you could go west and do the same thing
Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
you could go west and do the same thing
The moment you leave off the apologist, revisionist nonsense in support of ennobling the ignoble I will. Until then, don't begin to believe I'm the least bit weary.
I was raised in the Dunning School, and Eric Foner is way too extreme for me. Have not looked at this in 20 years
Love it!
One of my favorite parts of the video:
"So, Timmy lied???"
"Yes, Timmy lied."
The Duck. :chuckle: Anyways, I don't believe that Graham OR the republicans (with the exception of a select few) ever trusted him. They believed they could write the legislation and he would go along with it ... minus to ongoing soap-opera of a migraine he has caused them since his inauguration.
lol - you've pulled a Trump - sabotaged your intent by your own words, there:chuckle:
I think you are right. He will be seen as worse than Bush II. He needed those clowns to get elected, then he should have let that act go and deal with the Republican party, which seems Republicans had hoped he would put the presidency first. This media nonsense will be the ruin of the Republican party.
Look for Democrats picking up seats in congress in 2018, and a good chance for wining the next presidency.
Depends on if they are a Nazi.
Nope. Not unless the conclusion of Nazi-hood is spurious and based on some hateful categorization, which seems quite uncommon.
WizardofOz
New member
Thank you for taking the time to post this. I have read them and agree with him on his remarks. Please quote what words he offended you with. I conceded that he was wrong about "without a permit" as the counter-protesters did indeed have a permit so he goofed there. Otherwise, I don't see much to criticize. :idunno:
Only two have answered in the positive that it is not hateful to call folks that derogatory name.
Depends on if they are a Nazi.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You're welcome. I don't think offended is the right word, disgusted is probably better.
As for what in particular, I've already laid that out in several posts throughout the last pages. I can gather those for you, but a word-for-word annotation isn't going to change anything I've already said.
WizardofOz
New member
Fair enough. I've been AFK for the most part since we last spoke so I'll due my due diligence and go back to read these posts. I'll see what I can find and we'll take it from there :cheers:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Sounds good. You're someone I'd go out of my way for here, so I'll add whatever else is needed.
WizardofOz
New member
Ugh - I hate defending Trump but I think too much is being made out of what he said. Once I read through all three transcripts I don't see reason for uproar.
He's not a great public speaker. He lacks eloquence and intelligence when speaking. I'd get him a speechwriter and a teleprompter whenever he's willing. He badly needs polish.
His comments:
| TRUMP: The driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and this country. And that is, you can call it terrorism, you can call it murder, you can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That's what I'd call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder, is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer and what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. |
I agree. He doesn't care what it is labeled, he just wants to see a fast conviction. Unlike many politicians, Trump was not a lawyer prior to politics. It's a legal distinction. Sessions had no trouble clarifying.
| Attorney General Jeff Sessions said a driver's ramming a car into a crowd of demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday, which killed a young woman and sent 19 other people to hospitals, "does meet the definition of domestic terrorism" under U.S. law. "It does meet the definition of domestic terrorism in our statute," Sessions told ABC News' David Muir on "Good Morning America" today. "We are pursuing it in the [Department of Justice] in every way that we can make a case." "You can be sure we will charge and advance the investigation towards the most serious charges that can be brought, because this is unequivocally an unacceptable, evil attack," he said. "Terrorism investigators from the FBI are working on the case as well as civil rights division FBI agents." |
So there is an actual legal argument from the Trump administration. Sessions is much more well quipped to make this distinction. I think it is important to keep in mind that the point of this particular Q&A was infrastructure. Trump had already spoken about Charlottesville twice prior.
David Duke is a nobody is who overstating his own importance. He is trying to prop himself up in anyway he can to gain relevancy. Trump does come out and condemn the neo-nazis and white supremacists and Duke lost it over his comments. Trump should get the credit he deserves for specifically calling them out.
Donnie John said:
:thumb: Well said. And Duke didn't like it one bit.
Please quote him so we can make sure we're both talking about the same thing.
I don't think the antifa is any better than the white supremacists. They hate with equal vigor. There is no moral equivalency as in neither of these groups have a claim to make on a morality behind their cause.
What Trump actually said:
Donnie John said:
And I think the facts bear this out. Both sides had made their mind up that violence was going to be their mean of protest. Not individuals involved all are guilty but neither 'side' is innocent as a whole.
WizardofOz
New member
Sounds good. You're someone I'd go out of my way for here, so I'll add whatever else is needed.
Thank you Anna. The feeling is mutual :cheers:
I'm just trying to remain as objective as possible.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I think where we part ways somewhat in how we look at this is that you can't separate things like intent, timing and the absence of words with the words themselves. I hope that makes sense. For example, the words you really liked from Trump's second statement - yes, he said them, but he didn't write them, and more importantly, he didn't believe them. Thus the 24-hour 180 degree turnaround back to statement #3 and what he really thought.
He wants to divide, not unite, because he serves his purposes to do that. Take Boston today, for example.
There was an overwhelmingly large turnout by anti-racists to protest a small turnout for the free speech rally that was originally scheduled. And how did Trump characterize the anti-racist turnout?
Donald Trump described anti-Nazi demonstrators who converged on Boston to repudiate white nationalism as “anti-police agitators”, in a tweet that seemed destined to revive the still simmering controversy over his remarks equating the far right and anti-fascists in Charlottesville last weekend.
“Looks like many anti-police agitators in Boston,” Trump tweeted. “Police are looking tough and smart! Thank you.”
I'd easily forgive him for that - if I liked what he said, if I thought his intentions were good, if I believed he put the best interests of this country ahead of his own interests.
Again, though - those aren't his words. And he was coerced into saying them, and he was angry he had to say them.
I'm glad Sessions said it. No argument there.
But David Duke is representative of the specific ideology behind all this so that bears keeping in mind, as does - I'm repeating myself here - Trump only specifically called them out because he was forced into it.
Here, statement 3:
George Washington was a slave-owner. Was George Washington a slave-owner? So will George Washington now lose his status — are we going to take down — excuse me. Are we going to take down statues of George Washington? How 'bout Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Ok, good. Are we going to take down the statue because he was a major slave-owner? Now we're going to take down his statue. So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history, you're changing culture. And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo Nazis or the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo Nazis and white nationalists, ok? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
That might not seem like a big deal to you, but if you look at what's behind the word, it's the blood and soil, they're changing our (white Christian) culture... it's about the fear of the other, the foreigner, the person of color, the non-Christian Jew or Muslim, it's what drives many of them, even the alt-righters who try to distance themselves from more extreme manifestations of white supremacy and white nationalism.
I may be misunderstanding you, but it looks like you've classified the anti-racist marchers as all antifa, and I can't agree with that. There's no moral equivalency because antifa aren't marching to deny the human rights of people of color, of Jews, of homosexuals. In fact, they're the complete opposite of that.
That's so simplistic, I know. It would take so many words to tease out all these thoughts.
I said this a few days back (I think - I've lost track of time) that a distinction had to be made, whether someone was violent in self defense or if they were aggressing. It's easy to say both sides were violent, but harder to figure out how each melee began - who attacked, and who defended.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Thank you.
I've appreciated your objectivity many times, you and kmo also. You both have a way of making me think twice, and it's helpful.
- Status