Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[WizardofOz]

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.

George Washington owned slaves. Should we tear monuments to him down? I think that's the point he's trying to make (without reading too much into what he said). That's why people are opposed to taking down these confederate monuments. As imperfect as these men were, it is a part of our (shared) history. I have long defended leaving history alone. That's why I also defended the cross in many historical contexts as well as the t-beam 'cross' being included in the 9-11 memorial. Use it as a teaching moment. It's not like we're bringing slavery back because there is a confederate monument. The civil war happened.

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.

Ah, I'm glad you caught that. Because, not all the protesters were white nationalists either. That's the point Trump made. There were violent elements on both sides as there were innocent elements on both sides. Neither side should be painted to broadly. I'm not going to condemn every single person protesting because of the violence perpetuated by some.

If some showed up because they opposed the removal of the monument, they had every legal right to do so and I support their right to protest regardless of how I feel about the monument itself. It certainly does not make one a nazi or white nationalist by default of a shared goal.

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.

The antifa is there to 'bash the fash'. That's their motto. So yeah, while their only purpose is to oppose fascism, they are guilty of perpetuating violence.

And no, the protest wasn't to deny the rights of anyone. They got a permit to protest the removal of a confederate monument.

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.

If a neo-nazi was defending himself, he could still be condemned because of his beliefs. I'm simply not willing to white-wash the violence from the other side because their ideology is one of opposition only. If someone there to 'bash the fash' does just that, then they are just as much a negative element as the white nationalist.

 

[Town Heretic]

Depends on if they are a Nazi.

True enough. True enough...or to put it another way...

Spoiler

 

[WizardofOz]

I'll leave it at that. I suddenly find myself with a strong urge to shower

 

[Town Heretic]

What sacred honor and what would the South rising again look like?

Probably something like...

 

[kmoney]

Probably something like...

I can get behind that. :chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

And no, the protest wasn't to deny the rights of anyone. They got a permit to protest the removal of a confederate monument.

From what I read the original organizers for the rally were not the neo-nazi groups but the more moderate groups ended up backing out and the event got co-opted by the white supremacists. That's unfortunate for the original people. Not that I am very supportive of keeping the monuments around, but the presence of the neo-nazis helped things get way out of hand.

 

[annabenedetti]

George Washington owned slaves. Should we tear monuments to him down? I think that's the point he's trying to make (without reading too much into what he said). That's why people are opposed to taking down these confederate monuments. As imperfect as these men were, it is a part of our (shared) history. I have long defended leaving history alone. That's why I also defended the cross in many historical contexts as well as the t-beam 'cross' being included in the 9-11 memorial. Use it as a teaching moment. It's not like we're bringing slavery back because there is a confederate monument. The civil war happened.

I actually don't have a settled opinion on the statue issue itself, but I do see a difference between a monument to someone who played a role in founding and/or defending the country, and one who played a part in tearing it apart over the right to own slaves.

Ah, I'm glad you caught that. Because, not all the protesters were white nationalists either. That's the point Trump made. There were violent elements on both sides as there were innocent elements on both sides. Neither side should be painted to broadly. I'm not going to condemn every single person protesting because of the violence perpetuated by some.

If some showed up because they opposed the removal of the monument, they had every legal right to do so and I support their right to protest regardless of how I feel about the monument itself. It certainly does not make one a nazi or white nationalist by default of a shared goal.

I agree with you on the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And where do you draw the line? It's a tough call. Do you block someone from Twitter because you don't like what they say? Where do they cross the line? I don't see any of this as easy.

Here's where I'd start drawing the line, though. If someone who claims they're only marching to protest the removal of a statue while they're marching alongside people with swastikas shouting "Blood and Soil" and "Jews will not replace us," who tell black reporters they'll burn them and Hitler's 6 million was nothing, they'll kill 11 million, and they'll drive non-whites out of this country, and who talk of ethnic cleansing... what do they expect people will think?

The antifa is there to 'bash the fash'. That's their motto. So yeah, while their only purpose is to oppose fascism, they are guilty of perpetuating violence.

And if the violence is limited to blocking the marches of nazis? At what point is violence justified?

Today in Berlin, for example:

Left-wing groups and Berlin residents prevented more than 500 far-right extremists from marching Saturday to the place where high-ranking Nazi official Rudolf Hess died 30 years ago.
Police in riot gear kept the neo-Nazis and an estimated 1,000 counter-protesters apart as the two sides staged competing rallies in the German capital's western district of Spandau.
Far-right protesters had planned to march to the site of the former Spandau prison, where Hess hanged himself in 1987, but were forced to turn back after about a kilometer (0.6 miles) because of a blockade by counter-protesters.
After changing their route, the neo-Nazis, who had come from all over Germany and neighboring European countries, returned to Spandau's main station for speeches amid jeers and chants of "Nazis go home!" and "You lost the war!" from counter-protesters.​

And no, the protest wasn't to deny the rights of anyone. They got a permit to protest the removal of a confederate monument.

I agree about the reason for the permit. It's what else was said and promoted in the pursuit of that goal.

