NAZI White Supremacists Disgusted by Trump?

[Bray123]

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.

The only fine people marching alongside those thugs are the police protecting their sorry asses.

Everyone else on a march is there to show solidarity with that march.

 

[SkyBubble]

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

Yes, that was established at the time.

https://thecitizen.com/2017/08/22/nazis-communists-charlottesville/

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.

This is just flat-out untrue. Donald Trump won an award from Operation PUSH. He brought Jewish people into Mar-a-Lago, forcing a change in policy not just at that club but all the clubs. He increased funding for HBCUs and signed a criminal reform act the primarily benefitted black people.

What he said is not outrageous at all. It's clear you don't believe in free speech. News flash: People are allowed to disagree with you. I'm sorry you find it "outrageous" to say people can disagree honestly and still be "very fine people."

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".

Of course there's room for legitimate disagreement. Like it or not, those statues represent part of our history. The argument is that removing them (including Washington and Jefferson, the latter of whom wrote a strong anti-slavery clause that 11 of the 13 colonies supported) is rewriting history to support your narrative. Taht's what the Communists and Nazis did when they took power. Do you want to be like them?

We named forts after Confederate generals, not to support the Confederacy but to heal the wounds of the war, which you and your group want to re-open. You reject Lincoln's call "to bind up the nation's wounds" in favor of keeping them open.

So yes, there is room for legitimate disagreement on the statue issue, but you're so blinded by your hatred of President Trump that you refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[SkyBubble]

The only fine people marching alongside those thugs are the police protecting their sorry asses.

Everyone else on a march is there to show solidarity with that march.

See my post above. Your statement is a flat-out lie.

 

[YDB95]

Yes, that was established at the time.

https://thecitizen.com/2017/08/22/nazis-communists-charlottesville/

First of all, you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking if there were left-wing extremists in Charlottesville against the right-wing ones, I was asking if anyone on our side had condoned violence from the left. More to the point, though, your link there doesn't prove either is the case. The best you've got is that some people identifying with Antifa were there. Your fevered imagination aside, that doesn't mean they were violent or extreme, it just means they're anti-fascist. Which is a good thing.

This is just flat-out untrue. Donald Trump won an award from Operation PUSH. He brought Jewish people into Mar-a-Lago, forcing a change in policy not just at that club but all the clubs. He increased funding for HBCUs and signed a criminal reform act the primarily benefitted black people.

"My boyfriend is a great guy, he never hits me!"
Look, no amount of past good deeds is going to change or justify the fact that when all he had to do was not throw in a caveat along with his denunciation of white supremacists and Nazis, he just couldn't do it.

And that PUSH award? Had nothing to do with civil rights. It was "given in acknowledgement of his German heritage and his contributions to New York’s business and real estate world, rather than civil rights or racial justice."
https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-1986-but-not-for-racial-justi-idUSL1N2LN260/

What he said is not outrageous at all. It's clear you don't believe in free speech. News flash: People are allowed to disagree with you. I'm sorry you find it "outrageous" to say people can disagree honestly and still be "very fine people."

I believe in free speech. What I do not believe in is freedom from consequence for that speech. At the very least, he thought people who were "only" standing up for continuing to honor people who tried to destroy our country so they could continue owning slaves were "very fine people". Of course he's allowed to disagree with me. And I'm allowed to say his opinion makes him extremely ignorant of history at best (which we already knew: see "A lot of people don't know, Lincoln was a Republican!") and a bigot at worst. Especially when he has a decades-long track record of bigoted comments, actions and associations.

Of course there's room for legitimate disagreement. Like it or not, those statues represent part of our history. The argument is that removing them (including Washington and Jefferson, the latter of whom wrote a strong anti-slavery clause that 11 of the 13 colonies supported) is rewriting history to support your narrative.

That argument is wrong. 9/11 is a part of our history, but we do not need a statue of Osama bin Laden in New York City, do we? And the part of history those statues represent is a backlash against civil rights. They were put up in the first place for that reason and that reason only. It is way, way, way past time we stop romanticizing the Old South.

Taht's what the Communists and Nazis did when they took power. Do you want to be like them?

No, it is NOT what they did. I can't think of any legitimate analogy in any other country where they essentially glorified people who tried to destroy them.

We named forts after Confederate generals, not to support the Confederacy but to heal the wounds of the war, which you and your group want to re-open.

Nope. It was to support the Confederacy, or at least to help along the myth that the war wasn't really about slavery. And even if you were right, that would make no sense at all. It'd be like naming US military bases in Europe after Nazis. Would that "heal the wounds of the war"? No. No it would not. And why would we want to re-open the war when we won it the first time?

You reject Lincoln's call "to bind up the nation's wounds" in favor of keeping them open.

Nonsense. The best way to "bind up the nation's wounds" would have been to be honest with ourselves that there was nothing - absolutely nothing - about the Confederacy that deserved to be honored or glorified in any way.

So yes, there is room for legitimate disagreement on the statue issue, but you're so blinded by your hatred of President Trump that you refuse to acknowledge that.

No, there really is not room for legitimate disagreement. And you're so blinded by your idolatry for Trump that you haven't even noticed, the man literally doesn't even know anything about the Civil War.

 

[Lazaran]

And you're so blinded by your idolatry for Trump that you haven't even noticed, the man literally doesn't even know anything about the Civil War.

Everything DonOld knows about the Civil War he learned directly from Frederick Douglass…

 

[YDB95]

Everything DonOld knows about the Civil War he learned directly from Frederick Douglass…

I'd be shocked if Trump even knows who that was!

 

[SkyBubble]

First of all, you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking if there were left-wing extremists in Charlottesville against the right-wing ones, I was asking if anyone on our side had condoned violence from the left. More to the point, though, your link there doesn't prove either is the case. The best you've got is that some people identifying with Antifa were there. Your fevered imagination aside, that doesn't mean they were violent or extreme, it just means they're anti-fascist. Which is a good thing.

Yes, some. A small number on both sides did. President Trump did NOT condone violence, no matter how many times you claim he did.

Look, no amount of past good deeds is going to change or justify the fact that when all he had to do was not throw in a caveat along with his denunciation of white supremacists and Nazis, he just couldn't do it.

He did no such thing. He clearly denounced Nazis and white supremacists. I know you don't want that to be true, but it remains true.

And that PUSH award? Had nothing to do with civil rights. It was "given in acknowledgement of his German heritage and his contributions to New York’s business and real estate world, rather than civil rights or racial justice."
https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-1986-but-not-for-racial-justi-idUSL1N2LN260/

You're talking about the Ellis Island Award.

I believe in free speech.

You could have fooled me.

At the very least, he thought people who were "only" standing up for continuing to honor people who tried to destroy our country so they could continue owning slaves were "very fine people".

Again, you simply refuse to understand this. Those are differnt thigns. He said there were very fine people on both sides of teh statue issue. It's clear you don't believe they can be good people if they don't follow your views on this.

He said people could have different views on the issue and be good people, something you've made it clear you do not believe. And then he made it a point to condemn Nazis and white supremacists. But you insist that he never did. Even SNOPES knows you're wrong. You're trying to twist his words to make them fit.

What the media wanted him to do was either condemn all supporters of keeping the statues or (they hoped) defend Nazis. When he didn't go along with the program, they convinced people like you that he did anyway.

he has a decades-long track record of bigoted comments, actions and associations.

More untruth from you.

They were put up in the first place for that reason and that reason only.

Again, you don't know your history if you believe that. Taht doesn't surprise me in the least.

It was to support the Confederacy, or at least to help along the myth that the war wasn't really about slavery.

Technically, the war was about secession and whether states had a right to leave the Union. Slavery was the primary grounds on which they seceded, but Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so. And the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the Confederate states and not to the slave states that remained in the Union.

Had the Confederate states remained in the Union, there would not have been a war on them.

No, there really is not room for legitimate disagreement.

Thank you for admitting you don't believe disagreement can be legitimate. You're wrong about that, BTW.

you're so blinded by your idolatry for Trump that you haven't even noticed, the man literally doesn't even know anything about the Civil War.

I hate to upset you, but I didn't vote for Trump. I am an independent because of Trump taking over the GOP. I think MAGA is a cult, but so is your side.

 

[YDB95]

Yes, some. A small number on both sides did. President Trump did NOT condone violence, no matter how many times you claim he did.

Not in this particular case, but it's a matter of public record he has done so elsewhere (at his rallies among other times). Besides, the point of "very fine people on both sides" is not that he was condoning violence, it's that he was condoning right-wing etremism.

He did no such thing. He clearly denounced Nazis and white supremacists. I know you don't want that to be true, but it remains true.

I never said he didn't. The issue is, he just had to go and muddy the waters. I know you don't want that to be true, but it remains true.

You're talking about the Ellis Island Award.

So are you, although you seem to think there was another one.

You could have fooled me.

You've made it abundantly clear that isn't very hard to do.

Again, you simply refuse to understand this. Those are differnt thigns. He said there were very fine people on both sides of teh statue issue.

That's not a different "thign", it's exactly what I was referring to.

It's clear you don't believe they can be good people if they don't follow your views on this.

Since that is exactly what I said, I should hope it's clear!

He said people could have different views on the issue and be good people, something you've made it clear you do not believe. And then he made it a point to condemn Nazis and white supremacists. But you insist that he never did. Even SNOPES knows you're wrong. You're trying to twist his words to make them fit.

Nope, if you actually read the Snopes link, you should have spotted this: "For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong."

Don't be a Rightguide, SkyBubble. Read your own cites before you post them.

What the media wanted him to do was either condemn all supporters of keeping the statues or (they hoped) defend Nazis. When he didn't go along with the program, they convinced people like you that he did anyway.

The media had no need to convince us that he was a bigot, I assure you of that.

More untruth from you.

Nope. Literally the first time he got his name in the paper, back in 1973, was when he and his father were being sued for refusing to rent their properties to Black tenants.

Again, you don't know your history if you believe that. Taht doesn't surprise me in the least.

I have a degree in history, and I've been reading books about the Civil War since high school. It's a matter of public record that those statues were put up as a fuck-you to the civil rights movement.

Technically, the war was about secession and whether states had a right to leave the Union. Slavery was the primary grounds on which they seceded, but Lincoln himself said if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so. And the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the Confederate states and not to the slave states that remained in the Union.

Technically yes, and you've also made a good case for why Lincoln shouldn't be hailed as an abolitionist (although his wife was one). But the real cause of the war was slavery, and the real point of those statues was to lash out at those of us who wanted racial equality.

Thank you for admitting you don't believe disagreement can be legitimate. You're wrong about that, BTW.

Of course disagreement can be legitimate - on some issues. But when it comes to things like "slavery was wrong", "Nazis were evil", and "We shouldn't be glorifying people who tried to destroy our country so they could continue to own slaves", either you agree or you're a moron or a bigot or both.

I hate to upset you, but I didn't vote for Trump. I am an independent because of Trump taking over the GOP. I think MAGA is a cult, but so is your side.

Oh, I had no doubt you were among the "I'm not a Republican but" crowd from square one.