Why Did Trump Refuse to Condemn Nazis?

1. 87

   Marisa Wrightposted 6 years ago

   How can any decent human being think that it's OK to defend white supremacists and Nazis?  No one can deny that's what they were, they had banners advertising the fact. 
   
   I find it shocking that a President could take the attitude Trump has.   If it's possible, he has sunk even lower in my estimation and the opinion of most of the civilised world.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The President of the United States.  The most powerful office in the world, and perhaps the most influential person.
      
      Is it appropriate for the person holding that office to condemn any group of Americans behaving legally but that don't fit his idea of "right"?  Any group that the majority disagrees with?  Or just those that the one taking him to task for not condemning groups they don't like?
      
      Would it be appropriate for Turnbull to publicly condemn all dancers for dressing inappropriately, flinging their bodies around indiscriminately and leading the youth of the nation into sin and evil? 
      
      In a free country we don't have to agree with, approve of or even like all of the hundreds of different philosophies of those around us.  Just tolerate them and understand that they have the same rights as anyone else to exist and, yes, even espouse a philosophy that most find abhorrent.  And the leader of a free country needs to understand that as well.
      
      "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it."

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "His idea of right?" Are you unsure about the morality of the KKK?

         replyreport
      2. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Jesus.  You can excuse away even this?!

         replyreport
   2. 85

      DzyMsLizzyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps, Marisa, because he is one of them.  Look no further than his near ancestry, and note that his grandfather was involved with Hitler.
      It was very evident from his tone and delivery that his speech in the wake of the Charlottesville incident was no more than an obligatory reading, written by a speech writer, of something he was advised he should say; there was no sincerity in his manner.
      He wants nothing more than to dismantle our democracy and be another Hitler! He has already taken so many illegal actions, they cannot move fast enough to impeach him and his billionaire cronies, and toss them all in prison where they belong, for the rest of their miserable lives!
      
      Make no mistake; he was NOT elected, he was installed!
      #notmypresident

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Did you see the video or images of John Kelly during a later briefing where Trump went off totally off script?
         
         Wincing cringing. Sad to see a 4-star General like that.
         
         Quick.. What is the first word you think of about Trump?
         .
         .
         .
         .
         .
         .
         .
         .
         
         
         Second on the Trump list, after “idiot,” comes “incompetent.” “Unqualified” is fifth; below that, “disaster” and “inexperienced” show up. Each of those accurately describes the president. It would not be redundant to use them adjectivally—“incompetent ignoramus,” for example—since technically there’s a difference between being a dummkopf and being a screwup.
         
         “Liar” comes in third in the poll; the related “dishonest” and “con-man” turn up lower down. To me, this trio suggests moral culpability, as do “racist,” “bigot,” “dictator,” “evil” and “greedy.” The effect that those traits cause in us is captured by another cluster: “disgusting,” “despicable” and “embarrassment.  http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/new-pol … trump/amp/

         replyreport
         1. 85

            DzyMsLizzyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Many other adjectives apply; many of them would not make it past the HP censors!  But I have coined one word I believe fits: "ignoranus!
            It is one thing to be ignorant, stupid, or uneducated; but to be willfully so is beyond the pale!

            replyreport
   3. 93

      jo millerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not at all surprised by his action.  This is who he is.  It was very much in keeping with his rhetoric all during the campaign.   We've had white supremacists in our midst for a long time.  Trump just empowered them and now they feel freer to voice their hateful speech. 
      
      There is still a great racial divide in our country.  Trump exacerbated it.  It is despicable and many of us are embarrassed by our president.  Just as a reminder, most of us did not vote for him.  And this morning I'm watching on tv as thousands congregate in Boston to oppose the white supremacists rally there.  Americans are really rising up to oppose this.  This I can be proud of.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         IslandBitesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Trump:
         Looks like many anti-police agitators in Boston. Police are looking tough and smart! Thank you.
         
         An hour (and 40k protesters) later...
         