If a neo-nazi was defending himself, he could still be condemned because of his beliefs. I'm simply not willing to white-wash the violence from the other side because their ideology is one of opposition only. If someone there to 'bash the fash' does just that, then they are just as much a negative element as the white nationalist.

I'm sorry, but I'm unconvinced that they're just as much of a negative element. Each group stands for entirely different goals.

 

[kmoney]

{antifa and neo-nazi comparison video}

I ended up watching the video. If I remember correctly the 4 main points of comparison were:
1) neither side respects the Constitution or rule of law
2) both sides play identity politics and the victim card
3) both sides want big gov't intervention
4) both sides hate Jews

I think he raised some valid points, mostly in #1. Especially the part about anti-fascists suppressing speech they don't like.
I tend to think there is still a fundamental difference between the two sides though. One side is generally trying to deny rights and equality. The other side is generally trying to grant rights and equality. Both sides use methods I don't support.

 

[Town Heretic]

George Washington owned slaves. Should we tear monuments to him down? I think that's the point he's trying to make (without reading too much into what he said).

He's making a bad point then, WoZ. A friend of mine said that to me the other day. I reminded him that the monuments to Washington and Jefferson aren't in support or recognition of their status as slave owners. They're about a nation's gratitude for service in the founding and preservation of the Republic.

The statues of Confederate generals serve something else, the effort to preserve and advance slavery. We shouldn't memorialize that institution or service to it. If someone wants to convince anyone that the monument to Lee in New Orleans is about his post war service to the city I say fine, commission another statue of him without the uniform.

As imperfect as these men were

I think imperfect is a bit too light to describe the nature of anyone who fought to protect and advance a system that permitted the raping, selling, and mutilation of other human beings as though they were nothing at all more than property, without dignity or right.

We compound that "imperfection" when we memorialize it and cover those men with any semblance of honor.

Use it as a teaching moment.

I believe taking those monuments down is precisely a teaching moment. Or at least the evidence of a little learning.

It's not like we're bringing slavery back because there is a confederate monument. The civil war happened.

So did the Viet Nam conflict. But I'm adamantly against a statue to Ho Chi Minh in our local park, if it's proposed. And I won't have any trouble remembering that undeclared war without it.

 

[kmoney]

And if the violence is limited to blocking the marches of nazis? At what point is violence justified?

Today in Berlin, for example:

Left-wing groups and Berlin residents prevented more than 500 far-right extremists from marching Saturday to the place where high-ranking Nazi official Rudolf Hess died 30 years ago.
Police in riot gear kept the neo-Nazis and an estimated 1,000 counter-protesters apart as the two sides staged competing rallies in the German capital's western district of Spandau.
Far-right protesters had planned to march to the site of the former Spandau prison, where Hess hanged himself in 1987, but were forced to turn back after about a kilometer (0.6 miles) because of a blockade by counter-protesters.
After changing their route, the neo-Nazis, who had come from all over Germany and neighboring European countries, returned to Spandau's main station for speeches amid jeers and chants of "Nazis go home!" and "You lost the war!" from counter-protesters.​

I would not consider that violence justified. What's the harm in them getting to that house? :idunno:

I think you could argue that we shouldn't allow nazi rallies to go unopposed, meaning that a counter-protest is formed. But physically getting in the way or resorting to violence to stop a march I would not agree with.

 

[annabenedetti]

Interesting timeline on the placing of Confederate monuments. It speaks volumes.

 

[annabenedetti]

I would not consider that violence justified. What's the harm in them getting to that house? :idunno:

I think you could argue that we shouldn't allow nazi rallies to go unopposed, meaning that a counter-protest is formed. But physically getting in the way or resorting to violence to stop a march I would not agree with.

The harm is in allowing a display of Nazism to flourish unanswered.

But do you equate blocking with violence? Because they're not the same thing. I'd be quite satisfied blocking 500 Nazis from reaching a symbolic Nazi destination.

 

[Ktoyou]

Probably something like...

Baloney! You know as well as I do, most Southern elites were not hillbillies.

 

[kmoney]

The harm is in allowing a display of Nazism to flourish unanswered.

But do you equate blocking with violence? Because they're not the same thing. I'd be quite satisfied blocking 500 Nazis from reaching a symbolic Nazi destination.

You asked when violence was justified and then gave that example. I assumed you were presenting that as violence.
And again, unanswered doesn't have to mean physically blocking.

 

[Ktoyou]

From what I read the original organizers for the rally were not the neo-nazi groups but the more moderate groups ended up backing out and the event got co-opted by the white supremacists. That's unfortunate for the original people. Not that I am very supportive of keeping the monuments around, but the presence of the neo-nazis helped things get way out of hand.

If one dislikes the statues, the neo-nazis help them get the statues taken down. I do not like any Nazis, yet they do accomplish the opposite of what they stand for because most people cannot stand them.


Maybe they are liberal marketeers in disguise, else they are very stupid people.

 

[annabenedetti]

You asked when violence was justified and then gave that example. I assumed you were presenting that as violence.

I probably wasn't clear. Blocking their way could likely end up in violence, initiated by either side.

And again, unanswered doesn't have to mean physically blocking.

