NAZI White Supremacists Disgusted by Trump?

[eric_erosfan]

Youre graduating from marxist to commie to full on muslim.

23 years you've been here. You would think in that time you would learn at least a little repartee. But all you have is word diarrhea.

Sad!

 

[glamorilla]

23 years you've been here. You would think in that time you would learn at least a little repartee. But all you have is word diarrhea.

Sad!

Eric islamfan.

 

[Bray123]

Eric islamfan.

Why don't you argue that using 'Islam' and 'Muslim' as insults doesn't make you a racist, and why supporting someone who insults the disabled, supports pedophilia, but accuses all Trans people of being pedophiles isn't hypocritical?

 

[glamorilla]

Why don't you argue that using 'Islam' and 'Muslim' as insults doesn't make you a racist, and why supporting someone who insults the disabled, supports pedophilia, but accuses all Trans people of being pedophiles isn't hypocritical?

you're going to play victim no matter what.

 

[ll74]

you're going to play victim no matter what.

Poor white guy

 

[glamorilla]

Poor white guy

yup.

 

[ll74]

yup.

That was about you.

 

[glamorilla]

That was about you.

yup.

 

[ll74]

yup.

Yup.

 

[SkyBubble]

It's not mythology. All he had to do was say he condemned the white supremacists and leave it at that

Which he did, despite what your cult told you.

 

[YDB95]

Which he did, despite what your cult told you.

Nope. He said "very fine people on both sides". No amount of obfuscation on your part is going to change that.

 

[SkyBubble]

Nope. He said "very fine people on both sides".

Correct. OF THE ISSUE ABOUT TEARING DOWN STATUES. Right after that, he explicitly said he wasn't talking about Nazis or white supremacists, who should be condemned. Those are facts; they're not changeable for your ideological convenience or to justify your hate.

 

[YDB95]

Correct. OF THE ISSUE ABOUT TEARING DOWN STATUES. Right after that, he explicitly said he wasn't talking about Nazis or white supremacists, who should be condemned.

But he did say there were "very fine people" marching alongside those white supremacists. It's only fair to ask how that could be.
Thing is, we know the answer: someone got it through Trump's thick head that he needed to denounce Nazis and white supremacists whether he wanted to or not; but they couldn't stop him from winking at his supporters like he always just has to do.

 

[SkyBubble]

He also said there were very bad people on both sides, which is also true. I would advise people on both sides of the issue: Be careful with whom you stand. But he's right, there were good people and bad ones on both sides. And again, since you seem not to want to understand this he expressly condemned the Nazis and white supremacists immediately after the "very fine people" comment, and then a couple of days later. You're trying to make this something even Snopes concedes it isn't.

 

[YDB95]

He also said there were very bad people on both sides, which is also true. I would advise people on both sides of the issue: Be careful with whom you stand. But he's right, there were good people and bad ones on both sides. And again, since you seem not to want to understand this he expressly condemned the Nazis and white supremacists immediately after the "very fine people" comment, and then a couple of days later. You're trying to make this something even Snopes concedes it isn't.

Come back when you can explain how anyone who marched alongside people chanting "Jews will not replace us" and avowed white supremacists can ever be a very fine person. I'll give you one hint: saying they were "only" marching in opposition to removing statues of people who took up arms against their own country in defense of the right to own other human beings is not the flex you think it is.

 

[SkyBubble]

Come back when you can explain how anyone who marched alongside people chanting "Jews will not replace us" and avowed white supremacists can ever be a very fine person. I'll give you one hint: saying they were "only" marching in opposition to removing statues of people who took up arms against their own country in defense of the right to own other human beings is not the flex you think it is.

Come back when you can understand simple English.

 

[YDB95]

Come back when you can understand simple English.

It would appear I understand it better than you do, if you think "very fine people on both sides" means he wasn't winking at his racist supporters.

 

[JohnEngelman]

If Donald Trump has lost the Nazis and the White Supremacists, who does he have left?

He has traditional rich, selfish, businessmen. They want tax cuts for themselves and fewer environmental, safety, and health regulations. Tere are not enough people like that to sin an election, so the Republican Party needs to win on social issues.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
If Donald Trump has lost the Nazis and the White Supremacists, who does he have left?

He has traditional rich, selfish, businessmen. They want tax cuts for themselves and fewer environmental, safety, and health regulations. Tere are not enough people like that to sin an election, so the Republican Party needs to win on social issues.

Just read that he signed a tax increase on college endowments. Anything to avoid taxing the rich!

 

[wallstreetguy]

The GOP has a long history of rejecting extremists like the John Birchers, Pat Buchanan, David Duke and many other lesser known weirdos. Whereas Democrats try to co-opt people like antifa into their ranks to act as storm troopers for their agenda. You can add these guys to the list of people we kicked out of our Big Tent. But the left can have them, since they believe in many of the same things.

 

[ll74]

The GOP has a long history of rejecting extremists like the John Birchers, Pat Buchanan, David Duke and many other lesser known weirdos. Whereas Democrats try to co-opt people like antifa into their ranks to act as storm troopers for their agenda. You can add these guys to the list of people we kicked out of our Big Tent. But the left can have them, since they believe in many of the same things.

Which is why the GOP is

1. Putting Confederacy names and statues back in place for a MEMORIAL to them
2. Replacing experienced civil leaders with talking heads from loyalist media
3...

Sorry....not enough time in my day to continue

 

[SkyBubble]

It would appear I understand it better than you do, if you think "very fine people on both sides" means he wasn't winking at his racist supporters.

It's obvious you don't. What part of condemn them entirely don't you understand? What part of he was talking about views on teh issue of removing statues don't you get? You clearly don't want to understand it.

 

[YDB95]

It's obvious you don't. What part of condemn them entirely don't you understand? What part of he was talking about views on teh issue of removing statues don't you get? You clearly don't want to understand it.

I understand "condemn them entirely" just fine. As I have already said repeatedly, if he had said only that, then you'd be right about this. But he also said there were "very fine people on both sides", which means he evidently thought some of the people marching alongside the Nazis and white supremacists were, well, very fine people. That ain't going away no matter how many times you refuse to address it.

Fundamentally, you're ignoring two things here:
1. Context matters, and Trump has a very long history of always throwing in a caveat like that to let his supporters know he's with them even if he has to pretend otherwise. "Stand back and stand by" is the other most famous example of this, but there are plenty of others.
2. Even if you're right, that still means he was arguing that some of the people who a) were willing to march alongside Nazis and white-supremacists chanting openly bigoted slogans, and b) supported keeping statues of people who took up arms against their country in defense of the right to own other human beings were "very fine people". Exactly how is that possible?

Make it three things you're ignoring: there's also the Southern strategy, where you imply that you're on the racists' side while arguing that you really just meant something perfectly innocuous. Trump is probably too stupid to do that on purpose, but whether accidentally or not, that's just what he did here.

 

[SkyBubble]

I understand "condemn them entirely" just fine. As I have already said repeatedly, if he had said only that, then you'd be right about this. But he also said there were "very fine people on both sides", which means he evidently thought some of the people marching alongside the Nazis and white supremacists were, well, very fine people.

Just as some of the others marching alongside Communists, violent Antifa thugs, and others were very fine people. There is nothing inherently wrong with that statement, but your cult tries to make it out as some sort of endorsement of Naziism or white supremacy because you want it to be so. It's necessary for your ideology.

I wish he had said you should be more careful with whom you stand and march, but that applies to both sides, and again, he was talking about "very fine people" who were supporters and opponents of tearing down statues. He's saying that there is room for legitimate disagreement on that, in his own clumsy way.

In the very next sentence, he condemns the very people you're trying to claim he supports. You refuse to understand plain English, because it doesn't align with your ideology. It's narrative above all for you.

 

[YDB95]

Just as some of the others marching alongside Communists, violent Antifa thugs, and others were very fine people.

Are they, though? No one here has argued that they are, at least not that I recall.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that statement, but your cult tries to make it out as some sort of endorsement of Naziism or white supremacy because you want it to be so.

Not because we want it to be so, but rather because 1) we know who and what Trump is; and 2) even by your definition of what happened, what he said is still pretty outrageous.

I wish he had said you should be more careful with whom you stand and march, but that applies to both sides, and again, he was talking about "very fine people" who were supporters and opponents of tearing down statues. He's saying that there is room for legitimate disagreement on that, in his own clumsy way.

No, there is not "room for legitimate disagreement" on that. Either you think slavery and apologists for it belong on the scrap heap of history or you don't. And if you don't, you are not a "very fine person".