         Trump:
         Our great country has been divided for decades. Sometimes you need protest in order to heal, & we will heal, & be stronger than ever before!
         I want to applaud the many protestors in Boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. Our country will soon come together as one!

         replyreport
   4. 88

      crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Man, there seems to be some confusion. The creed of Nazis and white nationalists is that all Jews and all black people and all Latino people and most other non-whites should be extinguished. It should be pretty easy to denounce that view and support any counterprotest. And I forgot gay people. They should be extinguished as well.

      replyreport
2. 87

   Marisa Wrightposted 6 years ago

   I support freedom of speech, but there are some things in this life that are demonstrably wicked and evil.    So you can't just say "there are no lines, everyone has a right to say what they want".   
   
   Racism is evil by definition.   Nazism is evil - we fought a world war to defeat it, how do you think that generation feels to hear you say, "Nazis have a right to speak"?
   
   A line has to be drawn somewhere.   What would you say if it had been a group of paedophiles marching to demand the right to practice their philosophy?  Would you defend their right?

   replyreport
   1. 90

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Marisa, I am sure Wilderness will answer, but I have an answer too. Yes, they too have that right. As awful as they are, and as abhorrent as their premise is, the validity of our Constitution demands that we accept their right to march. Not to practice their philosophy, but to march to advocate it.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Without killing anyone?

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Kathleen, what am I supposed to make of your comment?
            
            I can't view it as a legitimate rhetorical question, because the comment you are responding to is about someone's legal right to assemble. A right held by all Americans. The comment wasn't about a right to violence or killing, so your question isn't really a germane question at all - even in a rhetorical sense.
            
            I can't view it as a serious question because it isn't. There is no reasonable way my comment could be construed to even imply such.
            
            So, what else ya got?
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      No - the pedophiles are advocating illegal actions.  They do not have the right to do so.  Although if all they did was try to get a law changed, that would be defended.  Even as I fought them tooth and toenail not to change the law, they still have the right to try.
      
      I really question, though, whether the rest of the world understands the depth of American freedoms and how strongly they are held.  We Yanks are rather firm about that, and this is a case in point.  Vanishingly few people actually support the skinheads (nazis, white supremacists, racists, whatever you want to call them).  But they have the same rights as anyone else to speak their mind.  There are precious few limitations on that action, although the Missouri lawmaker crossed the line when she advocated assassination of her president. 
      
      Case in point - in another part of my state there was an enclave of those idiots.  They even marched a few times in a nearby city, without incident.  But when they hurt an innocent hiker the entire community found reason to descend on them like a ton of bricks...in the courthouse.  They ended up losing the land their precious enclave was on and everything in it.  The entire state cheered.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Point to ponder. If people are not allowed to speak openly they will speak privately. Isn't it better to allow these unacceptable attitudes to be spoken in the light of day, within ear shot of all, in order to allow discussion and open debate?

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Will Apseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I suppose it depends how you think racism and aggressive nationalism comes into being.
         
         It seems to me that the potential for irrational hatred is always there in any population. You can encourage those hatreds or discourage them.
         
         Trump's nationalism has encouraged hatred of Muslims, Mexicans and pretty anyone who is not an angry white male.
         
         You can tolerate intolerance, but if you do, you can quickly find yourself on the wrong side of the razor wire.

         replyreport
   4. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with my conservative opponents on the right of white supremacists to free speech. But the U.S. President has a moral obligation to take a legal stand against them.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What you just said is the opposite of supporting freedom of speech.
      
      Also reporters ask him to denounce Nazis on a daily basis. Oops it's Thursday, forgot to denounce Nazis. He must be one!!!!

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Trump on Confederate statues and monuments =  beautiful, on the WH itself = a dump
         
         Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.[1]
         
             Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
         
         
         white fragility also comes from a deep sense of entitlement. We are born into a racial hierarchy, and every interaction with media and culture confirms it—our sense that, at a fundamental level, we are superior.
         
         And, the thing is, it feels good. Even though it contradicts our most basic principles and values. So we know it, but we can never admit it.
         
         If people of color went around showing the pain they feel in every moment that they feel it, they could be killed. It is dangerous. They cannot always share their outrage about the injustice of racism. White people can’t tolerate it. And we punish it severely—from job loss, to violence, to murder. - http://www.alternet.org/culture/why-whi … about-race
         
         
         
         Fact-checking President Trump’s claims.
         
         Trump twice asserted that both sides shared blame because unlike the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who obtained a permit to “innocently and very legally protest,” the counter-protesters lacked a permit and were “very, very violent.”
         
