In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 15 2017 11:04 Plansix wrote: You go Sessions. Get those protesters. I want to note that Sessions would have lost his shit if Obama did this.
Now they got a judge to sign a search warrant pursuant to the charge of inciting to riot. I'll put it in the liberal terms that would apply if Obama was still president. Why are you so accepting of violence and rioting? Is it because a black man is president? /s
I wasn’t born yesterday. I know a drag net when I see one.
I'm just pointing out the rhetoric if the roles were reversed. You may be right on the function of the search warrant.
And I am sure they need the information on everyone who visited that website to track down the right leaders. And Sessions will be doing the same thing to Stormfront very soon. That is totally going to happen.
I don't know. You have proof to bring before a judge that they were inciting a group to riot?
On August 15 2017 23:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm not on board with this idea that Trump's initial response to what happened with Charlottesville was out of bounds. There was nothing factually incorrect about his statement, and the idea that he should have singled out the Nazis and white supremacists amounts to little more than worthless virtue signalling. This idea that everyone needs to condemn the obviously contemptible reeks of mindless collectivism and partisan nonsense.
Really? I mean come on.... If all there had been was two sides fighting then yeah you go and condemn the violence on both sides. You still call out Nazis a bit more ( because, and I feel this should really be obvious, THEY ARE FUCKING NAZIS! we fought a war over this shit... the whole world was involved) but you can get away with condemning both sides. When one side kills someone you should probably call that out by name. Its not like both sides were being the same level here. One group killed someone, the other group did not.
If we were at a bar and yelling at each other, and then I broke your nose because of it. You would not be okay with the cops coming and going 'well, you both were yelling so lets condom both sides here'. You would want them to be after me more because I was the bigger aggressor.
Also, yes you do have to condom Nazis because if you don't they write on their websites how much you love them and then get bolder.
On August 15 2017 23:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm not on board with this idea that Trump's initial response to what happened with Charlottesville was out of bounds. There was nothing factually incorrect about his statement, and the idea that he should have singled out the Nazis and white supremacists amounts to little more than worthless virtue signalling. This idea that everyone needs to condemn the obviously contemptible reeks of mindless collectivism and partisan nonsense.
Turns out being a violent Nazi who is ready to kill the inferior is a pretty big deal.
Now they got a judge to sign a search warrant pursuant to the charge of inciting to riot. I'll put it in the liberal terms that would apply if Obama was still president. Why are you so accepting of violence and rioting? Is it because a black man is president? /s
I wasn’t born yesterday. I know a drag net when I see one.
I'm just pointing out the rhetoric if the roles were reversed. You may be right on the function of the search warrant.
And I am sure they need the information on everyone who visited that website to track down the right leaders. And Sessions will be doing the same thing to Stormfront very soon. That is totally going to happen.
I don't know. You have proof to bring before a judge that they were inciting a group to riot?
Given the content of some Stormfront threads, I don't find it hard to believe that a judge would issue a warrant based purely on stuff found there. All one needs is member status to look at their event planning threads and they are dumb enough with their hateful invective to invite all sorts of probable cause, even where very little if any actually exists. Most of these dudes are pretty soft in my admittedly anecdotal experience.
There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside).
On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote: There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside).
Why are you pretending "bad behavior" has no measure to it? Do you consider Nazis and Antifa morally equivalent?
On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote: There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside).
Do you really think both sides are equally bad at this event?
On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote: There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside).
Why are you pretending "bad behavior" has no measure to it? Do you consider Nazis and Antifa morally equivalent?
You're asking the wrong questions. Nazis are assholes, but that doesn't mean that they don't have civil rights. They get to organize and hold rallies just like everyone else. So if we put content aside, and look at the behavior of the Nazis and Antifa at the rally, it becomes pretty easy to see the equivalence. Both were looking to start shit, so shit got started.
Antifa are not great by any measure, but I am sure they have not tried to murder a crowd of people with a car. I did watch them mess up a starbucks, throw some rocks and get in a fist fight with some protesters. But they don’t show up to rallies with loaded rifles and military gear that outstrips the police.
This seems to be where we are headed in this discussion:
Does this hurt the president or fans of manufacturing?
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: Sure he gives terrible advice to the President that delayed/weakened DJT's response to Nazi terrorism, but Bannon sure does stick it to the Libs!
Of course that doesn't really matter, with DJTs poll numbers going where they are going Bannon is doomed. Controversial chief political strategists get axed below 35%.
For example, who? DJT created the position of White House Chief Strategist for Bannon, we aren't in a campaign, and no president has gone below 35% so your post isn't adding up.
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: I mean seriously, what can Bannon point to (besides the 2016 electoral map) to show that his grand political strategy is working?
It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery, it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years.
Like not condemn violence by Nazis?
No, tax reform, immigration, healthcare, jobs, trade, infrastructure, crime, national security, preening government, and so forth.
But he won’t get to do those things because he refused to condemn Nazis and keeps trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. Tax reform is harder than healthcare and they can’t pass it with just 50 votes in the Senate. The man isn’t focused on being president because you need the approval of the American to pass laws. Otherwise the house members up for re-election in a year won’t jump on the train.
If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this.
The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character.
Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about.
I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too?
There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy.
Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you?
On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote: You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US.
Your opposition to Trump isn't complete?
On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote: And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support.
Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name.
On August 15 2017 23:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm not on board with this idea that Trump's initial response to what happened with Charlottesville was out of bounds. There was nothing factually incorrect about his statement, and the idea that he should have singled out the Nazis and white supremacists amounts to little more than worthless virtue signalling. This idea that everyone needs to condemn the obviously contemptible reeks of mindless collectivism and partisan nonsense.
so you agree that the push for use of the term "radical islamic terrorism" was virtue signalling nonsense?
Does this hurt the president or fans of manufacturing?
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: Sure he gives terrible advice to the President that delayed/weakened DJT's response to Nazi terrorism, but Bannon sure does stick it to the Libs!
Of course that doesn't really matter, with DJTs poll numbers going where they are going Bannon is doomed. Controversial chief political strategists get axed below 35%.
For example, who? DJT created the position of White House Chief Strategist for Bannon, we aren't in a campaign, and no president has gone below 35% so your post isn't adding up.
On August 15 2017 15:07 Wulfey_LA wrote: I mean seriously, what can Bannon point to (besides the 2016 electoral map) to show that his grand political strategy is working?
It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery, it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years.
Like not condemn violence by Nazis?
No, tax reform, immigration, healthcare, jobs, trade, infrastructure, crime, national security, preening government, and so forth.
But he won’t get to do those things because he refused to condemn Nazis and keeps trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. Tax reform is harder than healthcare and they can’t pass it with just 50 votes in the Senate. The man isn’t focused on being president because you need the approval of the American to pass laws. Otherwise the house members up for re-election in a year won’t jump on the train.
If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this.
The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character.
Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about.
I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too?
There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy.
Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you?
On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote: You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US.
On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote: And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support.
Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name.
Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern.
And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
xDaunt, you don't get to argue that "Nazis are so obviously evil that he shouldn't need to specifically condemn them because it should just be assumed that he condemns them" when it's Trump and he's been a very vocal spokesperson for their causes and they view him as their champion. If he wants the benefit of the doubt where Nazis are concerned then he shouldn't have run on "America First" (the name of the fascist sympathizers who wanted to keep America ought of WWII). And he shouldn't have retweeted neo-Nazi propaganda about black crime rates so many times. And he shouldn't have appointed white nationalists to White House positions.
You're right, we should just be able to assume that Trump isn't a Nazi sympathizer. That would be a fantastic world to live in. But given that we can't because he sure as hell sounds and acts like one, it's not unreasonable to ask that he make it clear for us. And when he refuses to do so you can't grab that and hold it as evidence that he's definitely not one because the only possible explanation for his refusal to disavow Nazis is that he's so very obviously not a Nazi that to disavow them would be redundant and that if anything it would make him look more like a Nazi if he did disavow them.
On August 15 2017 22:06 oBlade wrote: [quote] Does this hurt the president or fans of manufacturing?
[quote] For example, who? DJT created the position of White House Chief Strategist for Bannon, we aren't in a campaign, and no president has gone below 35% so your post isn't adding up. [quote] It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery, it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years.
Like not condemn violence by Nazis?
No, tax reform, immigration, healthcare, jobs, trade, infrastructure, crime, national security, preening government, and so forth.
But he won’t get to do those things because he refused to condemn Nazis and keeps trying to obstruct the Russian investigation. Tax reform is harder than healthcare and they can’t pass it with just 50 votes in the Senate. The man isn’t focused on being president because you need the approval of the American to pass laws. Otherwise the house members up for re-election in a year won’t jump on the train.
If there's a goal that will help everyone, you shouldn't be rooting for failure, right? I can't connect with your planet at all. They issued a statement on Charlottesville which I guess is what you're talking about, you must be extremely emotionally invested or think we're a certain kind of gullible sap to push this.
The media is your enemy in that they are redirecting your outrage on shit that doesn't matter to prop up a one-party culture. This time last year you didn't think it was the job of the president to drop everything any time someone died to pop on national news and reassure people murder is bad, timed and worded to your same exacting standards, or else be of suspect character.
Oblade, I’m a big boy and I know which media outlets are bad for me and which are not. And my anger and outrage are my own. The problem is you think I oppose Trump for irrational reasons, but I don’t. He and the GOP have pushed bills that will actively harm me and my family. They will limit our economic options and hurt our ability to get healthcare coverage. We have friends that feel less safe in the US than they have ever felt in their lives. None of these are abstract or ideological. Trump’s policies are bad for me, my wife and the people we care about.
I don't really care who you "support" or "oppose," as I was talking about Bannon, although I'm not sure anyone wants you to have bad healthcare. But yes, you're a gainfully employed college graduate who was just insinuating something like POTUS supports Nazi violence, does that go in the rational pile too?
There is overwhelming evidence that Trump is reluctant to condemn anyone who supports him, including violent Nazi and racists. We know this because he was asked several time on the day this happened to condemn them and failed to do so. Which resulted in the Nazis saying Trump is their guy.
Because he wasn't taking questions at all, he was walking out of the room and desperate people shout their questions hoping to get a scoop from the president because it's their job. Then this gets innuendoed into silence = guilt... are you sure you know what the media is doing to you?
On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote: You have a basic problem of viewing this in a binary state. It is either full support or full opposition. But that isn’t how this work. Trump may not openly support them, but he isn’t interested in openly condemning them. And being the leader of our country, that amounts to him being comfortable with Nazis and white supremacist existing openly in the US.
Your opposition to Trump isn't complete?
On August 15 2017 23:50 Plansix wrote: And Bannon said his publication was the home of the alt right, which is this group of Nazis, racists and white supremacist. He is more than happy to accept their support.
Bannon doesn't like the Republican party, likes a new real conservative non-Washington faction, I think xDaunt explained this to you before, everyone wants to be alt-right because it means group credibility, so white supremacists say they're alt-right and then get MSM interviews when otherwise they're nobodies that are rightfully ignored, whereas the "alt-right" base from Breitbart is people who want to burn down RINOs and they fight over the name.
Oblade, never be confused in thinking that I need any of the conservatives(with the exception of Lord of Awesome) in this thread to explain people like Bannon to me. I am well read on him and may other actors in the White House. And I am completely opposed to Trump and his repugnant form of politics. He is a stain on that office. A bigoted con man who came to power by pandering to populist rhetoric and promising things he can never deliver. Same with the GOP and repealing the ACA. They are con men with no real plan or idea how to govern.
So a minute after saying support isn't binary, your opposition to Trump is total, the other side has no good intent or ideas or actions. I do not know how you can make so many contributions to the thread year after year when everything's so simple and figured out.
On August 16 2017 00:20 Plansix wrote: And it appears I hold the president to a higher standard than you. That he should condemn Nazis who claim to support him when asked the question. I guess you don’t, which is your choice.
I don't think so lowly of the president that I need to ask to begin with, get the idea...
Nor do I think it's the job of the president to be on 24 hour Twitter call to respond to whatever the liberal echo chamber thinks is a pressing matter, or fault him for not responding fast enough when he wouldn't even know about the "controversy," or that just because some random schmuck shouts a question to the leader of the free world while he's walking out of the room he's entitled to time and an answer no matter whether it's if Trump likes white supremacists or BLTs.
On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote: There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside).
So in this case, would Trump be okay to respond like this? + Show Spoiler +
oblade -> I still don't really see what you were going on about with the below from earlier in the discussion chain, as it seems to bear little resemblance to the actual reality of the situation:
quote from oblade: "It's not Bannon's strategy, it's the president's, which you can verify if you go back and study 30 years of Trump, they just found each other and agree. Since he's president now, the goal isn't to win a popularity contest of political hackery, it's to actually do good things, get enough achievements in three to three and a half years to take to the American people in the next election and say this is what we've done and it's good, and this is what's to come. Also, if you know DJT he doesn't care about being unpopular if he's right, thrives on haters. It's true anyway that being right isn't the same as being popular and he ribbed politicians for that over the years."
On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote: There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside).
Then what are your thoughts on the example that i previously posted regarding the louvre knife attack? Why would trump respond strongly there and not so strongly here?
I mean people have been saying since he was running for office that he was signaling to the extreme right that he was not against neo-Nazi and nationalist sentiments yet he continues to do the same thing. Some call denouncing the attack as a white supremacist hate crime virtue signalling, but if he doesn't denounce it in that way isn't he just sending the opposite signal? That's the way that some of these nationalist groups are taking it. Especially after he has done the same thing over and over again.
On August 16 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote: There's a big difference between a self-avowed Islamic terrorist blowing people up and Obama refusing to call that person an Islamic terrorist and Trump equivocating between Nazi and Antifa factions who are both engaged in bad behavior at what would be an otherwise lawful event (permitting aside).
The difference is that white supremacists have attacked us far more than Islamic terrorists have. Far, far more.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O8LdPNL.png)
