Kamala’s 2024 Presidential Run

[adrina]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7431266289768729887

 

[adrina]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7431243561925905710

 

[adrina]

 

[YDB95]

You: people who showed up on the side of the protestors were on the side of the protestors.

Me: people who showed up to protest tearing down historical statues are not automatically protesting in favour of the bad actors or bad actors themselves.

Do you see the difference yet?

Of course I do. But you're wrong. The bad actors were the ones who organized the whole event, and you haven't even tried to offer up a non-racist reason for wanting to keep those statues up. (Don't even try with "they have historical value"...there will never be an Osama bin Laden statue in New York, will there? )

And again, even if there is a non-racist reason (and I don't believe there is one), anyone who took to the streets that day in defense of the statues couldn't possibly be unaware that they were marching alongside people who were chanting "Jews will not replace us". Even if by some miracle they hadn't heard who was behind the protest in the first place, they couldn't possibly have been unaware of the hatred being expressed by their fellow protesters, or that they were effectively endorsing it by marching on the same side.

Organizing a protest does empower the organizers to dictate who everyone is allowed to show up and why they do so.

It does empower other people to keep their distance even if they agree with the cause in question. If they fail to do that, it's only fair to assume they're at least willing to tolerate the organizers' extremism, and that they may even agree with it.

Tell you what, I will make a claim in the same way you defend your claim:

"Bad actors aren't the only ones against tearing down historical statues. You have to accept this, because I say so and I can't possibly imagine how only bad actors could be against it."

You might have a point here if you ever offered up a non-racist reason for wanting to keep those statues up. But you haven't even tried - and that says a lot, in light of your long track record of rationalizing Trump's racism and misogyny. If even you can't come up with an excuse...

If you say no, then you understand your arguments are not at all convincing.

I can certainly see why they're not convincing to you.

I'm not the one making unproven claims and then trying to defend them on the sole basis of personal opinion and appealing to personal incredulity.

You do that all the time! In any event, what has been proven - and was never even really in dispute - is that the people who organized the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville were a bunch of despicable racist extremists, and this was reasonably well known to the general public since the event was publicized beforehand. Anyone who wasn't a local but was there obviously had heard enough about it to know what was happening and who was behind it.

 

[adrina]

Over 75k. For Kamala Harris.

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7431350047054335274

 

[adrina]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7431356795391692074

 

[TastySuckToy]

The bad actors were the ones who organized the whole event,

I repeatedly pointed out that this is irrelevant.

and you haven't even tried to offer up a non-racist reason for wanting to keep those statues up. (Don't even try with "they have historical value"...there will never be an Osama bin Laden statue in New York, will there? )

You're the one asserting there cannot be non racist reasons (even though you just literally submitted one and then assert it doesn't count just because). You prove your claim, you don't invoke the Burden of Proof fallacy by demanding others disprove it.

And again, even if there is a non-racist reason (and I don't believe there is one),

Your personal belief is not a valid argument, and you've also now demonstrated even you can come up with non racist reasons, but you just dismiss them.

You might have a point here if you ever offered up a non-racist reason for wanting to keep those statues up. But you haven't even tried

You're the one making a claim. You prove it, you don't ask others to disprove it.

In any event, what has been proven - and was never even really in dispute - is that the people who organized the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville were a bunch of despicable racist extremists,

I never disputed that there was bad actors who organized their own protest. This is just a Red Herring from you.

and this was reasonably well known to the general public since the event was publicized beforehand. Anyone who wasn't a local but was there obviously had heard enough about it to know what was happening and who was behind it.

Anyone protesting the tearing down of historical statues does not mean they therefore support any other group ideology just because they're protesting the same issue.

 

[ShandyLeer]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7431356795391692074

Feels like a lot of momentum’s been lost in the last few weeks. Trump the favourite as it stands, but maybe there’s hope that polls are undercooking the Dem numbers a little.

A little could mean a lot in this case of course.

 

[ShandyLeer]

Of course I do. But you're wrong. The bad actors were the ones who organized the whole event, and you haven't even tried to offer up a non-racist reason for wanting to keep those statues up. (Don't even try with "they have historical value"...there will never be an Osama bin Laden statue in New York, will there? )

And again, even if there is a non-racist reason (and I don't believe there is one), anyone who took to the streets that day in defense of the statues couldn't possibly be unaware that they were marching alongside people who were chanting "Jews will not replace us". Even if by some miracle they hadn't heard who was behind the protest in the first place, they couldn't possibly have been unaware of the hatred being expressed by their fellow protesters, or that they were effectively endorsing it by marching on the same side.