         There were two rallies by white nationalists — one on the University of Virginia campus on Friday night, and one at Emancipation Park on Saturday afternoon. No permits were needed to march on the U-Va. campus on Friday night. They had a permit for Emancipation Park, but counter-protestors did not need a permit to gather in the park or on the sidewalks outside, a city official said.
         
         Moreover, the counter-protesters did have permits for rallies on Saturday, at two other parks blocks away from Emancipation Park. Trump got it wrong, no matter how you slice it — WP

         replyreport
      2. 87

         Marisa Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Ah, so you're saying you WOULD support the right of paedophiles to march for their rights, because it's free speech.  Interesting.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Pedophilia is illegal. Thinking you are somehow better than someone isn't. Thank goodness. I think we would all get arrested at one time or another for that one.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               Marisa Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, it's illegal - but those who defend unlimited freedom of speech would say they should be free to protest to change the law, wouldn't they? 
               
               What's illegal is actually practising paedophilia.  Talking about it isn't.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Can Nazis, KKK and white supremacist still practice what they believe legally. Trump denounces them one day then turns 360 the next day. Then says these groups are equal as all races.
                  A true Dr. Jackal and Mr. Hyde

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, of course they would be free to speak out in an attempt to make their activities legal.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Paedophiles would be a very small faction of our population. Yes intensely wrong, yet racism is far greater in scale of a problem. America has the most indense white population country in the world.  I say only go after the white greedy bunch.
                     
                     The middle class and poor are all in the same boat. The greedy whites want us to all fight so they can distract you from them stealing your money and health.
                     
                     Very few listen to this simply logic. Because their minds are controled by the media and entertainment. Who owns the media? Religion is another easy tool.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        LOL. The most indense white? Not sure what you mean by that but  if it means what I think it means you might check out some European countries prior to continuing with that claim.

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Lets do the math.
                           1. USA has the highest population of white people in the world.
                           2. By far USA has the largest prison population in the world. What race per capita are in those Prisons? Let just say whites % per capita wise is the lowest rate of prisoners. Religion - Muslim three time  per capita their America population are in a cage.
                           3 Nuclear weapon.
                           Russian is the second largest white population. Together they have 90% of the nuclear fire power of world.
                           4 . Why is the White house called that. Because vastly white people work there.
                           5. What race are the greedest race in the World. Dah..... white, now have Trump explain how everyone is equal.
                           
                           Don't get me started how most white Christian athorities are stealing and killing champion of the World. I can say all of this because I am white and red inside.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, we have the largest white population in the world. Mostly, because of the way data is gathered.  I think, the last time I filled anything out the choices were black, asian and white. So, given those choices I'd say that would explain some of that.
                              
                              
                              
                              I'd have to see the reasons for incarceration. Unless we want to push the argument that we should just let people off, no matter what the offense, in order to keep percentages where we want them. Sounds racist, when you think about it.
                              
                              
                              
                              I think it would be difficult to argue that it's because they are white. There are a lot of countries which could be labeled white. Why aren't they on the list, if it is just because white people like nukes.
                              
                              
                              
                              Did you notice what color the building was painted?
                              
                              
                              
                              Could you please give me some type of data supporting this claim that whites are greedier than any other race? That might help because, as it stands, this appears to be yet another insanely ridiculous accusation.
                              
                              
                              
                              White and red inside? Don't even get me started on whites pretending to be another race.

                              replyreport
                           2. 90

                              Will Apseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Is it that Americans are especially fond of punishing people. Or are they especially criminally-minded and immoral?
                              
                              
                              
                              In Sweden, they have been obliged to close prisons as inmate numbers decline. Currently 53 per 100,000,  around one thirteenth of the US.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Maybe it is, as Castle pointed out, because we have a White House.  Should we demonize Teddy Roosevelt or just ensure the color white is removed from our paint options? Maybe we could remove the word white from our vocabulary? Or, just do it all since the word white seems to have become such an offensive term. We could go one step further and just get rid of white all the way around although that might prove cumbersome. Since white appears to refer to anyone within a specific color range who does't pretend they are a different color range. How would we do that one? Is it my opinion of who the villains are or someone else's?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 90

                                    Will Apseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    I reckon you are off on your own little thing.
                                    