But it could. Sometimes words aren't enough.

 

[ok doser]

You asked when violence was justified and then gave that example. I assumed you were presenting that as violence.
And again, unanswered doesn't have to mean physically blocking.

unanswered doesn't have to mean in their physical proximity


want to protest neo-nazis marching way over here?

go ahead and have your protest way over there

away from them

 

[annabenedetti]

Los Angeles Times editorial:

Enough is Enough

These are not normal times.

The man in the White House is reckless and unmanageable, a danger to the Constitution, a threat to our democratic institutions.

Last week some of his worst qualities were on display: his moral vacuity and his disregard for the truth, as well as his stubborn resistance to sensible advice. As ever, he lashed out at imaginary enemies and scapegoated others for his own failings. Most important, his reluctance to offer a simple and decisive condemnation of racism and Nazism astounded and appalled observers around the world.

With such a glaring failure of moral leadership at the top, it is desperately important that others stand up and speak out to defend American principles and values. This is no time for neutrality, equivocation or silence. Leaders across America — and especially those in the president’s own party — must summon their reserves of political courage to challenge President Trump publicly, loudly and unambiguously.

Enough is enough.

Some people clearly understand this. On Monday, after Trump suggested that “alt-left” counter-protesters were as much to blame as Nazis and white supremacists for the fiasco in Charlottesville, a courageous CEO — Kenneth Frazier, the chief executive of Merck & Co. — resigned from the president’s American Manufacturing Council in protest. His departure, which the ever-gracious president greeted with derision, led to an exodus of other commission members.

Also last week, five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a tacit rebuke to the president by condemning racism and hatred in Charlottesville. Denouncing Nazis and Klansmen is not exactly controversial or cutting-edge in 2017, but for the generals to take on the commander in chief is, to say the least, highly unusual.

Many Republicans and conservatives have broken ranks as well in recent months, dismayed by the daily chaos, belligerence and mismanagement. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have been outspoken critics. Max Boot, David Frum and other conservative public intellectuals have written articulately about the failures of the Trump presidency; the venerable conservative magazine National Review has as well. On Friday, former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Trump’s response to Charlottesville had “caused racists to rejoice,” and that if he didn’t apologize it could lead to “an unraveling of our national fabric.” These votes of no-confidence from fellow conservatives and Republicans are powerful indictments.

But where are the rest?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) are the two most-powerful men in Congress. Both have fired off the occasional potshot but for the most part have stood firmly behind this wildly flawed president, despite the taunts and insults Trump hurled at them from his Twitter redoubt.
What holds them back? Craven, self-serving political calculations designed to protect their careers, and dwindling hope that the president, despite everything, will help them move their long-delayed legislative agenda.

Their silence is shameful.

How about the more rational members of Trump’s Cabinet? They should be fleeing the administration, refusing to stand mutely against the wall at his press conferences while he steps on their messages and undermines their best efforts.

Many rank-and-file GOP members of Congress are simply too scared of alienating Republican voters or of enraging a vindictive Trump or of provoking a primary challenge from the right funded by the Koch brothers or the Mercer family. They should wake up and declare their independence.

In California, the pressure is sometimes in the other direction. For instance, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), a Trump supporter who won reelection in 2016 by an extraordinarily narrow 2,348 votes, knows he needs to distance himself from Trump if he hopes to win reelection in 2018; he has done so, slowly, a bit. It would be nice if he did so on principle, but in the end, he and his colleagues may be more persuaded by Trump’s low favorability ratings and the near certainty of challenges from Democrats in the midterm election.

Men and women of conscience can no longer withhold judgment. Trump’s erratic nature and his impulsive, demagogic style endanger us all.

Republicans and conservatives around the country should be just as concerned as Democrats about Trump’s conflicts of interest, his campaign’s relationship with the Russians and whether he engaged in obstruction of justice. They should call him out when he sows division, when he dog-whistles, when he emboldens bigots. They should stand up for global human rights, for constructive engagement with the rest of the world and for other shared American values that transcend party allegiances.
Rejecting the president of one’s own party could mean alienating friends, crossing allies, damaging one’s chances of advancement or risking one’s career altogether for a matter of principle. But that’s the very definition of leadership.

No one can sit on the sidelines now. It’s time for Republicans to show some spine.

 

[WizardofOz]

They may not speak for all 'antifa' organizations but here's a little gem from the Boston antifa: ****WARNING - FOUL LANGUAGE****

Let's get one thing clear. Antifa is an Anarcho-Communist cause. Those on the left who call us "patriots", step the !@*$ away

And it's a picture of them burning an American flag.

Antifa is bad news. I wouldn't defend them simply because of disdain for white nationalists/fascists.

 

[drbrumley]

They may not speak for all 'antifa' organizations but here's a little gem from the Boston antifa: ****WARNING - FOUL LANGUAGE****

Let's get one thing clear. Antifa is an Anarcho-Communist cause. Those on the left who call us "patriots", step the !@*$ away

And it's a picture of them burning an American flag.

Antifa is bad news. I wouldn't defend them simply because of disdain for white nationalists/fascists.

:up: