The Liberal Lie of Charlottesville

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (153 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 8 months ago

    Watch what a CNN Reporter has to say about the facts of what happened in Charlottesville.

    Did President Trump call neo-Nazis “very fine people” during a famous press conference following the Charlottesville riots of August 2017? The major media reported that he did. But what if their reporting is wrong? Worse, what if their reporting is wrong and they know it’s wrong? A straight exploration of the facts should reveal the truth. That’s what CNN political analyst Steve Cortes does in this critically important video.

    https://www.prageru.com/video/the-charlottesville-lie/

    1. profile image0
      RTalloniposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Their reporting is wrong and they do know they are reporting it wrong on purpose. That is why more and more people are dismissing nearly everything they say and waiting to form opinions until they get more reliable information. People are tired of being whipped up by the news media only to find they have been abused by them. They do not want to have to make the decision to admit to themselves and others they were duped.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Correction: Steve Cortes is not a CNN Reporter; he is a right-wing political commentator for CNN.

    3. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
      JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      This kind of nonsensical topic is the kind that will get Hubpages in trouble with social media giants: I don't know what readmike now is trying to get at, but it's a fact that Bozo Trump said there are very fine people on both sides and he also said "Both Sides Are To Blame": REALLY ???? When the allied forces and nazis clashed in battles were both sides to BLAME ????

      This nationalist nonsense is just ridiculous, trying to convince people that what happened didn't really happen: This topic is ridiculous and thank GOD the Social Media GIANTS are banning this type of uselessness:

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Are you saying you don't believe your own eyes and ears Jake, or that you didn't watch either video?

        GA

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
          JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          GA: I'm saying that Bozo the Racist said there were very fine people on both sides when referring to nazi white nationalists and those who protested against them, and he said both sides were to blame and if you deny it you are simply denying REALITY:

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Point of privilege! Point of privilege!#

            Jake 's use of capitals makes me feel uncomfortable. He should stop.

      2. profile image75
        Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        "This nationalist nonsense is just ridiculous, trying to convince people that what happened didn't really happen: This topic is ridiculous and thank GOD the Social Media GIANTS are banning this type of uselessness:"

        So you'd be okay with the "Social Media GIANTS" banning globalist nonsense also Jake?  It sounds like that's what you're saying........

    4. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The main contention in the video you link to is: "The media reported that President Trump described Neo Nazis as 'very fine people'".

      The term "the media" is used throughout the video. We learn that the presenter is referring to the news media, but we never learn if that means the mainstream media only, or alternative media and social media too. And if mainstream news media only, all of mainstream news media, or some? We get some clarification towards the end of the video:

      "Plainly put ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the others, spread a malicious lie that has poisoned our national dialogue".

      So six specific news outlets are named. Unfortunately the presenter also includes the nebulous term "the others". Presumably this refers to other news outlets, but the presenter does not make clear which ones.

      Mike, please tell us which news outlets the presenter is referring to when he says "the others". Based on your high level of confidence that the video is accurate, I assume you know. If you don't, then how do you know the main assertion is fully accurate if you don;t know who it's referring to?

      Of those news outlets that are named, as far as I can see (feel free to correct me if I missed something) not one peice of evidence is provided in the video to support the claim that they did in fact report that Trump called Neo Nazis 'very fine people'. To be clear, I'm not asserting they did or didn't. I'm simply asserting that no evidence is provided in the video to support the claim they did.

      There are no news clips, no quotes from articles with citations. Nothing at all showing those outlets reported in the way the presenter claims they did. Instead, the presenter just states it as fact. We as viewers are left to find corroborating evidence ourselves, or simply assume that what the presenter is saying is true. Again, to be clear, I am not saying those news outlets did or did not report what the presenter claims, I am saying no evidence is provided in the video to support the claim they did.

      Again Mike, I assume you have sought out that evidence yourself, and have found clear examples of the named news outlets reporting what the presenter claims they did. I'd like to see that evidence please. Links will suffice. If you have not seen such evidence, then exactly how do you know that "Steve Cortes is 100 percent correct" other than simply by assuming he is?