                                    I was in a mood to tease every American. Although, it is serious point... what is it with locking up so many people?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       Got me. I don't think anyone should be locked up for non violent crimes that don't harm anyone. It's a waste of taxpayer money with little gain achieved. But, since I am an avid conspiracy theorist, I'd guess it has a lot to do with the fact that our legal system has devolved to a welfare system for lawyers. We have to get one, no matter how small the infraction and the more we pay them the less we worry about repaying society. If you don't have the money to pay then you will almost inevitably be convicted (whether innocent or not).

                                       report
                                       1. 75

                                          Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                          Prisons in the last 40 years have grown 10 times. Huge corperation profits are made from prisoners production of cheap labor. Only 13% of a violent crime. The easiest suckers are from who grow plants vs the synthetic greedy world controling us.
                                          
                                          The problem with corperations in Canada is foreigners bussiness want the cheapest labor possible. So their immigration standards are the easiest in the world. Causing wages to drop and creating slave labour again.

                                          report
                                 2. 75

                                    Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    Personally I'm color blind. When Nazis, rednecks, KKK and white supremacist come together to protect  the harm of the white culture, it can only make me laugh.
                                    
                                    If white culture make a white blond and blue eye Jesus rather than brown or black. Lol. They used the bible to surpress or enslaved other races. Lol
                                    
                                    When whites write history or a dictionary when they use words that related to white, it was double positive meaning. Than when useing the words of black it's more often deeply negative ones.
                                    
                                    Why is the white house white?
                                    Race/Ethnic Makeup:. Congress, however, is 87 percent white; 85 percent in the House and 96 percent in the Senate.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       Yeh. You're the poster boy for color blind.

                                       report
                                       1. 75

                                          Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                          See how you think after traveling a 100 countries. Less than half of Americans can not travel to even Canada because they don't have a passport. Imagine all the interior rednecks, KKK and Nazi's on how much they get out.

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                             I've traveled extensively. I will say that evidence supports the fact that it doesn't take staying at home to be unaccepting of others. Some can travel over a 100 countries and still find reasons to make up wild scenarios in support of their prejudice.

                                             report
                                             1. 75

                                                Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                                Growing up  &  living in a very white mid size city. Met my first black person at age 8.  The joke we told were very racist based on our ignorance of their culture and skin color and unfriendly towards them. It"s the same story for these nazis and extreme rednecks and white culture from the interior. Huge lack of education and exposure to their cultures. You can't go by fake news and Trumps BS for any kind of educational guess.

                                                report
               3. 68

                  ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  "Talking about it isn't"
                  
                  Totally unsure about that. How about the lady who observed the passenger next to her on the plane was texting pedo crap and when the plane landed at the tarmac - the guy was arrested.

                  replyreport
      3. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         How?  How?  How can any thinking person defend this behavior?  We've gone off the map here.

         replyreport
3. 90

   Will Apseposted 6 years ago

   The notion that Trump is being presidential in his refusal to condemn neo-nazis, white supremacists and fellow travellers is laughable.
   
   It will be a very long time before the office recovers any luster.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't help when Trump tells a new lie every day, Will. It's disgusting in the extreme to know he's the leader of our country. It's difficult to have pride in someone you cannot trust to tell the truth about the most mundane issues. Of course, some ignorant Americans suck up to his lies as you can tell on this thread.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         Will Apseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Good to see you back, Randy. Hope you are on your best behavior... for a while at least, lol.

         replyreport
4. 70

   aguasilverposted 6 years ago

   Let's get to the base issue, as brilliantly reported by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
   
   A civil war has begun.
   
   This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
   
   http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2017/08/17/th … -rule.html

   replyreport
5. 95

   Glenis Rixposted 6 years ago

   In the UK it is a criminal offence to spread racial hatred, which is what these people are doing.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      But not in the US.  Here it is upheld as free speech.  A very large difference that I really don't think the rest of the world understands.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed, But some Trump supporters don't seem to understand the moral high ground of opposing the white supremacists.

         replyreport
      2. 90

         Will Apseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I think that the rest of the world understands that certain Americans are determined to uphold their right to scapegoat and oppress a significant minority of their fellow citizens.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Isn't that how it works everywhere?  You don't like what they say so scapegoat them and shut them down.  Human nature at its finest, with the US in the lead to protect freedom, including free speech.

            replyreport
      3. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Americans have the right to free speech.  As applies to every other right we enjoy, our freedom stops at the point it infringes on someone else's.  Driving a car into a group on the other side is that point - can we agree on that?

