|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 16 2017 21:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 21:19 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 20:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.
The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.
Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
Whatever Trump decides could chart the fate of a nuclear-weapons deal with Iran, U.S. troop deployments to Afghanistan and White House staffing decisions - all issues over which Bannon and McMaster have sparred.
Bannon has been in a precarious position before but Trump has opted to keep him, in part because his chief strategist played a major role in his election victory and is backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters.
"The president obviously is very nervous and afraid of firing him," a source close to the White House told Reuters.
The source floated the possibility that Bannon could be demoted instead of fired, noting that he might turn into a harsh critic of the administration if he is forced out of the inner circle.
Two other senior officials, both supporters of McMaster who asked not to be identified, said he blames Bannon for a series of attacks against him by right-wing website Breitbart News, which Bannon used to lead, and other far-right conservative groups.
In recent weeks, Breitbart has published a series of articles making a case for McMaster's ouster on the basis that he is not a strong ally of Israel and that he has staffed the National Security Council with holdovers from the Obama administration.
One of the senior officials said McMaster’s anger over the campaign “is known to the president” but declined to say whether the national security adviser had told Trump directly or through General John Kelly, an ally and the president's new chief of staff.
"McMaster isn't saying Bannon is the mastermind behind the campaign, but he does think Bannon could stop it if he wanted to,” said one of McMaster's defenders.
In a television interview on Sunday, McMaster repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he could work with Bannon.
About their feud, Bannon declined to comment and McMaster was unavailable for comment.
Instead of firing Bannon, Trump could move McMaster into a position outside the White House, possibly back to an active military command role, or keep both men where they are and insist on some form of truce.
Bannon has survived other White House power struggles this year and established a detente with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner after a scolding from the president.
The two senior officials who support McMaster said Kelly is angry that the anti-McMaster campaign has made the White House appear chaotic, reflecting badly on him as he was brought in as chief of staff two weeks ago to restore order and discipline.
Bannon sees himself as the defender of Trump's nationalist base and has advocated for both an end or renegotiation of trade deals and a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs than McMaster.
He has pushed to scrap the 2015 nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, which McMaster argues should remain in place, and has also proposed using contractors to fight the war in Afghanistan rather than expanding U.S. forces there, as McMaster has advocated.
McMaster is part of a more pragmatic group that Bannon likes to label "globalists."
He drew the fury of Bannon's supporters by recently overhauling the White House's National Security Council, pushing out four staffers who were seen as close to Bannon. Source Every time i read something like this, it sinks in another time that we just made it through less than 200 days. Not even a quarter done. There's so much shit going on it feels like he's the president for 29 years already. Same. I wonder how long we can go with so many vacancies and more being vacated day by day. Before long, it'll be one intern running around doing all of the work.
Is that intern by any chance his son-in-law?
|
lol I didn't even catch this one earlier:
And he praised Susan Bro, the mother of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, who died after a car driven by a man reported to have harbored Nazi sympathies plowed into the rally opponents.
The praise, however, was for her warm remarks about Trump.
"Under the kind of stress that she’s under and the heartache that she’s under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something," the president said.
source: www.reuters.com
how narcissistic do you even have to be to comment on how amazing that mother is... for praising him. Seriously that's fucked up. Not in a "that's a big thing" kind of way or anything like that but man
|
I'm sure Trump was similarly proud when the mother of the murderer also made it known that she didn't consider Trump a racist. High praise!
|
On August 16 2017 21:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 21:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 21:19 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 20:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.
The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.
Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
Whatever Trump decides could chart the fate of a nuclear-weapons deal with Iran, U.S. troop deployments to Afghanistan and White House staffing decisions - all issues over which Bannon and McMaster have sparred.
Bannon has been in a precarious position before but Trump has opted to keep him, in part because his chief strategist played a major role in his election victory and is backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters.
"The president obviously is very nervous and afraid of firing him," a source close to the White House told Reuters.
The source floated the possibility that Bannon could be demoted instead of fired, noting that he might turn into a harsh critic of the administration if he is forced out of the inner circle.
Two other senior officials, both supporters of McMaster who asked not to be identified, said he blames Bannon for a series of attacks against him by right-wing website Breitbart News, which Bannon used to lead, and other far-right conservative groups.
In recent weeks, Breitbart has published a series of articles making a case for McMaster's ouster on the basis that he is not a strong ally of Israel and that he has staffed the National Security Council with holdovers from the Obama administration.
One of the senior officials said McMaster’s anger over the campaign “is known to the president” but declined to say whether the national security adviser had told Trump directly or through General John Kelly, an ally and the president's new chief of staff.
"McMaster isn't saying Bannon is the mastermind behind the campaign, but he does think Bannon could stop it if he wanted to,” said one of McMaster's defenders.
In a television interview on Sunday, McMaster repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he could work with Bannon.
About their feud, Bannon declined to comment and McMaster was unavailable for comment.
Instead of firing Bannon, Trump could move McMaster into a position outside the White House, possibly back to an active military command role, or keep both men where they are and insist on some form of truce.
Bannon has survived other White House power struggles this year and established a detente with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner after a scolding from the president.
The two senior officials who support McMaster said Kelly is angry that the anti-McMaster campaign has made the White House appear chaotic, reflecting badly on him as he was brought in as chief of staff two weeks ago to restore order and discipline.
Bannon sees himself as the defender of Trump's nationalist base and has advocated for both an end or renegotiation of trade deals and a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs than McMaster.
He has pushed to scrap the 2015 nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, which McMaster argues should remain in place, and has also proposed using contractors to fight the war in Afghanistan rather than expanding U.S. forces there, as McMaster has advocated.
McMaster is part of a more pragmatic group that Bannon likes to label "globalists."
He drew the fury of Bannon's supporters by recently overhauling the White House's National Security Council, pushing out four staffers who were seen as close to Bannon. Source Every time i read something like this, it sinks in another time that we just made it through less than 200 days. Not even a quarter done. There's so much shit going on it feels like he's the president for 29 years already. Same. I wonder how long we can go with so many vacancies and more being vacated day by day. Before long, it'll be one intern running around doing all of the work. Is that intern by any chance his son-in-law?
Might as well be. I'm waiting for the news that essential WH duties have been outsourced to China or Mexicans.
|
On August 16 2017 21:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 21:35 Acrofales wrote:On August 16 2017 21:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2017 21:19 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 20:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.
The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.
Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
Whatever Trump decides could chart the fate of a nuclear-weapons deal with Iran, U.S. troop deployments to Afghanistan and White House staffing decisions - all issues over which Bannon and McMaster have sparred.
Bannon has been in a precarious position before but Trump has opted to keep him, in part because his chief strategist played a major role in his election victory and is backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters.
"The president obviously is very nervous and afraid of firing him," a source close to the White House told Reuters.
The source floated the possibility that Bannon could be demoted instead of fired, noting that he might turn into a harsh critic of the administration if he is forced out of the inner circle.
Two other senior officials, both supporters of McMaster who asked not to be identified, said he blames Bannon for a series of attacks against him by right-wing website Breitbart News, which Bannon used to lead, and other far-right conservative groups.
In recent weeks, Breitbart has published a series of articles making a case for McMaster's ouster on the basis that he is not a strong ally of Israel and that he has staffed the National Security Council with holdovers from the Obama administration.
One of the senior officials said McMaster’s anger over the campaign “is known to the president” but declined to say whether the national security adviser had told Trump directly or through General John Kelly, an ally and the president's new chief of staff.
"McMaster isn't saying Bannon is the mastermind behind the campaign, but he does think Bannon could stop it if he wanted to,” said one of McMaster's defenders.
In a television interview on Sunday, McMaster repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he could work with Bannon.
About their feud, Bannon declined to comment and McMaster was unavailable for comment.
Instead of firing Bannon, Trump could move McMaster into a position outside the White House, possibly back to an active military command role, or keep both men where they are and insist on some form of truce.
Bannon has survived other White House power struggles this year and established a detente with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner after a scolding from the president.
The two senior officials who support McMaster said Kelly is angry that the anti-McMaster campaign has made the White House appear chaotic, reflecting badly on him as he was brought in as chief of staff two weeks ago to restore order and discipline.
Bannon sees himself as the defender of Trump's nationalist base and has advocated for both an end or renegotiation of trade deals and a more isolationist approach to foreign affairs than McMaster.
He has pushed to scrap the 2015 nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, which McMaster argues should remain in place, and has also proposed using contractors to fight the war in Afghanistan rather than expanding U.S. forces there, as McMaster has advocated.
McMaster is part of a more pragmatic group that Bannon likes to label "globalists."
He drew the fury of Bannon's supporters by recently overhauling the White House's National Security Council, pushing out four staffers who were seen as close to Bannon. Source Every time i read something like this, it sinks in another time that we just made it through less than 200 days. Not even a quarter done. There's so much shit going on it feels like he's the president for 29 years already. Same. I wonder how long we can go with so many vacancies and more being vacated day by day. Before long, it'll be one intern running around doing all of the work. Is that intern by any chance his son-in-law? Might as well be. I'm waiting for the news that essential WH duties have been outsourced to China or Mexicans.
India, they're better at insulting normal people.
|
At age 31, Nixon Arias cut a profile similar to many unauthorized immigrants in the United States. A native of Honduras, he had been in the country for more than a decade and had worked off and on for a landscaping company for nine years. The money he earned went to building a future for his family in Pensacola, Fla. His Facebook page was filled with photos of fishing and other moments with his three boys, ages 3, 7 and 8.
But in November 2013, that life began to unravel.
The previous year, Arias had been mowing the median of Highway 59 just over the Alabama line when his riding lawnmower hit a hole, throwing him into the air. He slammed back in his seat, landing hard on his lower back.
Arias received pain medication, physical therapy and steroid injections through his employer's workers' compensation insurance. But the pain in his back made even walking or sitting a struggle. So his doctor recommended an expensive surgery to implant a device that sends electrical pulses to the spinal cord to relieve chronic pain. Six days after that appointment, the insurance company suddenly discovered that Arias had been using a deceased man's Social Security number and rejected not only the surgery but all of his past and future care.
Desperate, Arias hired an attorney to help him pursue the injury benefits that Florida law says all employees, including unauthorized immigrants, are entitled to receive. Then one morning after he dropped off two of his boys at school, Arias was pulled over and arrested, while his toddler watched from his car seat.
Arias was charged with using a false Social Security number to get a job and to file for workers' comp. The state insurance fraud unit had been tipped off by a private investigator hired by his employer's insurance company.
With his back still in pain from three herniated or damaged disks, Arias spent a year and a half in jail and immigration detention before he was deported.
However people feel about immigration, judges and lawmakers nationwide have long acknowledged that the employment of unauthorized workers is a reality of the American economy. From nailing shingles on roofs to cleaning hotel rooms, some 8 million immigrants work with false or no papers nationwide, and studies show they're more likely to be hurt or killed on the job than other workers. So over the years, nearly all 50 states, including Florida, have given these workers the right to receive workers' comp.
But in 2003, Florida's lawmakers added a catch, making it a crime to file a workers' comp claim using false identification. Since then, insurers have avoided paying for injured immigrant workers' lost wages and medical care by repeatedly turning them in to the state.
Workers like Arias have been charged with felony workers' comp fraud even though their injuries are real and happened on the job. And in a challenging twist of logic, immigrants can be charged with workers' comp fraud even if they've never been injured or filed a claim, because legislators also made it illegal to use a fake ID to get a job. In many cases, the state's insurance fraud unit has conducted unusual sweeps of worksites, arresting a dozen employees for workers' comp fraud after merely checking their Social Security numbers.
What's quietly been happening to workers in Florida, unnoticed even by immigrant advocates, could be a harbinger of the future as immigration enforcement expands under President Trump.