      1. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        This is really sad. 6 outlets were specifically named but you need to quibble over the term 'others'? Other than argument for argument's sake, is there a point?

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Other than argument for argument's sake, is there a point?

          Yes, six outlets were named, and I look forward to seeing the evidence that all six did in fact report in exactly the way described in the video, allowing that part of the claim at least to be verified or refuted.

          Without knowing what outlets "the others" refers to though, the claim cannot be wholly verified or refuted. Mike said the presenter in the video is "100 percent" correct. So I'd like to know how he determined that without knowing what "the others" refers to, assuming of course that he does not. He may indeed know, in which case, he has the opportunity to share that knowledge with the rest of us.

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I think we all saw the news during that time. We all remember what the pundits were saying, what the commentators were saying, what was being said on social media.

            All, literally,  would be difficult (if not impossible) to prove. But you knew that. This challenge you've laid down equates to a cheap shot.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Mike started a thread called "The Liberal Lie of Charlottesville" and linked to a video he claims is an exploration of "facts", which is "100 percent correct". The video accuses specific news outlets and "others" of falsely reporting that Trump said Neo Nazis are "very fine people". It criticizes those outlets for false reporting and goes as far as to characterize their reporting as a "lie".

              Given the nature of the criticism, and given that no evidence is provided in the video, I think it perfectly reasonable to expect the author of the thread to explain how he determined the main claim in the video is "100 percent correct", and to share the evidence that led him to that conclusion.

              Vague memories of "what pundits said" etc are not facts. I'm interested in evidence that ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, all reported on Trump's comments in exactly the way Mike and the video presenter claims.

              I'd also like Mike to explain which outlets the video presenter means by "the others", and if he does not know, to explain how he is able to reasonably say the presenter is not just correct, but 100% correct.

              Again, I am not suggesting those outlets did or did not report what the presenter claims, I am merely asking for evidence that they did. Given the accusation being made, the fact that no evidence has been forthcoming is ironic.

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                But you do understand how silly that is? It's kind of like challenging the 'nobody doesn't like Sarah Lee' jingle. You are demanding things be literal when the intent of the statement is obvious, and it is also obvious 100% cannot be verified, one way or the other. I'm sure the Kitten news network didn't cover the press conference. That fact does not make his claim patently false, or true, for that matter.

                Anyone who would challenge the fact that most of the networks the average person sees covered that in the way he is stating was false and misleading.

                What you appear to be doing is attempting to create a rabbit hole in order to hide a serious discussion on the problem.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  I have no idea what "others" means and neither do you, so how do you know if claims relating to those others (whatever they are) are true? Sure we can guess what it means, but that's just speculation. Speculation is not fact.

                  But the main claim is that ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post all specifically reported "that President Trump described Neo Nazis as 'very fine people'". Okay. Show me where they did that.

                  It's not a trick question. Start with one if you like. Show me where ABC reported that "Trump described Neo Nazis as 'very fine people'", or pick one of those outlets at random. A quote, a clip, I don't mind.

                  Either way, I think it's silly to believe most people will be able to accurately remember the exact wording used by all six news outlets for a story back in 2017. And I think it's unreasonable to accuse six news outlets of falsely reporting in a specific way two years after the fact, without providing any evidence whatsoever of what they actually reported at the time.

                  Again I make no claims about what they did or did not report, I am simply saying that a belief without evidence is merely an assumption. Assumptions are not facts. So far I have only seen people assuming the claim in this video to be true.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    If you want to nit pick a simple term used universally in instances where everyone involved understands it is not meant to be taken literally,  be my guest. roll

                  2. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    'I have no idea what "others" means'

                    "I think it perfectly reasonable to expect the author of the thread to explain how he determined the main claim in the video is "100 percent correct",

                    Here is the thing Don, I'm NOT your teacher.  If you don't understand something, or don't have enough information on something it's up to YOU to figure it out.

