Kamala’s 2024 Presidential Run

[YDB95]

Your premise is that one side is all good and the other side is all bad. I reject that premise.

I'm aware, although I never said the other side was "all good" (but having said that, I know of no reason to believe otherwise).
But you're still not answering my question: how can anyone who marches alongside white supremacists and Nazis be classified as a "very fine person"? So far, you've answered with a claim that the bigots were only "disruptors" (they weren't, they were the organizers), and by claiming I believe one side was all good and the other was all bad (wrong, but even you were right, that still doesn't answer the question).

Why not just admit you're wrong on this one, and that Trump made an indefensible comment? Heaven knows I've had to do that enough times with Biden.

 

[Politruk]

When Trump denied he was praising white nationalists, but still spoke of "very fine people on both sides," he was trying to draw a completely false and nonexistent distinction between the WNs and the historical preservationists. All preservationists concerned with Confederate monuments are neo-Confederates -- and there are none of that kind who are not WNs.

It should be noted that those Confederate monuments all over the South were erected mostly in the 1920s. And they were NOT built to honor Confederate soldiers. They were built as a public assertion of white supremacy.

That said, I hope they never destroy that bas-relief on Stone Mountain. It is the only Confederate monument I have ever seen that has any artistic value.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I'm aware, although I never said the other side was "all good" (but having said that, I know of no reason to believe otherwise).
But you're still not answering my question: how can anyone who marches alongside white supremacists and Nazis be classified as a "very fine person"? So far, you've answered with a claim that the bigots were only "disruptors" (they weren't, they were the organizers), and by claiming I believe one side was all good and the other was all bad (wrong, but even you were right, that still doesn't answer the question).

Why not just admit you're wrong on this one, and that Trump made an indefensible comment? Heaven knows I've had to do that enough times with Biden.

If you agree that neither side was all good or all bad, then Trump's comment doesn't require defense because he outright called out and condemned the bad actors.

 

[adrina]

 

[Politruk]

If you agree that neither side was all good or all bad, then Trump's comment doesn't require defense because he outright called out and condemned the bad actors.

But the WN/preservationist side in Charlottesville WAS all bad -- and Trump dishonestly implied otherwise.

 

[YDB95]

If you agree that neither side was all good or all bad, then Trump's comment doesn't require defense because he outright called out and condemned the bad actors.

But the WN/preservationist side in Charlottesville WAS all bad -- and Trump dishonestly implied otherwise.

This. Exactly this. Not to mention I didn't agree that "neither side was all good or all bad"; I just said I didn't necessarily say the counterprotestors were "all good". I don't know for a fact that they were or they weren't. I do know the organizers of the protest were racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic to the core...in other words, they were "all bad", to use your terminology. Trump suggested there were some people on their side who were "very fine". If you're going to rationalize that, I want to know how it's possible that anyone who marched alongside the indisputably bigoted people who started the whole shebang could ever be called "very fine". That is all.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Trump suggested there were some people on their side who were "very fine".

Again, your premise is that the only people who could possibly be on the side of not tearing down statues must be part of, or support, the bad actors during that situation. I reject that premise. People can strongly agree on one issue, and strongly disagree on many others. Agreeing on one issue, even for different reasons, in no way binds anyone to any or all other issues from any particular group.

 

[adrina]

 

[adrina]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1850684375492620425

 

[Politruk]

Again, your premise is that the only people who could possibly be on the side of not tearing down statues must be part of, or support, the bad actors during that situation.

That is the truth. There are no neo-Confederates or Lost-Causers who are not white nationalists. No one who is not a WN cares to preserve Confederate monuments.

 

[YDB95]

Again, your premise is that the only people who could possibly be on the side of not tearing down statues must be part of, or support, the bad actors during that situation. I reject that premise. People can strongly agree on one issue, and strongly disagree on many others. Agreeing on one issue, even for different reasons, in no way binds anyone to any or all other issues from any particular group.

