|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Show nested quote +Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: Show nested quote +I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.
Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
|
You can admit that Trump has condemned white supremacy and offered to condemn any groups named multiple times in the debate, and then conclude that his answer isn’t to be trusted because of [reasons]. That at least retains your own dignity and doesn’t sacrifice it to partisanship.
(Have your own little debate if his boomer brain was trying to remember Wallace’s phrase of “stand down,” or if he was subtlety signaling support for the proud boys after all the denials. Regardless, the next day or day after he did so unequivocally, recognizing the error.)
|
|
|
I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero.
On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
|
Hurr durr, He once said he doesn't like Nazis, so the other seventy three times he supported, encouraged and praised them don't count.
Oh wait, it's the other way round
|
On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
Don't know of many French who revere Napoleon as a hero, either...
|
On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
Did not exactly fight *to* maintain that right. He caved under pressure for a while to restore public order, and in some colonies only, that had been captured by other countries, and had not been subjected to the abolition during the revolution (or where the abolition was not applied), following a european treaty.
Lorsque de son accession au pouvoir (1799), Bonaparte a vite été entouré d’hommes d’affaires, d’anciens fonctionnaires des colonies qui, immédiatement, l’ont poussé à revenir sur la décision de l’abolition de l’esclavage de 1794. Bonaparte leur répondait invariablement : « Nous ne devons pas retirer la liberté
à des hommes à qui nous l’avons donnée. »
Alors, pourquoi a-t-il rétabli l’esclavage ? Pour des raisons d’ordre public et de géopolitique.
À noter > De retour au pouvoir pendant les Cent Jours, Napoléon Ier abolit la traite des noirs avec un décret du 29 mars 1815. L’esclavage est aboli sous la Monarchie de Juillet, le 27 avril 1848.
Businessmen and officials surrounded him and immediately pushed him about going back on slavery abolition. He answered every time "We must not take back freedom from men who we've granted it to." So why did he do it ? For public order and geopolitic reasons.
In 1815, back in power, he abolished slave trade, and slavery is abolished in 1848 (not Napoleon).
Still completely unacceptable, but it's wrong to say he fought FOR slavery. He was very far from a saint though, that's for sure. Offtopic so stopping there.
|
On October 14 2020 06:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Don't know of many French who revere Napoleon as a hero, either...
Robert E. Lee also didn't want Confederate monuments built after the war.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments
Also, most of the Confederate monuments in the US were built in the 1900s.
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments
Keeping these statues up in public places is pointless for people who really want to preserve history. Museums will do a much better job of preserving an artifact than a city's public square ever could. People saying it's about preserving history are using a dog whistle and everyone knows it.
|
On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different.
Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery.
Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate,
I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee.
|
At a minimum, people defending the statues of Confederates force a kind of dichotomy on themselves; either they legitimately don’t know this nation’s history, or they do and don’t care that the vast majority of Confederate statues were Lost Cause tools used to tell an alternative history of the United States, usually to local black folk who needed to access city/town centers. In either case the result is shameful.
|
On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people.
It's still misinformation to claim that Trump said white supremacists were very fine people. To be in favor of keeping up a statue of Lee (as Trump defined the "side" he was talking about) is not the same as being in favor of white supremacy.
Again, Trump said that white supremacists "should be condemned totally." It's just straight up misinformation perpetrated by the anti-Trump media.
|
I mean, he said they should be condemned. He didn't say he condemned them. If we really want to get pedantic.
Further, I don't think there's as much of a gulf between White Supremacists and proponents of Lee statues as you'd like to think.
|
In other news cook moved Alaska, Georgia and Texas in postive direction for dems. It is still a bit of a long shot but the fact that we could see dems with 56 to 57 is astounding. God what i would pay to see mcturtles face at a resounding defeat like that. Let him laugh that up like he did covid at the debate
|
Does anyone know the history of abortion becoming such a central issue to GOP voters? I seem to hazily recall that it's relatively recent and involved the party trying to build up its base.
|
On October 14 2020 11:14 Starlightsun wrote:
Does anyone know the history of abortion becoming such a central issue to GOP voters? I seem to hazily recall that it's relatively recent and involved the party trying to build up its base.