It does empower other people to keep their distance even if they agree with the cause in question. If they fail to do that, it's only fair to assume they're at least willing to tolerate the organizers' extremism, and that they may even agree with it.

You might have a point here if you ever offered up a non-racist reason for wanting to keep those statues up. But you haven't even tried - and that says a lot, in light of your long track record of rationalizing Trump's racism and misogyny. If even you can't come up with an excuse...

I can certainly see why they're not convincing to you.

You do that all the time! In any event, what has been proven - and was never even really in dispute - is that the people who organized the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville were a bunch of despicable racist extremists, and this was reasonably well known to the general public since the event was publicized beforehand. Anyone who wasn't a local but was there obviously had heard enough about it to know what was happening and who was behind it.

Such bullshit.

You’ll never accept there’s ’a non racist’ reason for objecting to the tearing down of monuments - because you’ve already decided you’ll never be persuaded.

So why the fuck bother challenging someone to ‘try’ ?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I repeatedly pointed out that this is irrelevant.

You're the one asserting there cannot be non racist reasons (even though you just literally submitted one and then assert it doesn't count just because). You prove your claim, you don't invoke the Burden of Proof fallacy by demanding others disprove it.

Your personal belief is not a valid argument, and you've also now demonstrated even you can come up with non racist reasons, but you just dismiss them.

You're the one making a claim. You prove it, you don't ask others to disprove it.

I never disputed that there was bad actors who organized their own protest. This is just a Red Herring from you.

Anyone protesting the tearing down of historical statues does not mean they therefore support any other group ideology just because they're protesting the same issue.

No historical statutes have been torn down.

 

[TastySuckToy]

No historical statutes have been torn down.

So protesting the tearing down of historical statues was successful then.

 

[Politruk]

Anyone protesting the tearing down of historical statues does not mean they therefore support any other group ideology just because they're protesting the same issue.

Of course it does. There is nobody who (1) is non-racist and (2) wants to preserve Confederate monuments.

I will make one exception -- the bas-relief on Stone Mountain, Georgia. I hope they never blow it up. It is the only Confederate monument have ever seen that has any artistic value.

 

[adrina]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7431369243809090858

 

[YDB95]

I repeatedly pointed out that this is irrelevant.

But it's not irrelevant. If a person chooses to participate in an event organized by extremist hate-groups, they have no business claiming they don't support said groups. It just doesn't work that way!

You're the one asserting there cannot be non racist reasons (even though you just literally submitted one and then assert it doesn't count just because).

No, not "just because". I explained exactly why it's not valid, but if you need me to repeat it: Erecting statues of real historical figures is never done for the sole purpose of teaching history or even of just marking history. If that were the case, you'd see plenty of Hitler statues throughout Europe, wouldn't you? More to the point, in this particular case, we know for certain the statues of Lee et al were not put there to remind us of the evil of slavery or to celebrate having eradicated it. No, they were put there as a fuck-you to the civil rights movement and as a celebration of the Confederates' attempt to destroy the USA in the name of slavery. Which is exactly why the white supremacists wanted to keep them.

I never disputed that there was bad actors who organized their own protest. This is just a Red Herring from you.

No it isn't (and while you technically did not "dispute" that the organizers were the bad actors, you pretty clearly were not aware of it before I said so). It makes all the difference in the world who is behind an event, and people who choose to participate in it don't get to say they only partially agree with them. Partially agreed or not, they were fully present on the side of the white supremacists and Nazis.

Anyone protesting the tearing down of historical statues does not mean they therefore support any other group ideology just because they're protesting the same issue.

It does if they attend a protest organized by that group. There was nothing stopping those other actors - if they even existed - from organizing a second protest and making it clear that they were not allied with the white supremacists and Nazis.

 

[adrina]

‘I was the director of the Michigan Republican Party. I will vote for Kamala Harris.’​

Gary Reed

I was the executive director of the Michigan Republican Party, back during a time when the GOP embraced values like fiscal discipline and a strong foreign policy.

I voted for Nikki Haley in the Feb. 27 primary in part to move the Republican Party past Donald Trump. She received 296,200 votes — 27 percent of the primary votes — at a time when it was clear that Trump was likely going to be the party’s nominee. Many of those 296,200 voters will not vote for Trump on Tuesday; I am one of them.

https://www.lansingcitypulse.com/st...an-party-i-will-vote-for-kamala-harris,115386

 

[ShandyLeer]

Of course it does. There is nobody who (1) is non-racist and (2) wants to preserve Confederate monuments.

I will make one exception -- the bas-relief on Stone Mountain, Georgia. I hope they never blow it up. It is the only Confederate monument have ever seen that has any artistic value.

Ridiculous, and exactly the sort of mentality that will see Trump over the line.

Fucking idiots.

 

[TastySuckToy]

But it's not irrelevant. If a person chooses to participate in an event organized by extremist hate-groups, they have no business claiming they don't support said groups. It just doesn't work that way!

So the counter protesters supported the bad actors, because they were there too, gotcha!

No, not "just because". I explained exactly why it's not valid, but if you need me to repeat it: Erecting statues of real historical figures is never done for the sole purpose of teaching history or even of just marking history. If that were the case, you'd see plenty of Hitler statues throughout Europe, wouldn't you? More to the point, in this particular case, we know for certain the statues of Lee et al were not put there to remind us of the evil of slavery or to celebrate having eradicated it. No, they were put there as a fuck-you to the civil rights movement and as a celebration of the Confederates' attempt to destroy the USA in the name of slavery. Which is exactly why the white supremacists wanted to keep them.

No, you don't get to decide for other people what the meaning and purpose of things like statues is.

No it isn't (and while you technically did not "dispute" that the organizers were the bad actors, you pretty clearly were not aware of it before I said so). It makes all the difference in the world who is behind an event, and people who choose to participate in it don't get to say they only partially agree with them. Partially agreed or not, they were fully present on the side of the white supremacists and Nazis.

You are apparently incapable of grasping the idea that just because there was a group of bad actors protesting the tearing down of statues, doesn't mean there wasn't other groups of people who were also protesting the tearing down of statues, who were not part of or affiliated with the bad actors.

It does if they attend a protest organized by that group. There was nothing stopping those other actors - if they even existed - from organizing a second protest and making it clear that they were not allied with the white supremacists and Nazis.

There were many groups there. Your claim that only the bad actors were against tearing down the statues is backed by nothing more than you saying so and appealing to your personal incredulity. Neither is a valid argument, and you haven't presented any other one.

Your personal opinion, your assertions and your personal incredulity are not valid arguments.

 

[adrina]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So protesting the tearing down of historical statues was successful then.

Why were people protesting something that was not going to happen?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851428069287891160

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851431476505595980

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851416598956892396

 

[YDB95]

So the counter protesters supported the bad actors, because they were there too, gotcha!

Were the counterprotesters participating in the event? No, they were protesting against it.

No, you don't get to decide for other people what the meaning and purpose of things like statues is.

Anyone - including me - can say that simply is not what statues have ever been used for. And even if they had been in some cases, in this particular case we've got historical proof that was not the purpose. To deny that is to deny history. Then again, you do that a lot.

You are apparently incapable of grasping the idea that just because there was a group of bad actors protesting the tearing down of statues, doesn't mean there wasn't other groups of people who were also protesting the tearing down of statues, who were not part of or affiliated with the bad actors.

No, I'm not incapable of that. What I am saying is, if people chose to march alongside the white supremacists and Nazis, it really doesn't matter if they support them or not. Besides that, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that anyone on their side of the dustup fit that description. Trump appears to have assumed as much, but we all know there's no way he did any research to that end. He never researches anything.

And while we're at it, that's the fundamental issue here. Trump said there were very fine people on both sides. If he was right, then the question becomes, exactly who was marching alongside the extremists but didn't share their extremism? I'm not aware of any, and I'm quite sure you're not either because you would have pointed to some examples by now. Did Trump have any real reason to believe they were there?

That, of course, is setting aside the issue of whether or not anyone who protested the removal what amounted to monuments to slavery could ever be a "very fine person" anyway. I say no. You apparently say yes, but just who were these people and where's the evidence that they were there?

There were many groups there. Your claim that only the bad actors were against tearing down the statues is backed by nothing more than you saying so and appealing to your personal incredulity. Neither is a valid argument, and you haven't presented any other one.

Nor have you presented any evidence that Trump was right and there were some non-racists on the anti-removal side. And feel free to explain how someone could support a monument to slavery and not be a bad actor.

Your personal opinion, your assertions and your personal incredulity are not valid arguments.

