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.
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.
Correction: Steve Cortes is not a CNN Reporter; he is a right-wing political commentator for CNN.
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:
Are you saying you don't believe your own eyes and ears Jake, or that you didn't watch either video?
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:
"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........
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you speaking for "everyone" again, LTL? I'm accustomed to Mike's false claims and you do not speak for me....or others I suspect. Make excuses for him, but don't go overboard.
'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.
"I'm NOT your teacher"
I agree. What you are is someone who is claiming that six news outlets, all deliberately and falsely reported that the president described Neo Nazis as "very fine people".
It is reason that dictates you provide evidence your claim is true, not me. And reason is the minimum standard we should all be able to expect from each other.
If I endorsed a video that said Trump deliberately lied about something, you would (rightly) want evidence that proves it. At the very least, the statement where Trump is supposed to have lied. You wouldn't accept it as true just because I said it was. That would be foolish.
Well you endorsed a video that claims six news outlets deliberately lied about something Trump said. Why should I, or anyone else, accept that when you can't even produce even a single clip or quote from any of them that demonstrates that lie?
If that is your definition of a fact Mike, then I have lots of "facts" to share with you. And by your own standard you must accept them as "100 percent correct" just because I say they are. So fair warning, are you certain this is the standard of truth you want to apply?
Trump never said neo-nazis were "very fine people"....he condemned them...and then said that there were some regular folks on both sides that were not part of the extreme groups there protesting as well and those were the "very fine people" he was talking about.
I saw that speech live...and what the OP video states was correct...Trump was talking about the average folks on both sides, who were not part of the extreme groups, as being the very fine people.
That's what the video says too. It says "ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post" specifically said that Trump described Neo Nazis as 'very fine people'"
I'm not saying they did or didn't, I'm simply asking for quotes or clips that show those news outlets saying what has been claimed. The video does not provide a single one. Mike has refused to. If those outlets lied, fine. Show me where. I'm not sure what the difficulty is.
Still waiting on a clear example that shows ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, and The Washington Post saying specifically saying that Trump described Neo Nazis as 'very fine people'".
No one has cited a single quote, or clip that demonstrates those news outlets actually did that. Where is the evidence that these news outlets did what they are being accused of?
And if you want...you can follow the links listed in this article...to see more..
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-an … ttesville/
Thanks for the links.
Of those links you provided, Esquire, The Atlantic and CNN, are not mentioned in the video, which specifically names six news outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post. The video also refers to "others", but gives no indication of which outlets that refers to.
I am judging the veracity of the claims made in the video against the outlets explicitly named, as those are the outlets I know for certain the presenter is referring to. Of the links provided, two are explicitly named in the video:
The NYT article is from Aug. 15, 2017, which means it is part of the original coverage of Trump's comments, so that checks out.
In that article the only reference to "very fine people" is here:
"'I’ve condemned neo-Nazis,' Mr. Trump told reporters, who interrupted him repeatedly when he seemed to equate the actions of protesters on each side. [Trump] spoke of 'very fine people on both sides.' And of the demonstrators who rallied on Friday night, some chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans, he said, 'You had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/p … lists.html
So straight away we can see the article clearly quotes Trump saying he condemned neo-Nazis. It also quoted him saying there were "very fine people on both sides", which were his exact words.
In addition, the article quotes Trump saying the protesters from "Friday night" were there to "innocently protest and very legally protest". Again, he did say those exact words. Even when it says those protesters Trump referred to were "chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans" it qualifies that with "some". It is a fact that those protester were chanting those things. Here is a video of them chanting "jews will not replace us":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KYifYz … &t=355
The article also said in the opening paragraph that Trump's comments "buoyed the white nationalist movement". That's true. David Duke is quoted thanking Trump for his comments. Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi who coined the term "alt-right", was also quoted in the article saying "Trump’s statement was fair and down to earth".
In addition to that, embedded at the top of the page (it's the first thing you see when the page loads) is a video of Trump's press conference which clearly shows him saying "not all of those people where white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue . . . " etc. So even if you construed the article in a particular way, the video provides Trump's exact words for viewers and readers to form their own view.
Also in the PragerU video, it says: "lest you have any doubts that good people were in Charlottesville to protest the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, the New York Times confirmed it in a story they published the next day, August 16 . . . "
This is the only evidence provided in the video that "good people" were at the Unite the Right rally, and it's from the NYT. The same news outlet the video is saying lied about Trump's comments on Charlottesville. So apparently we can trust the NYT, but only when it agrees with what the presenter is saying.
Nothing in this article is factually incorrect. If you see something that is, please point it out to me. Nor does the article like about anything Trump said. It even provides the video of him talking directly to the press for people to interpret however they wish. That contradicts the claim the NYT was deliberately reporting false information about Trump's comments.