One of Trump's first executive orders broadened Immigration and Customs Enforcement's priorities to include not just those convicted of or charged with a crime but any immigrant suspected of one. The order also targets anyone who has "engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency." That language could sweep in countless injured unauthorized workers because state workers' comp bureaus and medical facilities typically request Social Security numbers as part of the claims process.
In the past few months, a Massachusetts construction worker who fractured his femur when he fell from a ladder was detained by ICE shortly after meeting with his boss to discuss getting help for his injury. In Ohio, Republican lawmakers pushed a bill that would have barred undocumented immigrants from getting workers' comp. It passed the state's House of Representatives before stalling in the Senate in June.
To assess the impact of Florida's law on undocumented workers, ProPublica and NPR analyzed 14 years of state insurance fraud data and thousands of pages of court records. We found nearly 800 cases statewide in which employees were arrested under the law, including at least 130 injured workers. An additional 125 workers were arrested after a workplace injury prompted the state to check the personnel records of other employees. Insurers have used the law to deny workers benefits after a litany of serious workplace injuries, from falls off roofs to severe electric shocks. A house painter was rejected after she was impaled on a wooden stake.
Flagged by insurers or their private detectives, state fraud investigators have arrested injured workers at doctor's appointments and at depositions in their workers' comp cases. Some were taken into custody with their arms still in slings. At least 1 in 4 of those arrested was subsequently detained by ICE or deported.
Source
|
In relation to CCSB's post, I never got an answer as to when it became ICE's jurisdiction to go after white supremacists. That would be better handled by at least 3 different alphabet agencies we have in the US.
|
|
|
On August 16 2017 16:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 14:06 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:54 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:51 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 ZeaL. wrote:On August 16 2017 13:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 16 2017 13:18 m4ini wrote:On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote:
Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd? Yes. edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd. Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration. This post reeks so much of desperation to avoid the mental gymnastics required to hold your position. You clearly have no fucking idea what my position is. Just stay out of this one. Clarify then, because that's what your statement comes off like honestly. No, I want to give Plansix (or someone else) an opportunity to do it first, because there are certain posters in this thread who need to be embarrassed. You're trying to form a legal defence for him, or figure out what it'd look like. Yes, this is correct. What we should all know by now after our experiences with Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray, and Bill Cosby's numerous rape victims is that only idiots pre-judge cases before seeing all of the evidence. There clearly is no dispute that our Nazi friend ran over a bunch of people. What matters is why. Was it premeditated? Did he panic after getting out of a bad situation where he was being assaulted or threatened by other people? Could we frame this as self-defense? This is why I want to see evidence of what happened before the vehicular assault. The way this will work is that the prosecution will have the burden of proving the crime -- which includes the requisite level of intent (premeditated / intentional / reckless / etc). The defense will have the burden of proving any affirmative defense (self-defense). From the videos that I've seen so far, I still don't know what happened before the Nazi gunned the vehicle into the crowd and before the screaming began. However, I tend to think that the self defense argument isn't going to work. At best, and based solely upon the videos, the defense is going to be able to argue down the intent. But the hard part about that will be explaining away the seconds before the final acceleration into the crowd. You have to make a distinction between judge and judge: do you talk about your personal judgement about whether he is guilty and his act, or about the legal details of what will happen in court? Thise are very different things. I don't see the need to be very careful and reserved about the first one. He is a nazi who deliberately ran his car into a crowd. I would be very surprised if any additional data ever make me think "oh i've been unfair, he didn't mean it".
Well, it's kinda both. And you can't really have an informed personal judgment without a sufficient factual foundation for the judgment in the first place. All of that said, I haven't seen anything particularly exculpating in this case. The guy is a Nazi (or white supremacist or whatever he wants to call himself) who clearly ran into a bunch of people, killing one. He's not going to get any benefits of the doubt from the jury. Based on what I have seen, manslaughter is probably a lock. I think second degree murder is very likely as well.
|
On August 16 2017 13:34 Odawg27 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:03 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 12:38 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 12:34 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 12:30 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 12:14 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:20 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
[quote]
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read. And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented. So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks. So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely. On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote:Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this: + Show Spoiler +which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this. Except what's going on is this: Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19. Most people: "Nazis are bad!" Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!" Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?" Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people." We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here. On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
[quote]
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems. This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either. If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read. And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented. Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism. http://time.com/4899658/charlottesville-antifa-protests/EDIT: here is more. Yes, the Fascists are the ones doing the violence. No, not seeing assaults initiated by Antifa. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/far-right-white-supremacists-berkeley-protests-antifa-trump/ We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters. I'm not excusing anyone here for anything. Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane. Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally. Did you read his claims and arguments? Serious question. I feel like your eyes glazed over during a skit read and you chose to characterize it as excuses. Or like you privilege your own and others assertions and think everybody else should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Frankly, I'm left wondering if you understood his claims rather than insert your own interpretations in place of them. I read it. I addressed it to the best of my ability. He's putting forth no evidence or really any argument other than a tweet and claiming antifa is violent. The anitfa thing is something that most of us arguing with him admit and have presented evidence *for* him. We've also argued that it's nowhere near the same as what is happening at these neo-nazi and white supremacist rallies, specifically the one in Charlottesville. I'm asking for his argument, while presenting my own as well. And I see you parroting the talking points of others, which are hardly argument and hardly admission of wrong on both sides. You responded to his tweet with your own preferred narrative, which is shared by many disreputable media organizations. You hold mutually exclusive perspectives, but I've seen you hold more faith that yours is backed by evidence and less faith that his is as well. This is the politics thread where facts plain as day to you come into conflict with facts plain as day to others. I see no reason to prejudice evidentially one opinion over another when both are offered as pure viewpoints. Ok. I'll go into deeper details with facts to back up my viewpoint. Neo-nazis and white supremacists, along with I'm certain a few good people, showed up to protest at the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, NC. Counter-protesters showed up. The Unite the Right protesters waved Nazi and Confederate flags while chanting Nazi slogans and using violent rhetoric. There's video all over the place of this, if you need me to find it for you I will. Some of the Unite the Right protesters showed up with weapons. They're on camera starting fights and beating a black man (again, video and photos easily available to be provided). Counter-protesters were attacked and reportedly a small number of scuffles broke out started by them. Reports from many there say the counter-protester started fights were much smaller than those started by the Unite the Right protesters. One of the Unite the Right protesters drove his car into a group of counter-protesters at high speed, killing 1 and injuring 19. Politicians and many ordinary people express sadness at the death and violence, specifically from the Unite the Right protesters. President Trump gives a statement about the violence saying he condemns the violence, bigotry and hatred "on many sides, on many sides". He doesn't specifically mention white supremacists or neo-nazis. Those groups view that as him on their side. His aides and surrogates go in 2 directions. One is the statement of "well of course he doesn't support neo-nazis or white supremacists". The other side is to talk about how bad and terrible the left's protesters are. I can find those all over the web as well, specifically if you search Fox News shows. This is the angle taken up by many on the far right. They are framing this as the counter-protesters were just as bad and terrible. When questioned about why they need to add that to the conversation as it seems they are making excuses for the terrible, violent actions of the Unite the Right protesters while defending neo-nazis, they say they're not nazis and shouldn't be called nazi's by the intolerant left. So, where am I factually wrong? It seems like few on the far right are coming out to say Nazis are bad, with those on the left claiming total innocence. Where is that? And I'm not talking about how media or some people aren't bringing up Antifa. You are, you and Trump and other far right people are bringing them up yourselves, which runs counter to the left saying they're "100% innocent". I've presented factual evidence supporting my viewpoint and argument as to why that tweet is not based on anything real.
First off, you can see Falling on mostly equitable violence on both sides. Read and watch.
Secondly, the Washington Post:
Within moments, there was chaos. Shoves. Punches. Both groups sprayed chemical irritants. Many marchers threw their torches toward the statue and the students.
Other than one university police officer, there was no sign of law enforcement along the march, and it was several minutes before police intervened. Both sides suffered injuries. They relied mostly on their cohorts for treatment until emergency personnel arrived.
Counterprotesters had also gathered early. Members of anti-fascist groups yelled at the rallygoers. Many of them also carried sticks and shields. They were joined by local residents, members of church groups, civil rights leaders and onlookers.
A few minutes before 11 a.m., a swelling group of white nationalists carrying large shields and long wooden clubs approached the park on Market Street. About two dozen counterprotesters formed a line across the street, blocking their path. With a roar, the marchers charged through the line, swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals.
Counterprotesters fought back, also swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals. Others threw balloons filled with paint or ink at the white nationalists. Everywhere, it seemed violence was exploding. The police did not move to break up the fights.
Bottles and rocks continued to fly back and forth between rallygoers and counterprotesters. Smaller fights broke out and then settled. As the sporadic violence worsened, law enforcement leaders decided they had seen enough.
WaPo
1. Correct your explanation. Counter-protestors and ANTIFA showed up. Not "oh Neo-nazis and white supremacists, along with I'm certain a few good people" and "counter-protestors." Counter protestors, ANTIFA, of both violent and passive aims.
2. Both sides showed up with weapons. Correct your "Some of the Unite the Right protesters showed up with weapons. " *crickets on some of the others* It was a fucking miracle that the people on both sides bloodied and sent to the hospitals did not die. If you can't see that from two armed sides with sticks while throwing bottles and rocks, you're blind.
3.Trump's initial reaction was bad for the reason that groups like the KKK and white supremacist orgs might think he was with them. His speech was an accurate portrayal of events, but insufficient in the next days. He corrected this error twice, first on the next day, second at the long press conference. If you're portraying facts, include facts that the president did identify the groups by name for condemnation.
4. None of the counter protestors rose to the level of plowing through the crowd in an automobile. That part wasn't equitable. Full stop. The rest of the violence absolutely was, from WaPo reporting, videos, other newsites reporting. Both sides turned up to fight. As before, thank God more weren't killed from the violence because there was reckless disregard for who died with all the clubs rocks bottles.
So it's absolutely right to condemn the white nationalists and neonazis there, full stop. It's ludicrous to not also call out violent factions in the counter protestors that showed up to do violence. Absolutely unexcusable to try to diminish their presence and aims like you do. That's at the heart of my viewpoint and those are the facts from the night particular to the night. Going further into the broader but related topics, namely where this fits in the culture war and the American left's contentment and justifications of left wing violent riots would require too much time to actually put forth here. xDaunt waded in and nobody read or responded in good faith, so it's very likely people are ready to have that conversation yet.
So, where am I factually wrong? It seems like few on the far right are coming out to say Nazis are bad, with those on the left claiming total innocence. Where is that? And I'm not talking about how media or some people aren't bringing up Antifa. You are, you and Trump and other far right people are bringing them up yourselves, which runs counter to the left saying they're "100% innocent". I've presented factual evidence supporting my viewpoint and argument as to why that tweet is not based on anything real.
Also don't glaze over our president's two followup condemnations of the groups by name. Aka Nazis are bad, he said it, and I find unconvincing your appraisal of "few on the far right are coming out to say..." From my perspective, few on the far left are willing to condemn both groups and in fact consider both condemnations to be excusing the supremacist factions based on equity. Like people want to explore political violence on both sides, but the violence associated with BLM is verboten.