                    I think its reasonable for you to realize I don't have to justify things to you.  If you don't agree, don't understand or don't have what it takes to comprehend something, it's not my problem.

                    You can feel confident I won't ask such things of you.  I will do what is necessary to reach my own understanding of a topic.  i don't ask people to justify what they post.  I can do my own research.

                    Again, if you have something that proves this wrong, please share it.  IF you have something.

              2. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Don, nationalists around here start many FAKE discussions like this one based on non-existent or deceptive info, that's WHY I asked you WHY you participate in such nonsense:

                BTW, I watched the idiot's presser or whatever you call it LIVE and he clearly stated in his retarded sounding voice that there were very fine people on both sides and that's irrefutable: Anderson Cooper asked the question not too long ago and it went something like this and I paraphrase:"How many fine people do you know who would march with white nationalist nazis?"

                Nationalists around are just upset that Joe Biden who is SMASHING Bozo Trump by about 10 points and Beto is SMASHING him by about 11 point in Texas by the way, are simply reminding Americans about the abominably racist and anti-American things this elderly guy spews almost daily: They have no legitimate defense for his actions so they try like hell to convince any poor soul who'll listen, that Bozo either never said it or meant to say something else: RIDICULOUS:

          2. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
            JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Don, WHY on Earth are you even entertaining a discussion which in and of itself is based on a FALSEHOOD: Bozo Trump did indeed say very fine people on both sides end of story: ONLY a few gullible Trump cultees would ever believe otherwise: Donald is desperate, he's collapsing in every way possible so resorting to lies and deception on social media which is common place for him and practically begging for help from Vladimir Putin's agents to change votes in his favor is the ONLY thing he has left, the ONLY thing he ever had, the ONLY thing he has to cling to, but it's not working and BACKFIRING on him BigTIME:

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Are you just incapable of understanding simple statements? Did you watch the video pp provided?

              Obviously, not.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I'm going with "incapable of understanding simple statements"

              2. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                lol, I'm not your little cult leader Bozo Trump, so yes, certainly I'm more than capable of performing basic tasks and if you're trying to persuade me into not believing my own eyes and ears you're talking to the wrong person:

              3. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Here Live to Learn, Bozo the IllegitPrez even ADMITS he said "Very fine people on BOTH sides" and then he sticks his FAT Foot even further into his big fat racist mouth by saying whether you like it or not, General Lee who was actually a racist traitor to the USA, was a great general: What part of this don't nationalists around here understand?:

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  HERE: His Admission of GUILT:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gna0HaiZcHA

      2. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Don,

        Please don't ask me to do your research for you.  I will have to charge you my regular rate which comes with a 2 hour minimum.

        If you don't agree with it, do the research and prove it is wrong.  If not, then maybe YOU just can't prove it to be untrue.

        Links would be sufficient.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          "If you don't agree with it, do the research and prove it is wrong.  If not, then maybe YOU just can't prove it to be untrue."

          You are making a positive assertion. Therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. I am making no assertion. Therefore I literally have nothing to prove.

          You also said the video was "[a] straight exploration of the facts". Yet the presenter does not provide any evidence to support his claim about what those outlets reported, and neither have you. Without such evidence, the video is an exploration of an unsupported statement, not "facts", and your endorsement is simply a repeat of that unsupported statement.

          Again (third time) I am not saying those outlets did or did not report what the presenter claims. I am merely asking what evidence you have to support it. If you have none, then how do you know the presenter's claim is "100 percent correct"?

          Likewise, which news outlets does the presenter mean when he says "the others"? If you don't know, then you can't reasonably claim to know what "the others" did or did not report. In that case, again, how do you know the presenter is "100 percent" correct?

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I will accept the fact you can find no news outlet who challenges the Prager Video.  It has millions of views.  So, if you can produce evidence of any news outlet challenging the authenticity of the video, I'll believe it may not be accurate.  If you can't, I will believe new outlets accept it as true...as well as any news outlets who believes they could be considered to be "others." 

            As an attorney told me once "To say nothing is to be in agreement with a statement."

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              "I will accept the fact you can find no news outlet who challenges the Prager Video

              It's not possible to prove a news report doesn't exist. But it is possible to prove one does. You started the thread, provided the link to the video, and said the video is "100 percent correct". So the burden of proof sits with you. I haven't made any claims at all. I am simply asking for evidence that supports the claim made in the video and endorsed by you.

              "It has millions of views."

              That's an appeal to popularity, which is a logical fallacy. Just because something is popular that doesn't mean it's true.

              This should be easy to resolve Mike. Are there news reports from ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, that specifically say that President Trump described Neo Nazis as 'very fine people'" or aren't there? If there are, then the claim in the video is supported. If not, then the claim in the video is unsupported, and therefore can't reasonably be considered factual. So what's the difficulty here?

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Don, the "Difficulty" is that we have Donald Trump on video saying that some nazi nationalists are "very fine people" and Joe Biden who is STOMPING on Trump in the POLLS which is no surprise to anyone, hitting Donny Boy over the head with his own words, driving him deeper and DEEPER into the ABYSS: So, now, with no defense, Donny's last remaining nationalists pals are trying to HIDE, Coneal and or Distort what he actually said and that's pathetic:

              2. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Nobody has challenged it as untrue.  That speaks volumes.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  That's not a reliable method of determining if something is true Mike.

                  A reliable method, in this case, would be to provide evidence that ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, did in fact say that Trump described Neo Nazis as 'very fine people'".

                  Again, I am not claiming they did or didn't, but the absence of such basic verification, and the reluctance to provide it on your part, speaks volumes about your understanding of what constitutes factual information. A statement does not become fact just because you say it is. Facts are established through the sharing of verifiable evidence. The responsibility for that sits with the person making the claim. In this case, you.

                  Again, I'm not sure why you're finding it so difficult to provide evidence that a video you say is "100 percent correct", actually is.

    5. tsadjatko profile image62
      tsadjatkoposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Mike, did you see this prager u video?

      https://www.prageru.com/video/the-media … e-comments

    6. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      We now know the claim made in the video is false (see comments here and here).

      But what about Trump's comments about "very fine people"? Are they accurate? I've looked at the PragerU video, the Charlottesville rally coverage, and Trump's comments and now I'd like to make some assertions. Unlike the presenter of the video and the poster of this thread though, I'd like to present evidence to support those assertions. This is a sorry tale, but interesting, if only to see how some people can spin anything in defense Trump.

      First, a timeline of events:

      August 11 2017 - Protesters with Tiki Torches march through the University of Virginia.

      August 12 2017 -Main "Unite the Right" rally takes place. There are violent clashes between protestors and counter protestors. A neo-Nazi terrorist kills Heather Heyer.

      August 12 2017 - Trump makes his first statements on the rally. He does not explicitly condemn neo-Nazis or  White Supremacists in those comments. Instead he talks about violence "on many sides".

      Trump's failure to condemn neo Nazis and other racist groups causes a huge backlash, not only from left-leaning news outlets, but also from within his own party.

      "Mr. President - we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism." (Senator Cory Gardner, Aug 12 2017)
      https://twitter.com/sencorygardner/stat … 7844385792

      "Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists". (Senator Marco Rubio, Aug 12 2017)
      https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/8 … 0857532416

      "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. -OGH". (Senator Orrin Hatch, Aug 12 2017)
      https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/statu … 3083842560

      "White supremacists aren't patriots, they're traitors- Americans must unite against hatred & bigotry #Charlottesville" (Senator John McCain, August 12 2017)
      https://twitter.com/senjohnmccain/statu … 5114766337

      August 14 2017  -  Following the backlash, Trump makes another statement, where he finally condemns racism, neo-Nazis and white Supremacists.

      August 15 - Trump makes his "very fine people" comments at a Q&A with press.

      This timeline is important, and it's notable that the PragerU video leaves out significant parts of it. The video gives the impression that Trump's first comments on the incident were on August 15. They were not. The video also gives the impression that the controversy over Trump's response to the incident started on August 15. It did not. 

      My first assertion is that Trump's suggestion at the August 15 press conference that there were significant numbers of "very fine" people at the rally, peacefully protesting the removal of the statue is ludicrous and false.

      The rally was organised and explicitly promoted as a white supremacist, neo-Nazi rally. Here are some of the flyers used to promote it. The listed speakers are all White Supremacists and neo-Nazis.
      https://hubstatic.com/14637110.jpg

      It was organized by White Supremacists and neo-Nazis. Note the anti-semitic messaging.
      https://hubstatic.com/14637108.png

      Note the so-called "Great Replacement" messaging.
      https://hubstatic.com/14637109.png

      So there was no confusion here about who these people were and what their message was. 

      So who exactly was Trump referring to on August 15 when he said there were people quietly protesting the removal of a statue? We need look no further than his own statements (again this was conveniently left out of the PragerU video) .

      Trump says:

      "They were there to protest - excuse me- if you take a look, the night before they were their to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert. E. Lee."
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwIU7iU … &t=949

      He also says: "No, no, There were people in that rally - and I looked the night before - if you look, there were people protesting very quietly, the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee".
      https://youtu.be/QwIU7iUfhow?t=1191

      So Trump is saying that on the night before (Friday August 11), the tiki torch march was a quiet, innocent protest against the removal of a statue.

      In contrast to this the PragerU video suggests Trump condemned the people at the tiki torch march. Here is the graphic is used to reinforce this:

      https://hubstatic.com/14637112.png

      That's a lie, he did not condemn protesters at the tiki torch march as the clips from his press conference above show.

      We know it's this group Trump was talking about though because he specifically referred to the people from "the night before", and we know he thinks these people were innocently and quietly protesting because he said so. We also know that he thinks the protestors the next day include "very bad people" on both sides, because he said that too.

      So Trump's distinction is: protestors on the march the night before were good, peacefully and innocently protesting the removal of a statue. Protestors at the rally the next day (where protesters and counter protesters clashed) had bad people on both sides.   

      Here are the people Trump said were quietly and innocently protesting the night before the rally:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1s … e&t=24

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1s … e&t=34
      (blood and soil is a Nazi slogan).

      So Trump's distinction between good people protesting on the Friday and bad people protesting on the Saturday is false.

      It's clear that the majority of people at the rally, including the protestors the night before, were neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. Moreover, "the night before" is the only example Trump gives where he thinks there were "very fine people".

      So this video pretends Trump eagerly and openly condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and the media lied about it and reported he did not. That's untrue. Trump did not initially condemn neo-Nazis or White Supremacists. He only did after a huge backlash which included members of his own party.

      Trump did make a distinction between "bad" people on the Saturday and the "good" people from "the night before". But evidence shows that those "good" people from the night before were mostly neo-Nazis chanting anti-semitic and Nazi slogans.

      So the news outlets named in the video did not claim Trump called neo-Nazis fine people. They reported his comments accurately. But it turns out that when Trump referred to people from "the night before" as fine people he was, in fact, referring to a group which consisted of neo-Nazis and White Supremacists.

      Again, a slick presentation cannot change facts. Assuming a statement is true just because Trump said it, is an unreliable way to verify something.

      I'd be more than willing to look at any counter evidence. But I have asked the author of this thread for evidence that the claims in the video are true. He refused to offer any. I asked someone who believes Trump's comments about fine people to provide evidence they are true. As yet, no evidence has been forthcoming.

  2. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 8 months ago

    Here is the actual video of Trump making his remarks after Charlottesville.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs

    1. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for that link PrettyPanther. You saved me a search.

      Did you compare it to the PragerU video to verify or debunk its claims?

      GA

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, I watched both videos. Trump did condemn violence from all sides; that is true. He also equated the protestors on the left with the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, as though they were equally violent and as though their ideologies are equally abhorrent. This is what I and others find objectionable.