This article is from Aug 15, 2017 and was part of the original news coverage. The reference to "very fine people" is here:
"Asked about his immediate response Saturday, Trump quickly blamed both sides for the conflict, adding that there were 'very fine people' among both the protesters — which included white supremacists and white nationalists — and the counter protesters . . . I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides," Trump said today".
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-l … d=49235032
Did the protesters include white supremacists and white nationalists? Yes. Did the article fail to say Trump condemned neo-Nazis? No. It said this:
"Trump made a second statement on Monday from the White House, in which he condemned hate groups, including the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis."
So the article specifically states that Trump condemned the KKK and neo-Nazis.
The article also mentions Trump referring to the people from the night before the violence (Friday). These were the protestors with the Tiki torches. Again, here are those protestors chanting "blood and soil", which is not so much a neo-Nazi slogan as a straight up Nazi slogan.
But nowhere in the article does it refer to these protesters as neo-Nazis (which in fact they were). It simply says they were ". . . carrying lit tiki torches on a march through the University of Virginia campus".
Does the article state that Trump made a distinction between neo-Nazis and other protestors? Yes: "He went on to question why the statue of Civil War Gen. Robert E. Lee was being removed, which prompted the protest. 'You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name,' he said."
That's not spreading a lie. In fact my only criticism is that the outlet did not describe the tiki torch marchers as neo-Nazis, when evidence indicates they were.
But in additional to that, ABC also published the full unedited video of Trump's Q&A session with the press (16 minutes long) on its website.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcr … d=49254485
And in addition to that, it posted the full transcript of Trump's comments right beneath it. All this directly contradicts the claim that ABC was deliberately falsely reporting on Trump's comments.
Thanks for posting these links. I haven't checked the links on the other site yet. Perhaps I will later, but the two above articles do not say anything that is not factually incorrect. If you think otherwise, please point out exactly where. Both articles clearly show Trump condemned neo-Nazis (or at least paid lip-service to doing so) and both show that Trump was making a distinction between the neo-Nazis and other protesters (which was actually a false distinction but these articles did not argue that). And both articles provide videos of Trump's comments so viewers/ readers can make their own mind up about what he said. One even included a transcript of the full 16 minute Q&A session.
If ABC and the NYT were trying to perpetrate a lie, then someone should tell them they are really doing a bad job.
If these represent examples that supposedly prove the claims in the video, I'm starting to see why getting examples from others in the thread was so difficult. At least you had the willingness to provide what you believe is evidence though.
If you have anything from CBS, NBC, NPR, or The Washington Post I'd be happy to review those against the claims in the video too.
Continuing on with the list of news outlets accused by the video of deliberately falsely reporting Trump's comments.
NPR was named as one of those outlets. Here's a transcript from a broadcast by NPR on August 15, 2017. So it is part of the original news coverage of Trump's comments. The host says:
". . . he ultimately did criticize those neo-Nazis and Klansmen and white supremacists, but he said that description didn't fit everyone who was taking part in these demonstrations".
The show then plays a clip of Trump saying "Not all of those people were neo-Nazis. Believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch."
The host continues: "He went on to say that some of the demonstrators were there to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee. And he seemed to express sympathy for that feeling"
So NPR very clearly quoted Trump's distinction between neo-Nazis and other protesters who he believed were not neo-Nazis.
This contradicts the claim that NPR deliberately falsely reported that Trump called neo-Nazis "very fine people".
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/54374054 … e-violence
CBS wass another outlet accused. This clip and article are from August 15, 2017. The clip shows the full 16 minute Q&A session Trump had with the press, including him condemning neo-Nazis. Beneath the clip is a news article which also says:
"The president said he feared the movement to remove controversial statutes was going too far, asking if people would support the removal of statues depicting former presidents George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. The Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally was originally set up to protest the removal of a statute of Confederate general Robert E. Lee from a public park.
Those people, all of those people, excuse me, I've condemned neo-Nazis, I've condemned many different groups," Mr. Trump said. "But not all those people were Neo-nazis, believe me. Not all those people were white supremacists. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue Robert E. Lee".
Again, this clearly shows that CBS reported that Trump made a distinction between neo-Nazis and other protesters. It quotes Trump's his comments accurately in the article, and even shows his full, unedited comments in a video.
So again publicly available information does not support the claim that CBS deliberately falsely reported Trump's comments about "very fine people".
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-on-c … oth-sides/
"Bickering with reporters, some of whom he called "fake news," Trump defended the protest that led to the violence and contended that some of the individuals carrying torches at the white nationalist rally did not have bad intentions.
From NBC on August 15 2017:
"Bickering with reporters, some of whom he called “fake news,” Trump defended the protest that led to the violence and contended that some of the individuals carrying torches at the white nationalist rally did not have bad intentions. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly," Trump said at Trump Tower in New York.
Trump repeatedly stressed that the rally started over the potential removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. Asking the rhetorical question of whether Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, he asked, "Are we going to take down Thomas Jefferson's statue?""
Again, this article does not support the accusation that NBC deliberately and falsely said that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people. It clearly states that Trump made a distinction between people with "bad intentions" and other protestors.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/trump-n … cists.html
The Washington Post
This article was published on August 15, 2017. It says:
"Trump emphasized repeatedly that he believed many of the “Unite the Right” rally participants were not members of hate groups and were there to protest the pending removal by the city of a statue of the Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. . . You had people in that group who were protesting the taking down of what to them is a very, very important statue"
Again the Washington post is clearly reporting that Trump distinguished between neo-Nazis and other protesters. Again, that contradicts the claim that the Washington Post deliberately falsely reported Trump's comments about "very fine people".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … edirect=on
So every news outlet named in the video and accused of deliberately lying about Trump's comments, accurately reported that Trump distinguished between neo-Nazis and other groups of protesters. In many cases those outlets quoted Trump directly or simply broadcast him speaking.
Did some parts of the media (including social media and independent/ alternative media) focus a on Trump's "very fine people" comment in a way that made it seem like he was referring to neo-Nazis? Yes, I think that would fair to say. But that's not what the video claims. The video claims these six outlets deliberately and falsely stated that Trump said neo-Nazis are "very fine people". They did not.
The Charlottesville "lie", as described in this video, is itself a lie. Therefore Mike's "100 percent correct" endorsement of the video (if we're being charitable) is simply false.
This is why evidence is important. Something is not true, just because someone says it is. No matter how slick their presentation is.
If it was not reported by the media, I wonder where the common perception that Trump called neo-nazis "very fine people" came from? Is it possible that it arose from tens of thousands of left wing liars repeating it hundreds of thousands of times on social media? Was it the Democratic politicians performing the well known "spin dance of the politician"?
One has to wonder as well just who is trying to divide the country - I saw a report that said the Russians were, and have been for some time, making posts that are pretty clearly intended to divide.
What?!!? You think the Russians are trying to influence and divide us? Not possible. Our president asked Putin himself and he denied it and our president believes him. And our esteemed Senate Majority Leader insists that any legislation to protect our elections from foreign meddling is "partisan." Surely, you are mistaken.
I detect sarcasm. Are you being sarcastic?
As we well know, only liberals, moderates, our allies, Democrats, independents, CIA, FBI, NSA, blacks, RINOs, Hispanics, the Deep State and anyone who isn't a Christian are trying to divide us.
When did we go from "trying to divide us" to "affect our election"? Was that a mistake or did you change the subject intentionally?
Thank back - what did Trump ask Putin, and what was it in reference to? (As if it means anything at all as both Russian and American politicians will lie at the drop of a hat when they think there is something to be gained.)
"If it was not reported by the media, I wonder where the common perception that Trump called neo-nazis "very fine people" came from? Is it possible that it arose from tens of thousands of left wing liars repeating it hundreds of thousands of times on social media?"
Or, is it possible that thousands of right-wing liars falsely repeated hundreds of thousands of times in right-wing websites and social media that the biased liberal media is lying about what Trump said?
And you believed the right wing liars. Somehow I doubt that.
Hope not. But I doubt that any of them claimed that Trump called the supremacists "very fine people". Do you think?
No, but they repeatedly claimed the media was lying about what Trump said. Maybe you need to re-read what I said.
If it was not reported by the media, I wonder where the common perception that Trump called neo-nazis "very fine people" came from? Is it possible that it arose from tens of thousands of left wing liars repeating it hundreds of thousands of times on social media?
Asking what different outlets reported ignores the most important question: was Trump's statement that there were fine people on both sides accurate in the first place? The outlets above did not say Trump called neo-Nazis fine people, but would they have been wrong if they had?
Who exactly was Trump referring to when he made the distinction between neo Nazis and a group of people innocently and quietly protesting the removal of a statue? What evidence is there, other than Trump's own words, that this distinction is valid? Do you have any, or are you simply assuming Trump's statement is true because he said it?
I thought the topic was proving what the media said, not what Trump said. We have all seen and heard the exact words, after all, and the only way to spin those words into declaring neo Nazis as "very fine people" is to completely ignore the surrounding context. Reminds me of the kidnapper cutting words out of a magazine and pasting them on the ransom letter to make them say and mean something totally different than the original, contextual, message.
So again - if the media didn't do the spin, who did? Trump's followers? The handful of supremacists? The millions of people spewing hate filled rants about Trump? The Russians? Who do you think spread the lie?
"We have all seen and heard the exact words, after all, and the only way to spin those words into declaring neo Nazis as "very fine people" is to completely ignore the surrounding context."
The outlets named in the video didn't say Trump called neo-Nazis fine people, but if they had it would be a lie only if Trump's comments about "fine people" were accurate. So that is crucial. Again, do you have evidence, other than Trump's own words, that the distinction he made between neo-Nazis and people quietly protesting the removal of a statue, is a valid one? If not, then how are you in a position to determine if someone's response to those comments is accurate or just "spin"?
You've seen/heard that comment about Trump. I've seen/heard it. We've all seen/heard it. And we've seen/heard Trumps comments. The "interpretation" of his comments was nothing but spin and lie - an attempt to get us to believe what was not true. It was taken far out of context in order to give that impression, with the end result that it was an intentional effort to spread misinformation.
My comment was not that mainstream media made it - the question was who you think spread it if not the media. And I offered several possibilities, without claiming that ANY of them did it. So...without making any claims, but considering the very wide dissemination of the comment, who DO you think spread it?
"The "interpretation" of his comments was nothing but spin and lie"
Trump said some protestors at the Unite the Right rally were not neo-Nazis or White Supremacists, but just there protesting quietly and innocently about the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Fine. Exactly which people, according to Trump, were just there protesting quietly about the removal of a statue? And if you don;t know, then how do you know it's true?
You may have to justify it, and you need to provide evidence to support your assertions outside of your just saying so or quoting dubious journalistic sources.
If you can't prove or support what you say, that is on you.
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:
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:
Are you just incapable of understanding simple statements? Did you watch the video pp provided?
I'm going with "incapable of understanding simple statements"
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:
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?:
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.
"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?
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."
"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?
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:
Nobody has challenged it as untrue. That speaks volumes.
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.
Mike, did you see this prager u video?
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-media … e-comments
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.
It was organized by White Supremacists and neo-Nazis. Note the anti-semitic messaging.
Note the so-called "Great Replacement" messaging.
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) .
"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".
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:
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.
Here is the actual video of Trump making his remarks after Charlottesville.
Thanks for that link PrettyPanther. You saved me a search.
Did you compare it to the PragerU video to verify or debunk its claims?
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.
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.
"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.
Antifa are no better than Real Nazis. They are two sides of the same coin. Just as intolerant, just as violent.
Intolerant of who?
Have they killed anyone?
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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....
"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
They violently attack people who disagree with them. The fact that you don't know this is willful ignorance.
Do you denounce white supremacists who are committing mass murder against blacks, Jews and Hispanics?
And what white supremacist group is currently doing this?
I see I didn't get a yes or no answer to my question. Do you have one?
And does a white supremacist have to belong to a group to be a white supremacist?
Who are you talking about that is currently committing "mass murder against blacks, Jews, and Hispanics"?
Still no answer to my question.
I am talking about white supremacists. Who else intentionally targets and massacres blacks, Jews, Hispanics and other minorities?
- Massacre in El Paso targeting Mexicans
- Bomber in Vegas targeting synagogues
- Burning of black churches in Louisiana
- Mass murder of blacks at a Charleston church
- Mass murder of Jews at a Pittsburg synagogue
- Mass murder at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin
- Mass shooting and murder at a San Diego synagogue
- Charlottesville race riot and murder
- Obama and Pelosi bomber who just got sent to prison
The same type of people that target children in school, party goers at a concert, etc.?
One does not need to be a white supremacists to murder people. Not even if the victims are black, Jew, Hispanic or other minority.
It's really easy to apply a label to those that intentionally target minorities, but it does not make the label true and does not mean that they sympathize or are a part of the white supremacist group.
It's becoming more clear than some of the far right embrace these mass murders, even if they didn't pull the triggers.
The same people are fine with felons and mentally ill people buying assault rifles. Let the dead pile up as long as they aren't their kind of people.
Some people do, though I haven't heard from a single conservative that does. Maybe you're pulling the same stunt others are - defining such people as "right" when you actually don't have a clue where their political loyalties lie?
On the other hand it DOES seem that the liberal method is to take guns (any and all that they can) from honest citizens without making any real effort to take them only from felons. Nor have they provided any realistic method of keeping them away from the mentally ill, just crying that we have to do so. It does seem that the liberal philosophy is "Let the dead pile up as long as they don't have bullet holes in them", for they make zero effort to actually address the real problem, pretending instead that if they can just disarm the population all murders will stop.
(Did you know that far more people are killed with knives than all long rifles combined? That shotguns kill more people than the rest of the long gun category, including the subset of "assault rifles"? Did you know that more people are killed with hands and feet than all long guns, including that same subset? You did? Then why aren't you screaming for a solution to the violence rather than pretending that if you can just empty the country of assault rifles it will all magically stop?)
Donald Trump said:
"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=RIrcB1s … e&t=24
"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[/i]".
Here are the people protesting the night before. Are they just people quietly protesting against the removal of a statue, or are they neo-Nazis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1s … e&t=24
It's a simple question.
More of the neo-nazis Trump referred to as "very fine people" (note the MAGA hat one is wearing):
And here they are chanting "Blood and Soil"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KYifYz … &t=469
In case you're not sure where the slogan "blood and soil" (German: Blut und Boden) comes from:
So someone, anyone, please tell me where the "very fine people" are that Trump said he saw marching "the night before"?
And the simple answer has been beat to death in these forums. You wish to continue claiming Trump called them "good people" you go right ahead. The rest of us know better.
We all know what Trump said, but is what he said true?
Were there "very fine people" marching the night before the rally? All available evidence I have found (like this) indicates the people marching the night before were neo-Nazis.
So where is the evidence supporting Trump's comment? A clip, a quote, a story, anything that proves Trump's mythical "very fine people" marching the night before the rally exist, wilderness. I'm willing to look at anything at all.
And if you have no such evidence, how do you know what Trump said is true, other than the fact Trump said it? Is Trump's word now your standard for truth?
Yes, I get it. No one that disagrees with your political stance could possibly be a "very fine person". I just disagree, that's all, as does anyone that actually considers the question.
It is undeniable, IMO, that there were some "very fine people" wanting the statue down, just as there were that wanted it to remain. Differing philosophies and opinions from my own does not, IMO, make someone evil.
Anyone who listened to that press conference can clearly see the 'fine people' he was referring to were participants from both sides who were peacefully demonstrating. His remark, in no way, condoned violence from the extreme factions on either side, who had come prepared for conflict.
The problem is the left refuses to call out any violence on the left but attempts to demonize any violence from the extreme alt right. While the right condemns it all.
Your inability to be fair and unbiased is being showcased by your continued remarks.
That's strange, because in the video I have seen 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=RIrcB1s … e&t=24
Reporter: "Sorry I just didn't understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated White Nationalists unfairly? I just didn't understand what you were saying."
Trump: "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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwIU7iU … amp;t=1191
But you can see with your own eyes the people who were protesting the night before:
And you can hear with your own ears that they were chanting "Jews will not replace us", among other things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1s … e&t=24
They were very clearly neo-Nazis.
So I ask again, where are the people Trump said were "protesting very quietly" the removal of the statue the night before? Do you have any evidence that these people actually exist? And if you think these are different to the people Trump described as "very fine people", then where is the evidence for those people?
If you have none, then why do you, wilderness and Mike insist Trump's comments are true, when your own eyes and ears tell you they are not? Do you now consider Trump's words more reliable than what your own eyes and ears tell you?
Why the heinous association with the infamous Third Reich, the picture says it all, the Nazi Salute. Why would honorable people allow themselves to be associated with that? Is there anything on the left that is even close to being as reprehensible?
Jews will not replace us? What is that supposed to mean, outside of being a tenet of Nazi philosophy? That somehow the Jews are responsible for all of the world's ills and America's problems? How could grown men even consider such a thing? We all knew who the Nazis were.
Yet everybody would have me believe that it is a mere aberration, innocuous and a component of "free speech". I believe in free speech, but I will hold you accountable for what you say. I think that the display as photographed is quite brazen in its message.
I believe that the people that you are debating are well aware of this, but must deflect as it reflects negatively on their time honored values. Otherwise, why go through the trouble of dancing around what is obvious to all of us?
A question all these "fine people" should ask themselves is: "If I showed up to peacefully demonstrate for any reason, and a group of neo-Nazis showed up to demonstrate beside me, carrying torches and shouting hateful phrases, would I continue to walk beside them?"
I think for "fine people" the answer is clear and easy: No, I would not demonstrate alongside neo-Nazis.
Yes, whatever the disagreement, does input from those advocating a Nazi style attitude and philosophy really just another voice among others?
Are these men holocaust deniers? Do they realize that they are wrapping themselves in the blood stained banner, responsible for unparalleled murder and mayhem? Do they realize how they dishonor all the victims? None of that matters as anything more than "talking points" in the conversation?
Whatever position I took on the topic of whether statues of old heroes of the Confederacy should stay or go, I would not want to make my point in the association with Nazis.
It's even worse, the rally was organized as a Nazi and White Supremacist rally from the very beginning. Here are the flyers used to promote it. Note the antisemitism in the first one.