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            It always boggles my mind on how one death with clear intentions can upset a whole country. Then ignore millions of Muslims being killed in the middle east by Americans. Plus 10s of million lives being ruin every year and forced to live in other culture clash, made simply by over greed and racism. People often call me crazy for showing the source of the problem. They rather fight than switch to kindness.
            
            Two world wars going on, racism & greed and Trump has them insanely in Aces.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I can agree that causing physical harm goes past of the bounds of freedom of speech because that isn't really speech. I do wonder if we haven't pushed the limits of 'infringing on someone else's right' to the limit. So many people now are expressing that they are harmed by other's simple use of their right.

            replyreport
   2. 68

      ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There are limits to 'Freedom of Speech' in the USA
      
      1942, USSC ruled that "fighting words" are not protected which defines fighting words as "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.".
      
      USSC has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".  In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the USSC unanimously reversed the conviction of a KKK for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.
      
      I thought about the Westboro Baptist Church protest which was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010) which stated that " a person has a right to privacy from offensive speech while in a public place. .."
      
      Although broad insults are protected forms of speech, certain racist and homophobic slurs are not protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU filed a lawsuit defending protesters’ rights to gather in Charlotteville but ACLU affiliates are warning that there are limits to what they will defend. The ACLU made a statement specifiying that it would not defend groups that wanted to incite violence or march “armed to the teeth,”
      
      Anthony D. Romero said, "The 1st Amendment absolutely does not protect white supremacists seeking to incite or engage in violence. We condemn the views of white supremacists, and fight against them every day. At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the 1st Amendment when expressed non-violently.
      
      The First Amendment was created with a specific, deadly threat to this marketplace in mind: the state using its power to pick and choose ideas. But to create a thriving marketplace, we need to ensure that other methods of suppressing speech don’t destroy it, either. In particular, people and groups using speech to prevent other people’s speech can close the marketplace just as thoroughly. - https://extranewsfeed.com/free-speech-a … 7a1eaf1e78
      
      Being told that without an audience, the marchers would not have had anyone to intimidate - seems wrong to me because ignoring in silence appears to be acceptance.
      
      We do not yet understand why the police were so passive for so long, but their absence vividly illustrates that without the maintenance of legal order, rights of freedom of speech mean little. The First Amendment protects expression, not riots. It protects the right to participate in the formation of public opinions, not the right to commit mayhem. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8 … ate-speech
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "Being told that without an audience, the marchers would not have had anyone to intimidate - seems wrong to me because ignoring in silence appears to be acceptance."
         
         Opinions differ; I would find staying away to absolutely be the most effective way of saying "You have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to".  While arming ones self and getting in the face of protesters, screaming at and threatening them, is absolutely the best way of saying "I'm no better than you are".

         replyreport
6. 96

   Solarasposted 6 years ago

   Free speech in America walks a strange thin line. I can say, "These people should be killed, and eliminated from the human race. "  I cannot say,"Let's go kill these people, they should be eliminated from the human race."  You cannot incite violence, but you can proselytize hatred.
   
   The POTUS has a personal animus against the ANTIFA, much in the same way he resents Obama.  POTUS Obama spent 15 minutes of a speech at the National Correspondents' dinner mocking DJT. As a result, DJT has made it a primary goal of hs administration to remove the Obama legacy at  any cost to the environment or the American public. He is really that selfish, small and self-absorbed.
   
   The Antifa made violent protests on his inauguration day, smashing out windows and paying particular attention to the Starbucks Cafe.  Starbucks is headquartered in the Pacific Northwest, a hotbed of racist activity for decades. The Antifa marred his inauguration; they will not be forgiven.
   
   When watching what he did of the Charlottesville violence, he saw black shirts, many of which were Neonazis and white supremacist groups', but all he saw was the enemy - Antifa.
   
   Donald Trump is a narcissist and sociopath - incapable of empathy.  He cannot translate his sense of exclusion and outrage on its tiny scale to that of a nation's minorities' sense of exclusion and outrage.
   