        The violence in Charlottesville was instigated and perpetrated by the Nazis and white supremacists. For the record, I do not condone violence from Antifa, but I cannot agree that their mission, which is to fight fascism, is equally as abhorrent as that of white supremacist and neo-Nazis.

        The PragerU video was itself biased, as it visually depicted the "Antifa thugs" as masked, dressed all in black and waving their arms, with a banner that read "THIS IS WAR." The neo-Nazis were visually depicted in normal street clothes, holding torches with no arm waving and a banner that read "WHITE PRIDE RALLY."

        So, while I agree that Trump did condemn the white supremacist and neo-Nazis, I don't agree with his attempt to paint both sides as having equally bad elements within them.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          I am surprised we are more in agreement than I expected PrettyPanther.

          I do have a couple of things that I think matter.

          First, I agree the White Supremacists and NeoNazis message is much worse than that of Antifa. But as for the violence part, (speaking of Charlottesville), I don't think there is much difference.

          I was looking for any Antifa image that might match the one in the PragerU video, (I do agree it was a biased presentation, but that does not make it untrue), and although I didn't find one, I did find plenty that illustrated the Antifa protesters were just as violent, (including using big sticks and clubs, and aerosol can flame shooters), as the NeoNazis.

          That's a small point, but it is part of the picture. Here of some of those images: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1417& … w&ved=

          I didn't find anything conclusive about which side "instigated and perpetrated" the violence, so I will just leave that to your opinion.

          As mentioned, I do agree the PragerU video was presented with a slanted presentation, but I did find its facts relative to "The Charlottesville Lie" to be accurate; Pres. Trump, more than once, made it clear he was speaking about the earlier protest groups--for and against the removal of the statue--were the groups his "fine people . . . " comment was addressing, and more than once that he was not referencing the NeoNazis, White Supremacists, or Antifa groups. He did condemn them.

          The video was also accurate that "The Charlottesville Lie" was a purposeful misrepresentation presented by the media.

          I am sure you remember as well as I how the MSM headlines and opinion pieces painted Pres. Trump as including those groups in his "fine people . . . " remark.

          GA

          1. profile image75
            Hxprofposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            "Pres. Trump, more than once, made it clear he was speaking about the earlier protest groups--for and against the removal of the statue--were the groups his "fine people . . . "

            This is what I remember hearing about after a couple of days of listening to what turned out to be the false narrative.

            Hearing anything from only one or two sources these days is just not wise.

        2. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Antifa are no better than Real Nazis. They are two sides of the same coin. Just as intolerant, just as violent.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Intolerant of who?

            Have they killed anyone?

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Antifa declared as a "leftwing" group has how many fatilities associated with it? It is the height of stupidity to compare that with right wing oriented violence, case in point, El Paso.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I agree. That's why I would like to know who he thinks Antifa is intolerant of? And who they have killed? Because unless they have murdered someone they cannot possibly be described as equally violent as neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

            2. profile image0
              Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              I find it interesting that you won't find a single conservative on this sight that would defend Nazis to the least extent, yet here we find a slew of liberals who continue to defend a terrorist faction like Antifa.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I am not defending Antifa. I am specifically questioning your statement;  "Antifa are no better than Real Nazis. They are two sides of the same coin. Just as intolerant, just as violent."

                In response, I asked you: Who are they intolerant of? You have not answered. I also asked you: Who have they killed? You did not answer that question, either.

                My questions are not a defense of Antifa. They are a followup to your statements that Antifa is "Just as intolerant, just as violent."

                And, in a previous post in this thread I specifically stated I do not condone violence by Antifa.

                So, again, I ask you:

                Who is Antifa intolerant of? Who have they killed?

                1. profile image0
                  Onusonusposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  You're not defending Antifa, but aren't condemning them either. The fact that it has to be explained to you is enough for you to absolve them of wrong doing. I said it before, they attack anybody who disagrees with them. Just label anybody you don't like a Nazi and it's okay to punch them. And no, they haven't killed anybody, yet. They're new, give it time.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "And no, they haven't killed anybody, yet. They're new, give it time."