Note the use of the "Great Replacement" myth in the second. This is exactly the language used by the White Nationalist terrorists in El Paso and Christchurch.
Note the names of the speakers. Each of them is a neo-Nazi or white nationalist.
So we know the people who organized the rally were not "fine people". They were neo-Nazis. We know the people marching the night before the rally were not "fine people". They were neo-Nazis too. So where were all the "fine people" Trump talked about on the protesters side? I honestly can't find evidence of them anywhere.
You have done an admirable job of showing that this protest was, from the beginning, a neo-Nazi protest. Any "fine people" that marched along beside them could not possibly be unaware that they were marching beside neo-Nazis. Would a "fine person" demonstrate alongside neo-Nazis? I don't think so.
I can't wait to hear the excuses for Don's post about the flyers. This ought to be very entertaining. Pretzel anyone?
Don, the point being that there may have been "fine people" who were not Nazis and White supremists that actually had a valid argument for keeping Confederate Memorabilia in place. (I can't think of any, though)
I thought that they were inappropriate as mementos, but you could disagree with that without subscribing to beastly philosophies.
I don't think anyone would argue there weren't people there with despicable views.
I would ask you, as you insisted Mike respond, you'll need to prove your contention that no one there could be identified as 'very nice' or fine, or whatever the quote was.
We'd also have to determine what constituted 'some'.
I'll be honest, I didn't see much footage of the rally. So, I'm not going to make a blanket accusation. I think some was a reasonable assumption.
People have the right to peacefully protest. Anyone in that crowd who peacefully protested is probably nice. I don't know about fine, but at least nice enough not to participate in the violence.
But what do you really think about the flyers, LTL? Do they sound like they'd attract "nice people"?
I'll have to give you a smidgen of credit for even trying to defend Don's post, though.
"I would ask you, as you insisted Mike respond, you'll need to prove your contention that no one there could be identified as 'very nice' or fine, or whatever the quote was".
I haven't made that contention. Here is what I have contended:
1. All the evidence I have seen indicates the rally was organized by and for neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists; 2. All the evidence I have seen indicates the people Trump said were marching "quietly" the night before the rally, were neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists; 3. Trump's claim that counter protesters did not have a permit is untrue. I have provided evidence for each of these contentions.
And this is what I have been asking:
1. Do you have evidence that a different group of protestors were "innocently" and "quietly" protesting the removal of the statue the night before, and on the day of the rally (Trump's "fine people")? I'll take your comment ("I'll be honest, I didn't see much footage of the rally") as a no. That raises the second question:
2. How do you know Trump's claims about people at the rally are true? And is it reasonable to suggest that an event covered so extensively by the media didn't pick up any sign of the people Trump referred to? And is it reasonable to assume that anyone who was not a neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or right-wing extremist would walk alongside men who are giving Hitler salutes and shouting "Jews will not replace us"?
Or is it more reasonable to conclude that an event organized by neo-Nazis, which featured speakers who were neo-Nazis, promoted by flyers showing neo-Nazi imagery, only attracted neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists? And that subsequently, Trump's comments were simply wrong?
Again, we know what Trump said, but based on the available evidence, what do your own eyes and your brain tell you is true?
Have you found any evidence? If not, I thought it might help to look at some of the flags and symbols which are not nazi swastikas. Perhaps these are the fine people Trump was talking about.
Let's start with the one on the far-right of this picture (no pun intended)
This is the "black sun flag"
This symbol was used by the Nazis. Here it is on the floor of Wewelsburg castle, which was repurposed by Himmler, and became known as the "SS School":
Here's another example of its use by Trump's fine people at the rally (emblazoned on makeshift shields no less):
And here is one of the listed speakers of the rally, Matt Heimbach (circled) who has combined it with a Confederate flag (Creative!)
Incidentally Heimbach was charged with domestic violence in 2018. So clearly a fine person indeed.
https://www.thejc.com/news/us-news/prom … s-1.460800
Next this flag:
It's the National Socialist Movement (United States) flag. For anyone not aware, Nazi is short for the National Socialist German Workers' Party
In case there's any doubt though, this flag was redesigned in 2016. It used to look like this:
Here's another example of it's use at the rally (note the large banner on the left which also has the flag on it):
Anyone wearing a waving one of these flags is likely not a fine person either.
Another flag to look out for:
The is the flag of Identity Europa.
This is the White Supremacist group that originated the slogan "you will not replace us". This slogan was chanted at the tiki torch march the night before the main rally along with the slogan "Jews will not replace us". Here's another example of it used at Charlottesville:
Identity Europa was founded by Nathan Damigo. He served five years for armed robbery after stealing $43 from a cab driver at gunpoint for "looking Iraqi".
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 … ringleader
Here he is circled below quietly and innocently protesting at another rally in Berkeley.
And here he is at the same rally quietly and innocently punching a woman in the face.
And here is the video of the same incident.
How about this flag? Surely this is just a fine person quietly and innocently displaying their national flag:
This was the flag of Rhodesia 1965–1979 when it was ruled by a white minority.
In case it's unclear what this means, here is Dylann roof (currently serving a life sentence for killing 9 black people in a Charleston church) displaying the same flag, next to an apartheid era South African flag. So this flag is used as a way of displaying supposed white supremacy
So sadly no luck. Again, if you or Mike, or anyone, has some evidence there were actual fine people on the protestors side at Charlottesville, please share it. Until then, the quest for these mythical fine people continues.
That's a lot of photos. Only a few from the rally (if they were from the event) and only a handful of people seen. If you are going to judge everyone by a small sampling (cherry picked by you) I can understand where your bias comes from.
Prove everyone in Charlottesville not wearing black masks is represented by that sampling. Or, we'll just assume you can't back it up with facts.
Again, do you have evidence that a different group of protestors were "innocently" and "quietly" protesting the removal of the statue the night before, and on the day of the rally?
If not how do you know Trump's claims about people at the rally are true? Is it reasonable to suggest an event covered so extensively didn't pick up any sign of the people Trump referred to? And is it reasonable to assume that anyone who was not a neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or right-wing extremist would walk alongside men who are giving Hitler salutes and shouting "Jews will not replace us"?
Or is it more reasonable to suggest that an event organized by neo-Nazis, which featured speakers who were neo-Nazis, promoted by fliers showing neo-Nazi imagery, only attracted neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists? And that subsequently, Trump's comments were simply wrong?
Why are you relying on what Trump said instead of the evidence you can see with your own eyes? Here is the list of all the evidence you and Mike have provided so far demonstrates Trump's claims about "fine people" were true:
You can't have it both ways Don. You asked for proof from sometime else, by a claim made. I'm asking you to do what you demanded another do. Can't do it? Won't do it.
Don't go on and on asking something that you, yourself, are incapable of doing.
Don already provided proof that the demonstration was organized by neo Nazis and white supremacists, featured neo-Nazis and white supremacist as speakers, and was advertised to be a rally for white supremacsts and neo-Nazis. He also provided photos that clearly showed white supremacists and Nao-Nazis at the rally.
If you believe Trump's claims that fine people who were not neo-Nazis or white supremacist were also there to protest innocently and quietly, then the onus is on you to substantiate that belief.
Your are wrong. Don posted pictures of a limited number of individuals. Not all individuals. Don provided no proof that all participants who wanted the statue to remain were part of the despicable ones. Don provided no proof that all participants could equally be excluded from the definition 'some fine' or nice or whatever the quote was.
These are Don 's rules. He made them, attempted to enforce them. Are we not to expect him to abide by them?
So, you automatically believe what Trump says?
Don stated he does not automatically believe Trump so he did some searching and was unable to confirm that anyone other than neo-Nazis and white supremacists were at the rally.
Apparently, that doesn't matter to you, as you are willing to accept Trump's statement as true despite being unable or unwilling to prove it.
Don provided no proof.
Again. These are Don's rules. Were it anyone else we'd probably be in agreement.
But Don is such the stickler. I'd hate to see his rules not abided by, just for his personal convenience.
So, you do automatically believe what Trump says?
Don never said there were no people other than neo-Nazis and white supremacist at the rally; he said he could find no evidence of it.
Do you have evidence of it, or are you automatically willing to accept Trump's statement as true?
[Don, if I in any way misrepresent your statements, I trust you will set me straight.]
PP, rest assured I would. You have outlined my position perfectly.
And I reiterate the call for evidence that Trump's comments about fine people are true.
I'm not quite certain why you are repeating the same question. It has been asked and answered.
I have not made the claims you are suggesting. Again, here is what I have contended:
1. Evidence I have seen indicates the rally was organized by and for neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists;
2. Evidence I have seen indicates the people Trump said were marching "quietly" the night before the rally, were neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists;
3. Trump's claim that counter protesters did not have a permit is untrue. They did;
4. Evidence indicates the Swastika was not the only indication of Nazism and White Supremacy at the rally. Some protesters displaying other flags and symbols were also, in fact, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists.
I have presented the evidence I have seen for each assertion.
So again, do you have evidence that a different group of protestors were "innocently" and "quietly" protesting the removal of the statue the night before and on the day of the rally? And if not, then how do you know Trump's comments about "fine people" are true?