True in general (although I'm not convinced about this particular issue - I honestly don't believe anyone who opposed tearing down those statues had any motivation beyond plain old racism). But even if I were to agree that some of them had non-racist reasons for opposing the removals, they still chose to march alongside Nazis and white-supremacists, and that is inexcusable. Whether they agreed with their racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia or not, they still marched alongside them. I find that fundamentally incompatible with being even a marginally decent person, never mind a very fine one.

Besides, I doubt if you have any evidence whatsoever that anyone who joined in those protests took exception to the organizers' views, especially when you didn't even know the extremists were the organizers.

 

[adrina]

 

[TastySuckToy]

Besides, I doubt if you have any evidence whatsoever that anyone who joined in those protests took exception to the organizers' views, especially when you didn't even know the extremists were the organizers.

So you're essentially making one giant Appeal to Ignorance fallacy about people who Trump claimed were "very fine people", despite him completely condemning the known bad actors.

At worst, you could claim Trump made his statement out of ignorance, with your assertion there couldn't possibly be "very fine people" who were against tearing down statues. Which you haven't proven, but even if you did, Trump would simply be guilty of assuming there was good people on both sides.

In other words, in your scenario, Trump clearly condemned the known bad actors, and he just made the mistake of simply assuming not everyone against the issue must be bad actors.

That is a massive far cry from the bullshit claim that Trump called the bad actors very fine people, and at worst (as per your unproven assertions) simply has Trump demonstrating a positivity bias about people in general.

 

[Politruk]

So you're essentially making one giant Appeal to Ignorance fallacy about people who Trump claimed were "very fine people", despite him completely condemning the known bad actors.

The "on both sides" negates that completely. The WN/preservationist side in Charlottesville WAS all bad -- and Trump dishonestly implied otherwise.

 

[YDB95]

So you're essentially making one giant Appeal to Ignorance fallacy about people who Trump claimed were "very fine people", despite him completely condemning the known bad actors.

Um, no. What I am claiming is that there were NO very fine people on the side of the Nazis and white supremacists. And I can't believe even you want to argue against that.

At worst, you could claim Trump made his statement out of ignorance, with your assertion there couldn't possibly be "very fine people" who were against tearing down statues.

1. I believe Trump made just about every statement he ever made "out of ignorance", but that's beside the point.
2. Let's say there were non-racists who were against taking down the statues (I don't believe there were, but for the sake of argument, let's say there were). They had plenty of ways to express that opinion without taking part in a protest organized by an avowed white supremacist and Nazi, with the full cooperation of numerous recognized hate groups. But if they chose to march alongside those losers, they don't get to say, "I disagree with them on everything except taking down the statues." It's that simple. By joining them, they sent the message that they agreed with or at least tolerated their extremism.

Which you haven't proven, but even if you did, Trump would simply be guilty of assuming there was good people on both sides.

Yes, that is what Trump is guilty of. The bigger question is, Why did he make that assumption? I believe the answer is, when he perceives a group of people as supporting him, he is fundamentally incapable of condemning them as fully as you insist on pretending he did here.

In other words, in your scenario, Trump clearly condemned the known bad actors, and he just made the mistake of simply assuming not everyone against the issue must be bad actors.

Close, but not quite.

That is a massive far cry from the bullshit claim that Trump called the bad actors very fine people, and at worst (as per your unproven assertions) simply has Trump demonstrating a positivity bias about people in general.

Not about people in general, but rather about people whom he perceives as his supporters.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Um, no. What I am claiming is that there were NO very fine people on the side of the Nazis and white supremacists.

That's simply your assertion, and I have zero reason to accept it as a premise.

2. Let's say there were non-racists who were against taking down the statues (I don't believe there were, but for the sake of argument, let's say there were). They had plenty of ways to express that opinion without taking part in a protest organized by an avowed white supremacist and Nazi, with the full cooperation of numerous recognized hate groups. But if they chose to march alongside those losers, they don't get to say, "I disagree with them on everything except taking down the statues." It's that simple. By joining them, they sent the message that they agreed with or at least tolerated their extremism.

I already explained that agreeing with anyone (or group) on one issue is not agreeing with or condoning any or all other issues.