                    So, until they start killing people, our current observations regarding Right oriented vs Left oriented violence are the correct ones....

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "The fact that it has to be explained to you..."

                    Well, it doesn't have to be explained to me, but you made a claim without backing it up and I asked for evidence. Pretty straightforward, don't you think?

                    You said Antifa is "just as intolerant, just as violent" as Nazis. That's a pretty high bar and you haven't even come close to demonstrating they are equivalent.

                    The best you can do is say maybe some day they will kill someone. It would have to be over six million someones to be as violent as Nazis which is why your statement is so ridiculous.

                    "Antifa are no better than Real Nazis. They are two sides of the same coin. Just as intolerant, just as violent."

                    https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4089860

              2. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Who exactly on here is defending Antifa?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  No one, but then, you have to consider the source of the claim...

                2. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Do you vehemently denounce them?

                  1. promisem profile image96
                    promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    That's not an answer to my question.

                    But I vehemently denounce anyone who kills other people for any reason except on high moral grounds. If anti-fascist Antifa members have randomly killed people, then sure, I denounce them.

                    Have they done so? Have they committed multiple mass murders against members of fascist groups like the KKK and NRA?

                    Like the white supremacists are doing to blacks, Jews and Hispanics?

    2. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      I think this video proves what the CNN political commentator was saying.  It validates his claim on the video.  It proves that Steve Cortes is 100 percent correct.  Thank you for sharing that link.

      1. tsadjatko profile image62
        tsadjatkoposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Listen to GA - “verify or debunk? “

        GA, you had a forum topic about Biden’s video starting his campaign where I demonstrated conclusively to you Biden used what is this media lie to start his campaign yet you still think it may not be a lie and Prager U could be  deceitful? Really?

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          You came to that conclusion merely because I offered a choice to someone I expect to have a contrary view?

          I can only hope that you have better results in other aspects of your life where you make such quick-draw assumptions tsadjatko.

          GA

          1. tsadjatko profile image62
            tsadjatkoposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I came to no conclusion, merely made the obvious observation that you, knowing the truth, suggested that the truth could be a lie and debunked. One would think that since you knew the truth you also would know the truth cannot be debunked.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              One would think that wouldn't one tsadjatko?

              Never seen that thought disputed on these forums before have you tsadjatko.

              GA

      2. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I didn't watch the video you posted. I watched the one PP posted. As far as I could hear, he condemned far right groups in that one. He said there were many people, on both sides, who weren't part of the far left or right individuals bent on violence. Good people who came to protest, not hurt others.

        I have no idea why the left screams as if he didn't condemn all violence in that clip.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          To me, it is obvious this is one small incident of the left using fake news and dishonest reporting to attack President Donald Trump.  There are many other incidents.  I suggest you watch the Prager University video.   Steve Cortes does an excellent job.

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            The thing that confused me is a person on the left who has condemned Trump posted a video I see as absolving him of guilt for the things they claim.

            It isn't the news media only. It's also the individuals who ignore facts to prop up their opinions.

  3. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 8 months ago

    This puts things in perspective.


    https://hubstatic.com/14632341.jpg

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Another brilliant meme, Mike. Just as true as your posts as well.  tongue

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Another brilliant response Randy.  Lacking in substance as your posts as well.

  4. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 8 months ago

    Antifa violence. Not hard to find. Complete intolerance of anything or anyone who disagrees with them. If they don't like you, you're a Nazi.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-xTzd23h2Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL09WX1y3D0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S33HVduI474

  5. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 7 months ago

    "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis or the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally,” -Trump

    Pretty cut and dry.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
      JAKE Earthshineposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      STILL wondering WHY Hubpages allows individuals to propagate discussions like this one which is obviously based on a Falsehood:

      WoW: That's all the nationalists got? FYI: Everyone knows saying neo-nazis and or white nationlaists "SHOULD" be condemned is NOT a condemnation of them: If the 73 year old nationalist in our oval office even said it:

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)