And again, is it reasonable to suggest that an event covered so extensively didn't pick up any sign of the people Trump referred to? And is it reasonable to assume that anyone who was not a neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or right-wing extremist would walk alongside people giving Hitler salutes and shouting "Jews will not replace us" etc?
Or is it more reasonable to conclude that an event organized by neo-Nazis, which featured speakers who were neo-Nazis, promoted by fliers showing neo-Nazi imagery, only attracted neo-Nazis, White Supremacists and right-wing extremists? And that subsequently, Trump's comments were simply wrong?
Trump told them not believe what they see with their own eyes. Apparently they took him seriously.
I have seen the video. The one pp posted. He very clearly made the distinction between peaceful and not peaceful. He very clearly made the distinction that there were groups there, from both far ends and that those far end groups came for conflict.
The 'very fine people ' was clearly said to identify peaceful protesters on both sides.
Bias, thy name is Don. You can certainly turn it all around in your head to suit your preferred narrative but the audio was not muddled on that video.
We've all heard what Donald Trump said. The question is, are Trump's comments true? Almost every statement I look into indicates they are not. Another example:
He said ". . . you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because you know, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit".
So he is claiming the counter-protestors did not have a permit. Here is the permit:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170816140 … -the-right
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … r-protest/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … -a-permit/
So were Trump's comments about counter protestors not having a permit true? What do your own eyes and brain tell you?
Likewise, when he said there were "very fine people" on both sides, is that true? All evidence I can find indicates the rally was organized by neo-Nazis, for neo-Nazis, and the people marching the night before and on the day were neo-Nazis, white nationalists or right-wing fanatics.
All I'm asking is if you have evidence of a different group of protestors who were "innocently" and "quietly" protesting the removal of the statue? If so, share it here. If there is none, firstly that strikes me as strange because the event was so well covered. Surely there must be something. I find none. But secondly, if you do not have evidence, then on what grounds do you believe Trump's statements about fine people to be true? Do you believe it just because he said it, even though your own eyes and ears tell you different?
Well of course I condemn those people. See how easy that is?
Can you tell me what constitutes disagreement with Antifa's philosophy? In other words, who or what are they intolerant of?
I am aware that Antifa has engaged in violence. But you said they are "just as intolerant, just as violent" as Real Nazis. You still haven't demonstrated that. I wonder why?
The real question is do they engage in violence exclusively against actual Neo-Nazis who belong to white supremacist organizations. Maybe sometimes, mostly it's conservatives.
Right because the narrative is that they fight against fascists when really they fight against anyone who disagrees with them. Making themselves fascists as well. And just like any bully, they won't engage with people who will fight back, violent people don't go after other violent people. They go after regular people.
The capacity for rationalization and creating false equivalents is limitless in some people.
I view it as an accurate assessment of what you're attempting to do in this thread.
Why? Because I proved that you haven't actually condemned Antifa as the violent terrorist organisation that it is?
Is it that you have too much in common with them? They don't like racists, you don't like racists, they don't like free speech, Capitalism, the US Constitution, etc...
Like I said, this discussion is pointless. Now you're making $h!t up.
No one, but then, you have to consider the source of the claim...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis or the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally,” -Trump
Pretty cut and dry.
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:
by medfordg 3 years ago
The fallacy in getting 'fair and balanced reporting' is inherent within how the news organizations prosper and grow. They are in the business of making money, they sell an audience to their advertisers. it is ever so hard to attract the public's attention. Look where the traffic is! It is in social...
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
Will CNN and other news outlets ban Kelly Anne Conway from appearing on their shows?Kelly Anne Conway is now famous for her "Alternate Facts" about Trump's inauguration crowd size, Bowling Green Kentucky massacre, and Fredrick Douglass. I have to give her credit for being a master of spin...
by PrettyPanther 17 months ago
David Lapan@DaveLapanDC"Over 30+ years as a U.S. Marine, I defended our country against its true enemies. In 20+ years as a USMC, Pentagon and DHS spokesman, I dealt w/ the news media nearly every day. I know quite a bit about the press and know this -- they are NOT the enemy of the American...
by ahorseback 5 years ago
The "Tabloidization " of our news programs began a major downhill slide in the integrity of news programs , accuracy , honesty, integrity , are now pre-historic media qualities . Just how do the new "hit's " pay off for them on the internet ? It...
by Liv Carradine 4 years ago
Why aren't major news outlets covering recent Southern church burnings?7 predominantly black churches in the south have been burned in the last week. The FBI is investigating. Why do you think many major U.S. news outlets are not covering this? Did you know about this before...
by ahorseback 3 years ago
Not the sensationalizing "face -book " mentality of todays mainstream news media . Once , there was a time when selling the headline was the profiteering, business method of presenting the mainstream media , Sure profit , selling ,...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|