Yes, that is what Trump is guilty of. The bigger question is, Why did he make that assumption? I believe the answer is, when he perceives a group of people as supporting him, he is fundamentally incapable of condemning them as fully as you insist on pretending he did here.

He fully and clearly condemned the bad actors here.

Not about people in general, but rather about people whom he perceives as his supporters.

So then your argument is that Trump will fully and clearly condemn the bad actors, and assumes his supporters are good people.

Yeah, I'm absolutely fine with Trump assuming his supporters are good people, and clearly condemning bad actors.

 

[YDB95]

That's simply your assertion, and I have zero reason to accept it as a premise.

You don't accept that people who march alongside avowed Nazis and white supremacists cannot be very fine people. Wow. Thanks for at least being honest about that, I guess.

I already explained that agreeing with anyone (or group) on one issue is not agreeing with or condoning any or all other issues.

That is separate and distinct from marching alongside them in a protest. Don't expect me to believe you'd buy it if anyone marched in a pro-Hitler protest and then said it was only because he was an anti-smoking activist.

He fully and clearly condemned the bad actors here.

And if that were all he had done, there'd be no argument. But it wasn't, and you know it.

So then your argument is that Trump will fully and clearly condemn the bad actors, and assumes his supporters are good people.

Yeah, I'm absolutely fine with Trump assuming his supporters are good people, and clearly condemning bad actors.

This is contradictory. Lots of white supremacists are also Trump supporters. Either he condemns them or he thinks they're good people. Can't be both.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You don't accept that people who march alongside avowed Nazis and white supremacists cannot be very fine people. Wow. Thanks for at least being honest about that, I guess.

I don't accept your arbitrary assertion that everyone there was because of the bad actors or that they sympathized with them in any way. People were there to protest against tearing down of statues.

That is separate and distinct from marching alongside them in a protest. Don't expect me to believe you'd buy it if anyone marched in a pro-Hitler protest and then said it was only because he was an anti-smoking activist.

The entire issue was about the tearing down of statues. You don't get to assert that just because bad actors showed up, everyone else there was protesting the issue on their behalf or because of them.

This is contradictory. Lots of white supremacists are also Trump supporters.

Irrelevant. Trump doesn't have magical mind powers to control who decides to support him or not. Trump disavowing them countless times is good enough for me.

Either he condemns them or he thinks they're good people. Can't be both.

He's already condemned them, fully and clearly. The issue is you refuse to accept people are perfectly capable of protesting an issue without being automatically lumped in as supporters or sympathetic to other types of protestors who are there as well.

Protestors can and often protest in large groups, and those groups aren't just some monolithic hive mind that agree on everything. You're applying a classic fallacy of guilt by association, something Trump obviously didn't do.

 

[YDB95]

I don't accept your arbitrary assertion that everyone there was because of the bad actors or that they sympathized with them in any way. People were there to protest against tearing down of statues.

It wasn't arbitrary. The protest was organized in the first place by the extremists. That is the reason why "people were there to protest against tearing down of statues", because the white supremacists organized the protest.

The entire issue was about the tearing down of statues. You don't get to assert that just because bad actors showed up, everyone else there was protesting the issue on their behalf or because of them.

The bad actors did not just "show up", they were the organizers. Which means (among other things) that most if not all of the people who knew about the protest in advance were somehow allied with the bad actors.

Irrelevant. Trump doesn't have magical mind powers to control who decides to support him or not. Trump disavowing them countless times is good enough for me.

It wasn't "countless times", it was one time. And it's not irrelevant. You said, "So then your argument is that Trump will fully and clearly condemn the bad actors, and assumes his supporters are good people." He can't do that if they are one and the same.

He's already condemned them, fully and clearly. The issue is you refuse to accept people are perfectly capable of protesting an issue without being automatically lumped in as supporters or sympathetic to other types of protestors who are there as well.

When the "other types of protestors" are white supremacists and Nazis, that's right, I refuse to accept that. With extremists like that, any "very fine person" would stay the hell away no matter what they thought of the issue at hand. And that's not even touching on the fact that the issue at hand here was removing monuments to the Confederacy. Exactly who but a racist would oppose that?

Protestors can and often protest in large groups, and those groups aren't just some monolithic hive mind that agree on everything.

The key word here being "can". Not always, and certainly not in this case where the protest itself was organized by the bad actors.

You're applying a classic fallacy of guilt by association, something Trump obviously didn't do.

It's more like guilt by affiliation. Anyone who choses to march alongside white supremacists and Nazis for any reason has no business expecting the rest of us to believe s/he is a "very fine person".

 

[Politruk]

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.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It wasn't arbitrary. The protest was organized in the first place by the extremists. That is the reason why "people were there to protest against tearing down of statues", because the white supremacists organized the protest.

I'm willing to accept your claim there was bad actors who organized a protest. What I don't accept is your assertion that therefore everyone who showed up was part of or supported their group. The existence of a counter protest is undeniable proof of that fact.

The bad actors did not just "show up", they were the organizers. Which means (among other things) that most if not all of the people who knew about the protest in advance were somehow allied with the bad actors.

Just another unproven assertion by you, and blatantly ridiculous. By your logic, the counter protestors were somehow allied with the bad actors since they were there also.

It wasn't "countless times", it was one time.

And it's not irrelevant. You said, "So then your argument is that Trump will fully and clearly condemn the bad actors, and assumes his supporters are good people." He can't do that if they are one and the same.

You're again just asserting the premise his supporters and the bad actors are one and the same. Restating your premise doesn't make me accept it.

When the "other types of protestors" are white supremacists and Nazis, that's right, I refuse to accept that. With extremists like that, any "very fine person" would stay the hell away no matter what they thought of the issue at hand.

Your personal assessment of when, where and around who others are 'allowed' to protest is your opinion, nothing more.

And that's not even touching on the fact that the issue at hand here was removing monuments to the Confederacy. Exactly who but a racist would oppose that?

Another Appeal to Ignorance fallacy on your part. You can't imagine non racists being against tearing down historical statues, therefore only racists could be against it. Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

The key word here being "can". Not always, and certainly not in this case where the protest itself was organized by the bad actors.

The organizers of a protest do not control everyone who shows up or what their positions are, whether for or against.

Or are you forgetting there was counter protestors too?

It's more like guilt by affiliation. Anyone who choses to march alongside white supremacists and Nazis for any reason has no business expecting the rest of us to believe s/he is a "very fine person".

You just keep repeatedly asserting everyone on one side was all one united group and there for the exact same reasons. Your personal incredulity and constantly asserting that must be the case does not make it so.

 

[Politruk]

You just keep repeatedly asserting everyone on one side was all one united group and there for the exact same reasons.

Of course they were. It was the Unite the Right rally. That was the point.

And there was nobody in that mob who was a non-racist interested strictly in historical preservation -- in the circumstances, that was not a motive severable from white nationalism.

 

[YDB95]

And the counter-protesters were there for just that - to counterprotest. That has nothing to do with the matter of whether anyone protesting the removal of the statues was not doing so for racist reasons.
And Politruk is right. In light of who was behind the protest, the only way anyone who did not hold disgustingly bigoted views could have ended up participating (as opposed to counterprotesting) is if they were completely, utterly ignorant of just who was running the show. I don't see how that's possible.

 

[JohnEngelman]

She had ALL the delegates locked up on day two. Trump picking Vance put the final nail in his coffin. Now it's off to jail time.

We can only hope. My instincts tell me that Trump will get away with his crimes.

 

[JohnEngelman]

"Heels Up Harris" and similar comments and tactics became tiresome a long way back. Such petty ad hominem is unnecessary when she can be easily defeated on actual issues, like competence, achievements, public statements, etc. Since Dems have been using ad hominem constantly for the past seven years, slipping into the habit of slinging some back is very easy, but it negates the option of claiming the higher ground.

The only thing Trump achieved was a tax cut for the rich leading to more national debt. The good things that happened during his term would have happened anyway.