Was picked as a unifying conservative issue by evangelical thought leaders after opposing desegregation became too unpalatable to business interests in the latter half of the 70s and early 80s. Before this it was viewed as something only catholics cared about (who were disliked by many conservatives for not being WASPs).
This is why Roe V Wade was a 7-2 decision : almost nobody cared about abortion at the time unless they were Catholics.
This isn't why the current group of anti-abortionists are against it, but it's why many of the "focus on the family" types started promoting it in the 70s. It's one of those things where the history doesn't really matter too much though. It's not like the pastors came out and said this was why they starting opposing abortion to their congregations, who are the actual voters and current politicians that we're talking about, and the current generation really does mostly do oppose it for the reasons they say they do. (Except for Pat Robertson, who is still kicking and active politically, most of the people we're talking about have been dead or irrelevant for decades).
|
Thanks... since it's such a key issue it helps to know some context about it.
|
On October 13 2020 21:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 21:13 Jockmcplop wrote:
High voter turnout =/= low voter suppression.
I do agree that long lines aren't necessarily because of voter suppression though. Might just be a sign that the authorities weren't ready for eager everyone is to get rid of Trump. Yeah and perhaps hard to get volunteers since many are elderly and COVID. On the other hand it is my understanding that this is the same old thing not a 2020 thing and worse it certain areas, which makes it hard to give the people in control any benefit of the doubt.
My friend is a lifelong Republican going back to the US to be a poll volunteer because he no longer trusts the Republican party of his area to run free and fair elections.
|
On October 14 2020 12:37 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 11:14 Starlightsun wrote:
Does anyone know the history of abortion becoming such a central issue to GOP voters? I seem to hazily recall that it's relatively recent and involved the party trying to build up its base. Was picked as a unifying conservative issue by evangelical thought leaders after opposing desegregation became too unpalatable to business interests in the latter half of the 70s and early 80s. Before this it was viewed as something only catholics cared about (who were disliked by many conservatives for not being WASPs). This is why Roe V Wade was a 7-2 decision : almost nobody cared about abortion at the time unless they were Catholics. This isn't why the current group of anti-abortionists are against it, but it's why many of the "focus on the family" types started promoting it in the 70s. It's one of those things where the history doesn't really matter too much though. It's not like the pastors came out and said this was why they starting opposing abortion to their congregations, who are the actual voters and current politicians that we're talking about, and the current generation really does mostly do oppose it for the reasons they say they do. (Except for Pat Robertson, who is still kicking and active politically, most of the people we're talking about have been dead or irrelevant for decades).
Connecting right to life to opposition to desegregation and business interests? I might as well allege that killing babies still in the womb was a unifying political issue for democrats, and supported many of their secret desires to use it for eugenics (as it was with the founder of Planned Parenthood). What a very slanted view for you to take. We don't have to behave here like the rest of the political world outside accusing everybody of having darkness in their hearts.
The current operating law is planned parenthood vs casey, and that was no 7-2 easy “no one cares” decision. It changed core parts of roe vs wade.
Basically, up to the Obama years, there was substantial support for pro-life among Democrats, represented for instance by Democrats for Life, that encouraged heavy restrictions for abortion and protections for unborn children. You may or may not remember that pro-life carve ours in Obamacare had to be made to preserve Democratic votes in favor of it. It was well towards becoming a more unipolar issue in the 2000s. The remaining pro-life Democrats were largely swept out of power in the slaughter of the 2010 midterms.
It’s just very hard to be pro-life and in the Democratic Party these days, and candidates that are pro-life face stiff challenges, as they did in this year’s primaries. The whole cultural sorting has exacerbated the tensions on issues like abortion and gun rights. I think the increasing ideological conformity within parties is mostly to blame.
|
Very odd to me that Texas Democrats are asking biden to come campaign there. I figured an increased presence would just be as harmful as helpful. Like it might motivate republicans more seeing him take a more active role. Not going to flip a big state in just one election though so maybe they see the grassroots support is there. Get it started building and taking small bits of power back to really make a play in a cycle or two.
Funny how the two linchpin states for each party are so different is terms of power. Cali republicans are never getting back power, While in texas every year the margins get thinner and thinner.
|
On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee.
I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