   And BTW to Wilderness: The Folks at Unite the Right on Friday night, marched through the Lawn on UVA campus, and beat the shit out of students who came out to protest these guys who were unlawfully gathering on THEIR campus.  The police had to move them off. One man almost died from his injuries, and may yet still.  Then they menaced a church holding a service chanting blood and soil and other racial slurs. Parishioners were escorted to their cars by police in small groups.  No one attending the rally on Saturday in support of the Unite the Right movement could honestly believe they were innocently protecting a statue.  All racist cards were played the night before and openly on the table.
   
   That Donald Trump wants to make this a "both sides, both sides issue" is horseshit. There were no "fine people" on both sides.  He is a sick man, so ridiculously self-absorbed in his own overblown sense of self importance, that he cannot let even the tiniest slight go. He must respond in full force to any and every insult, without regard to the office of the presidency or what is ultimately his own self respect or self interest. We cringe in horror daily by the abominations this man brings on our nation. He has no morals, no ethics and no sense of proportion; this is the human id on full display. He is the Lord of the Flies .

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well said, and he is the substance that draws the flies!

      replyreport
7. 68

   ptosisposted 6 years ago

   Most white Americans do not identify as “white supremacists.”
   
   Should white supremacists be left alone?
   
   What people least understand about white supremacy is simply that they — racists, bigots and white supremacists — are but funhouse mirror reflections of the basest instincts that are inherent in us all.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   I think the ouster of Steve Bannon may be a sign of him understanding that he has to distance himself from those who support that element. Trump is very predictable. He wants to have a firm base. I don't think his failure to condemn any specific group is indicative of anything other than him not wanting to alienate potential voters. Not an admirable quality, but not what he is being accused of either.

   replyreport
9. 90

   Will Apseposted 6 years ago

   Worthwhile insight from James Baldwin:
   
   I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.

   replyreport
10. 75

    Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago

    The balance is too far swung in their white favour since Vikings/Britsh/Russian/American Empires Their intent is often not to listen or learn, but to exert their power, to prove me wrong and the greater populaton of 86% of people of colour in the world. To emotionally drain me & them, and to rebalance the status quo. I’m talking to white people with good sense not all these rednecks & hics where 90% of these kind of whites voted for Trump.
    
    Why talk to interior US white who sold out their way of thinking to rednecks whites that believe dinosaurs co exsisted with human. I"m white yet red inside because all are part of the  human race.  I only talk if I have absolutely have to recknecks hillbillies and nics.  What I’m saying and feel less alone, then I’ll participate. But I’m no longer dealing with people who don’t want to hear it, wish to ridicule it and, frankly, don’t deserve it.”
    
    US and whites are number one in Wars, Nukes, imprisonment, angles, ghosts, holly ghosts, pollution, Banks, fossil energy if that dose not coincide with mostly of all greedy unbalanced in the world. Then call me delustional yet look first who is pointing the one finger in this protest. I"m sure three fingers of colour in our world population will be pointing back at yourself.

    replyreport
11. 68

    ptosisposted 6 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       THE TRUE FACE OF THE Donald Trump The Mirror
       
       Kind of a combo of dunce and KKK Hat
       
       Sorry Trump, I'm Canadian.

       replyreport
12. 68

    ptosisposted 6 years ago

    February 1, 2017 The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.
    
    The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
    
    
    It’s entirely possible that when Congress comes back in session in just two weeks, there won’t be a single hearing scheduled to address the causes of white supremacy and domestic terrorism.
    
    That would be a profound moral failure.
    
    Days after the terrorist attack in Charlottesville, I said that as leaders, we should feel a sense of responsibility to do much more than simply tweet outrage, especially in light of President Trump's appalling comments on this tragedy. No legislator should be allowed to condemn white supremacist violence on one day and simply turn a blind eye on the next.
    
    Can you sign our petition to my Republican colleagues demanding Senate hearings on white supremacist terrorism next month?
    
    The federal government has a responsibility to address the rise of white supremacist violence and ensure that all our citizens are safe from domestic terrorism.
    
    With your help, we'll ensure this isn't another forgotten tragedy in American history.
    
    Thanks for all you do.
    