Keep in mind this all started with your claim that the "very fine people on both sides" claim was valid.

 

[Politruk]

Ridiculous, and exactly the sort of mentality that will see Trump over the line.

Fucking idiots.

There are no non-racist neo-Confederates or Lost Causers, and you know it.

What you might not know is that nearly all Confederate monuments were not erected in the aftermath of the war to honor Confederate soldiers. They were erected in the 1920s as a public assertion of white supremacy.

Robert E. Lee himself spoke out against building war memorials -- he considered that would only keep the wounds open.

 

[Politruk]

Once again, because this cannot be repeated often enough:

Everybody is ignoring the most important thing about this story: The Unite the Right rally only happened because Trump was president. His election gave the white nationalists the idea that this was their time come round at last, that this rally, at this time under these circumstances, might actually start some kind of Turner Diaries scenario in motion. The rally would not have happened if that statue had been slated for demolition during the Obama Administration or the Biden Administration.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851417797005283477

basically.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Were the counterprotesters participating in the event? No, they were protesting against it.

Then you accept the fact that just because bad actors organized and showed up to protest, doesn't mean there wasn't other people there who did not show up to support the bad actors. Case closed.

Anyone - including me - can say that simply is not what statues have ever been used for. And even if they had been in some cases, in this particular case we've got historical proof that was not the purpose. To deny that is to deny history.

Again, you do not get to dictate for everyone else the purpose and reason behind statues, historical or otherwise.

No, I'm not incapable of that. What I am saying is, if people chose to march alongside the white supremacists and Nazis,

Counter protestors did not march alongside white supremacists and Nazis, and you have presented zero evidence or valid argument that proves other people who were against tearing down the statues must march beside them either.

it really doesn't matter if they support them or not. Besides that, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that anyone on their side of the dustup fit that description.

How many times do I have to tell you about the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy?

Trump appears to have assumed as much, but we all know there's no way he did any research to that end. He never researches anything.

Like I established before, even if we just accepted on faith your assertion that there wasn't any person against tearing down statues who wasn't a bad actor, this does not mean Trump called bad actors "very fine people". He condemned the bad actors fully and clearly, and at worst incorrectly thought there were other people protesting the issue who weren't bad actors.

And while we're at it, that's the fundamental issue here. Trump said there were very fine people on both sides. If he was right, then the question becomes, exactly who was marching alongside the extremists but didn't share their extremism?

The problem is your erroneous assumption that anyone who was protesting the tearing down of statues could only have been marching with the bad actors. The existence of counter protesters proves beyond any possible doubt that people showed up who did not support the bad actors.

There is absolutely zero reason to assume that is the case. It is perfectly reasonable to assume there was people who showed up to protest the issue, but didn't march with or support the bad actors.

I'm not aware of any,

How many times do I have to tell you about the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy?

Did Trump have any real reason to believe they were there?

Trump has the intelligence and wisdom to understand that people can protest a common issue for many different reasons, and doesn't assume the existence of bad actors protesting means every protester is a bad actor.

Let me simplify that reasoning for you: Bad actors can protest an issue, but that doesn't make every protester of the issue a bad actor.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

That, of course, is setting aside the issue of whether or not anyone who protested the removal what amounted to monuments to slavery could ever be a "very fine person" anyway. I say no. You apparently say yes, but just who were these people and where's the evidence that they were there?

How many times do I have to tell you about the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy?

Nor have you presented any evidence that Trump was right and there were some non-racists on the anti-removal side.

I don't need to present evidence for claims I did not make.

You are the one making the claim every protester on the issue of tearing down statues must be a bad actor and claim it's impossible to be otherwise. And your only argument for this is your personal opinion and personal incredulity at the possibility of it being otherwise.

Which in layman's terms, means you have absolutely nothing to justify your assertion other than your own claims.

And feel free to explain how someone could support a monument to slavery and not be a bad actor.

Once again, you do not get to dictate for everyone else the purpose and reason behind statues, historical or otherwise.

Keep in mind this all started with your claim that the "very fine people on both sides" claim was valid.

My only claim is Trump did not call the bad actors in question "very fine people".

Your counter claim is that there is no such thing as non bad actors protesting the tearing down of statues. Which you absolutely refuse to present evidence for or prove. All you do is appeal to your own personal opinion and personal incredulity on the issue.

You claim only bad actors can protest the tearing down of statues. So prove it. Your personal opinion and personal incredulity is not evidence or proof whatsoever.