

    he couldn’t keep that bottled in and went on his tirade yesterday. The message is clear. The context – Obama birtherism, Mexican rapists, the Muslim ban, the transgender ban, the wall – is clear. Trump’s only defense is to engage in the vagueness of plausible deniability. For any other contemporary president, this would have been a no-brainer. Other Republicans like Jeff Flake, Cory Gardner, Lindsay Graham, Will Hurd, John Kasich, John McCain, Jerry Moran, and Marco Rubio all criticized Trump by name for his reaction.

    Trump defenders can only talk about how some of what he said was technically true while completely missing the spirit of what he said.

The spirit of what he said? I think this is a little like the three blind men and the elephant. I heard him say:

- "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides." You may not like that he places blame for violence on both the nazi group and Antifa, but he certain condemned hatred and bigotry. Why is that ignored?

- "No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first."

- "we want to see what we’re doing wrong as a country, where things like this can happen."

- "We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other."

- "I love the people of our country. I love all of the people of our country."

The way the speech has been reported it's as if he didn't say any of that. As if all he did was include Antifa in his blame of the violence. But that was only a small part. Much of the speech was about love and uniting as a country.

There was outrage that he blamed both sides for the violence. Many people wanted him to call out the nazi group specifically, and so in his following speech he did. And in that speech he said:

- "We must love each other, show affection for each other and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty, that bring us together as Americans."

- "Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

- "We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator."

- "we will work together so that every citizen in this blessed land is free to follow their dreams, in their hearts, and to express the love and joy in their souls."

Yet still, you want to believe Trump is racist. I'm guessing nothing will convince you otherwise.

    Some other Republicans get this. Republican Rep, Ed Royce, wrote, “The President needs to clearly and categorically reject white supremacists. No excuses. No ambiguity.” Jeb Bush wrote, “I urge POTUS to unite the country, not parse the assignment of blame for the events in Charlottesville.” Mitch McConnell stated, “There are no good neo-Nazis, and those who espouse their views are not supporters of American ideals and freedoms.” Mitt Romney tweeted, “No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.”

I reject the simplistic idea that anyone who engages in violence against those with nazi beliefs is automatically morally different. The biggest nazi killer in history was Joseph Stalin. Are we to glorify Stalin for being against nazis? Are we to say that Hitler and Stalin are in "morally different universes"? Both were evil men. Is my saying "Both were evil men" a pro-nazi statement? Individuals should be judged individually. Just because Antifa were against the nazi group does not make Antifa "good guys".

    Even if a few Southerners don’t see statues of Confederate leaders and generals as racist, that’s an extreme degree of compartmentalizing. These Confederates fought to uphold slavery. That’s is their claim to fame and they shouldn’t be honored for that. Aside from the rare neo-Nazi, you don’t see Germans clamoring for Hitler statues even though Hitler is part of their heritage. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis committed treason, they were traitors to their country, their actions in the Civil War led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands, and they tried to perpetuate slavery, the most abhorrent institution ever established in the United States of America. Why should that be honored? Also note that most of these statues and monuments were erected between 1900 and 1930, the era of Jim Crow laws, and again between 1956-1965, the era of the civil rights movement. These were times when racial conflict was highest and the messaging behind these monuments is white supremacy.

    Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides,” which is a purely subjective claim that can’t be proven, but again, it clearly sends a positive message to the white supremacists. Anyone’s willingness to march alongside the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis chanting “Sieg Heil” and “Blood and Soil” and “Jews will not replace us” while carrying swastikas calls into question where their moral compass lies. Here are some examples of the hate on display at that rally:


    Trump’s insinuation that George Washington is under attack because Robert E. Lee is under attack is about as disingenuous as James Woods implying that the Marine Corps War Memorial is the equivalent of Robert E. Lee statues in the eyes of the left.

It is not disingenuous. Proposals for such things are happening here:


And here:


Where George Washington is not "relevant or meaningful".

It seems Trump is right. Will you admit that for this one case?

    George Washington owned slaves in a time in which that was acceptable and he freed his slaves in his will. George Washington signed the Slave Trade Act of 1794 to curb the slave trade, and he did not actively fight to sustain slavery as an institution when times had changed to make slavery an even graver moral issue. A George Washington statue is not implicitly pro-slavery any more than it’s pro-dentures. It’s to celebrate Washington’s part in the American Revolution and creating the United States of America. A Robert E. Lee statue is implicitly pro-slavery. What are you celebrating about him if not that? That’s what he fought for, that’s what he’s known for, and he’d be an afterthought to history had he not done so.

Trump didn't equate Robert E. Lee to George Washington. You are making a false argument. Trump stated that the current movement to get rid of Confederate statues would eventually lead to similar attacks against Washington and Jefferson. As shown above, he was absolutely, provably right.

    If Trump can’t understand that, he’s not smart enough to be President of the United States.

Maybe he's smarter than you think, since his prediction here was accurate.

    Let’s face it, we have a Racist in Chief now.

Let's face it....your personal attacks and name calling are on the level of those who called Obama "muslim in chief". Name calling is childish and immature.

Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.90 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software