    Kamala Harris
    U.S. Senator, California
    
    GOTO:
    http://go.kamalaharris.org/page/m/35b6d … 4032/VEsE/
    
    
    
    
    The Washington Times - June 24, 2015 In the 14 years since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, nearly twice as many people have been killed in the United States by white supremacists and anti-government radicals than by Muslim jihadis
    
    AlterNet July 24, 2013  Most of the terrorist activity in the U.S. in recent years has come not from Muslims, but from radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.
    
    The Intercept May 31 2017 “Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far-right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).” That’s a margin of almost three to one.

    replyreport
    1. 96

       wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       A little confused at the "terrorist attack in Charlottesville".  Are you referring to the actions of a single mad man, apparently acting without any connection or approval from any acknowledge group, as a "terrorist attack"?  While I understand it is becoming increasingly popular to label any violent encounter as "terrorism", this seems even more inappropriate.

       replyreport
       1. 68

          ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I'm glad you picked upon that. The definition of a 'terrorist' in question. Can define having a 'lone wolf' terrorist  - such as Theodore John Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, an American mathematician, anarchist and domestic terrorist.
          
          
          The original use of terrorism is by the gov't has now been morphed into any criminal activity. 911 should have been a criminal investigation act, and wouldn't have to go to war with two countries at the same time.
          
          "The Illinois legislature is considering a measure by state Sen. Don Harmon, a Democrat, that calls on the government to “pursue the criminal elements of these domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner and with the same fervor used to protect the United States from other manifestations of terrorism.” Harmon insists that the measure takes a “stand in total opposition to the hatred, bigotry and violence displayed by these groups.”
          
          Yet, the racist protesters in Virginia had a permit to march and Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas denounced the violence on both sides. That raises the question of whether the presence of a “criminal element” on either side is enough (when combined with extreme views) to meet a new evolving definition of terrorism. 
          
          For years, some of us have been warning about a dangerous tide sweeping over Europe as Western countries in the criminalization of speech deemed offensive or insulting while banning whole groups deemed hateful. The West is losing faith, and patience, with free speech." - http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/c … terrorists

          replyreport
          1. 96

             wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

             Terrorism: "the attack on innocent populations in an effort to frighten their country into subjection with the aims and goals of the terrorists"
             
             That's my definition of terrorism, or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof.  It is not about a single person (not to be confused with an individual "soldier" that is one of an army of "soldiers") attacking a group of people actively engaged in fighting the war of ideologies, such as was seen in that attack.  Even if it had been planned or encouraged by the governing structure of the supremacists, it was still carried out on a group of people engaged in fighting the war, if only via demonstrations.  Terrorism is about attacks on groups of people that have nothing to do with any war at all, outside of living in a country the terrorists have decided they wish to fight.
             
             Not sure I would classify the unabomber as a terrorist, or any other "lone wolf terrorist".  I'd have to think about that, but first thought is "No".
             
             But all that's just me and my personal definition.  Others will disagree, and it has become politically viable, if not really true, to declare that nearly any violence is terrorism.  Helps the sensationalism, don't you know?

             replyreport
             1. 90

                GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Now that is the kind of conversational participation I enjoy, regardless of the topic - when someone is honest enough to say; " I'd have to think about that, but first thought is "No"."
                
                GA

                replyreport
                1. 96

                   wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                   

                   replyreport
13. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    The white supremacists/nazis of Hitler's time were all for socialism, as Hitler was. Are the neo-white supremacist/nazis of today for socialism? If so, maybe its the left that supports and promotes them. !
    https://www.mises.org/library/why-nazis … talitarian

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
       
       China
       Denmark
       Finland
       Netherlands
       Canada
       Sweden
       Norway
       Ireland
       New Zealand
       Belgeim
       Do they seem Hitler like countries. Even China has not had a major war since 1979.
       Hitler was a Catholic member and died a Catholic even the Pope called Hitler an atheist. Wrong again, Hitler aim was to stamp out Atheist too.
       
       Hitlers dream of a super race of tall, blond and blue eyes like Trump would rule the world. Plus, Jesus was any race but blond, tall @ blue eyes. Best chance Adam and Eve were black.

       replyreport
    2. 88

       crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       Fascism and communism are surprisingly similar, yet they're at opposite ends of the political spectrum. When the left and the right go too far in the opposite direction, they come to the same political place.

       replyreport
       1. 68

          ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          good post, instead of thinking in 2d with a line and two extremes - it's a ring. Or even better yet a globe, because left/right up/down strange/charm - it's a descriptor.
          
          
          
          Still the above graphic doesn't help me to understand why Antifa hates Patriot Prayer. Trying to understand why Antifa people think Patriot Prayer people are fascists.
          
          It seems their actions contradict  their own values but that's OK because it's righteous violence.
          
          " they believe the actions of their opposition warrants violence, that there is no time for logical discussion with a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot." - http://www.inquisitr.com/opinion/403756 … rst-enemy/
          
          https://antifainternational.tumblr.com/

          replyreport
14. 75

    Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago

    Alt-Right
    
    The “alt-right” is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Many news organizations do not use the term, preferring terms like “white nationalism” and “far right.”
    
    The movement’s self-professed goal is the creation of a white state and the destruction of “leftism,” which it calls “an ideology of death.” Richard B. Spencer, a leader in the movement, has described the movement as “identity politics for white people.”
    
    It is also anti-immigrant, anti-feminist and opposed to homosexuality and gay and transgender rights. It is highly decentralized but has a wide online presence, where its ideology is spread via racist or sexist memes with a satirical edge.
    
    It believes that higher education is “only appropriate for a cognitive elite” and that most citizens should be educated in trade schools or apprenticeships.
    
    Alt-Left
    
    Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”
    
    Personally I think it is immature to fight left vs right or front vs back & so on.
    
    A tree dose not fight with it's branches.

    replyreport
15. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    You misunderstand. The Silent Majority and how they vote is what matters. The Silent Majority is pro-goodness in all its forms:
    The right to life for fetuses.
    The right to do business in a free-market society where regulations are not over burdensome and restrictive.
    The right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness and justice for all people and creatures ... except for loathsome monsters, of course.
    The right to nationalism.
    The right to individualism.
    Freedom from oppression of any form whether of the mighty globalists, or teensy, petty minority factions who attempt/expect to change the way people live and believe, for THEIR benefit alone.

    replyreport
16. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    I believe Trump understands this and is why his speeches are oh so "good" (geared toward goodness) these days. He knows what appeals to the Silent Majority. Of course, he could be laughing all the way to the bank.

    replyreport
17. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    Meanwhile, what is to become of this nation. We will want to fight to keep it... and it won't be easy. Especially, if we're all against each other for petty stupid reasons.
    
    If only we the people and the politicians we elect could focus exclusively on The Constitution and uphold the principles it sets forth.
    
    An independent nation will guarantee independent people.
    
    If we are not careful, we could become slaves for globalists who plan to control all people and nations of the world with their wealth and power.
    
    It's a horrible world we are in now.

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       Are white people evil? Maybe, it is the white Zionist own most of the media, banks and oil.
       
       The white Zionist media control the minds of most people. US is 65% white, senate is 96% are white, 87% top politicans are white. Every race has their top period in human history. 
       
       When 86% of the world is non white so the numbers will tell the story and the writing on the wall. It"s time for whites to loose the long run of over dominatation of empires. In a generation we white will be reduce to 9% of the worlds population. America/Isreal is like Custers last stand.

       replyreport
       1. 68

          ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic. That sounds so wrong on so many levels. As if 'under attack'. Race war, genocide ... projection.

          replyreport
          1. 75

             Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

             I am not going to tell you if I am funning or serious, I got my own skin to protect. We are gathering both a civil war and world war. Yes, it is wrong on every level. Why do you think I have moved to South America.

             replyreport
18. 78

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    Its Heaven vs Babylon. All we have to do is choose our course wisely.
    
    If we choose heaven, we don't go around pinpointing the negative. The people who have lost their minds and their integrity are an embarrassment to themselves and everyone else. They will have to figure out why they are being ignored and kept at a distance.
    
    shunned.
    avoid, evade, eschew, steer clear of, shy away from, fight shy of, keep one's distance from, give a wide berth to, have nothing to do with; snub, give someone the cold shoulder, cold-shoulder, ignore, look right through; reject, rebuff, spurn, ostracize; give someone the brush-off, freeze out, give someone the bum's rush, give someone the brush off.

    replyreport