Also, reminder that your first paragraph never mentioned Antifa when you summed up the nights events. You claim his tweet wasn't based on anything real, and now I've quoted primary reporting showing it's real, so it's your big shot to get it right. + Show Spoiler [Related] +
This is STILL unacceptable and actions speak louder than words.
|
I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
EDIT2: We have been back and forth with xD on his views of the culture war. Where have you been? Every time xD comments, I and a few others comment right back. You gotta keep up in this game boyo
|
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark and Biff rofl. But thanks personally for countering an impression I got of you from the majority of your posts. By the way, is condemning both sides while specifically condemning white supremacists and neonazis tantamount to not condemning the actions in your rubric? I saw that come up quite a bit.
|
Agreed. I am willing to hear criticism of BLM protests, but not in the context of these Nazis. It is a bad faith argument and does not merit discussion. Continues efforts to equate the two really comes to close being a Nazi apologist.
|
Honestly a protest breaks out into a violent riot, the police should have license to clean house completely, provided it is practical i.e. they have sufficient planning and numbers. And really, people shouldn't be allowed to bring weapons to protests lol. In that case there should be riot police in very close proximity.
But on the broader culture war, I would judge the Unite the Right side to be more deplorable in their aims and beliefs, and so Trump should not have hesitated to recognize that and condemn them. Nor should he imply so much of an equivalence. Trump is, at heart, a racist dog whistler.
But hey, Kellyanne's pose here was mere coincidence right?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 16 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all. You should tell that to Kwark and Biff rofl. But thanks personally for countering an impression I got of you from the majority of your posts. By the way, is condemning both sides while specifically condemning white supremacists and neonazis tantamount to not condemning the actions in your rubric? I saw that come up quite a bit.
To use the political term that gets bandied about so often; optics. The first condemnation should have been solely focused on the nazis and white supremacists. You can then release a statement later that condemns both sides for escalating conflict in a moment that was essentially a powder keg waiting to go off. There is no easy way to do it and you're gonna catch flak for it. But the truth of the matter is, there was someone killed by one side. That side deserves all the condemnation immediately following it. Do not give them the sense that you are on their side by being morally ambiguous. Won't help you at all.
|
They do this and they call for white supremacy. They are more deplorable than the other side.
The Charlottesville tragedy came close to home for me because I teach at the University of Virginia and because it signaled the reappearance of a threat I had encountered before: the rise of well-armed private militia groups. For those close to the action, including the law enforcement personnel on duty, hardly any aspect of the Charlottesville confrontation was more menacing than the appearance of organized, often uniformed, private bands of men in military getups, openly brandishing assault rifles and other long guns.
www.lawfareblog.com
|
United States42005 Posts
On August 16 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all. You should tell that to Kwark On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote:
Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run. I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes. I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose. The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position. Well we could look back in this very thread... That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera. As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled. This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
|
On August 16 2017 23:03 Plansix wrote:
Agreed. I am willing to hear criticism of BLM protests, but not in the context of these Nazis. It is a bad faith argument and does not merit discussion. Continues efforts to equate the two really comes to close being a Nazi apologist.
I haven't specifically seen the bad faith tactic from you to my memory, but from others.
"I want to talk about political violence from the right. They're more prone to it for the following reasons. Any discussion of political violence from the left is whataboutism/Nazi apologist/bad faith"
You want Charlottesville, that's fine. BLM wasn't there to my knowledge. You want to go broad with political violence and how this incident fits into the Trump presidency or the modern GOP? Don't get your panties in a bunch.
|
On August 16 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all. You should tell that to Kwark and Biff rofl. But thanks personally for countering an impression I got of you from the majority of your posts. By the way, is condemning both sides while specifically condemning white supremacists and neonazis tantamount to not condemning the actions in your rubric? I saw that come up quite a bit.
Most republicans representatives had done it, and i think it's fair enough. The problem comes when you just talk about the violence and don't condemn white supremacist because then it can be seen as you are giving them a moral equivalence to BLM or antifa which does not exist.
And i will get a page out of the conservatists in these thread, if you get a different impression from left leaning posters here, you should go back and re-read.
|
On August 16 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all. You should tell that to Kwark Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote:
Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run. I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes. I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose. The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position. Well we could look back in this very thread... That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera. As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled. This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote:
Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit. It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_09/1917016/170228-kellyanne-couch-oval-office-803a_9cca82c78b5d543e0bd37fb225036c9a.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg)
