Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Playergamer]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.
Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous. People are just grasping at any little thing they can think of to hate Trump at this point. The man is on the brink of instigating a nuclear war, he should have some leeway when it comes to responding to other issues right now.

"It's not my place to decide whether ISIS or the democratically-elected government if Iraq is good or bad. Both have their flaws, and there is hatred and violence from many, many sides here."

The difference is that ISIS beheads people. Also, everyone involved in this situation is an american citizen.

[smjjames]

The fact is that the decision to bring weapons and armor was perfectly valid

There's no evidence whatsoever that these people would've attacked bystanders

Then why bring weapons?
Armor, sure, okay, whatever. If you want to look a Teutonic Knight LARP brigade, knock yourselves out. But why weapons, if you're not planning to fight?


I'm sorry, but your argument is full of shit. It's not as if this was a purely local group and Antifa escalated things by trucking in people who weren't otherwise involved. This was a mass influx of Nazis and Nazi-wannabes from all over the country, for the purpose of rubbing their hairy Aryan asses in the face of the people of Charlottesville. In the face of that, a counter-response is both warranted and justified.

Don't start no shit, wont be no shit.

Exactly. Both sides brought weapons.

The fact is that the decision to bring weapons and armor was perfectly valid

There's no evidence whatsoever that these people would've attacked bystanders

Then why bring weapons?
Armor, sure, okay, whatever. If you want to look a Teutonic Knight LARP brigade, knock yourselves out. But why weapons, if you're not planning to fight?


I'm sorry, but your argument is full of shit. It's not as if this was a purely local group and Antifa escalated things by trucking in people who weren't otherwise involved. This was a mass influx of Nazis and Nazi-wannabes from all over the country, for the purpose of rubbing their hairy Aryan asses in the face of the people of Charlottesville. In the face of that, a counter-response is both warranted and justified.

Don't start no shit, wont be no shit.

Because they knew antifa would be there, and there'd probably be a fight. They doesn't mean they were going to go around lynching bystanders.

This seems really simple to understand, guys.

Given how strict things are with some protests, notably big targets like national party conventions, gatherings of world leaders, etc, I'm surprised that the city didn't try to at least make sure nobody was using weapons.

And yes, the police could have done their job correctly and a heck of a lot better. I mean, the city had to have expected confrontations.

[RedKing]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.
Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous. People are just grasping at any little thing they can think of to hate Trump at this point. The man is on the brink of instigating a nuclear war, he should have some leeway when it comes to responding to other issues right now.

"It's not my place to decide whether ISIS or the democratically-elected government if Iraq is good or bad. Both have their flaws, and there is hatred and violence from many, many sides here."

The difference is that ISIS beheads people. Also, everyone involved in this situation is an american citizen.

I see the point has breached super-cranial airspace.

If your only litmus test for "is this group bad?" is "Do they behead people?" then there's a problem.
Likewise, many ISIS fighters in Iraq are Iraqi citizens, so that entire portion of the analogy is still valid and therefore irrelevant.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.
Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous. People are just grasping at any little thing they can think of to hate Trump at this point. The man is on the brink of instigating a nuclear war, he should have some leeway when it comes to responding to other issues right now.

"It's not my place to decide whether ISIS or the democratically-elected government if Iraq is good or bad. Both have their flaws, and there is hatred and violence from many, many sides here."

The difference is that ISIS beheads people. Also, everyone involved in this situation is an american citizen.

So, in conclusion, you think neo-nazis don't advocate violence. I mean, that's the only idea one can draw from your argument. ISIS are violent, but neo-Nazis aren't. Nazis are pacifists, when they bring clubs and torches to a rally it's an unbelievable stretch that they are anything other than Brave, Patriotic Self-Defenders who intended nothing against the brown, gay, or liberal people in Charlottesville. Oh, and the 500 extra protestors they showed up with are just because of how upstanding and popular they are, that many people spontaneously wanted to join them and leave the police stretched thin.

[Starver]

Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner.

I want to make my point again, then: he ignored one fatal incident for hours, only getting round to talking the talk about it (in a half-hearted way) after a separate fatal incident had happened to which he responded.

Someone fell down on the job in the "Mr President, this is how you look Presidential" front. And he obviously has no natural aptitude to it, so surely he ought to have a specific West Winger appointed to whisper in his ear to remind him that he is but mortal not to look like the unempathic git that he is. Or at least keep his lizardman-fit skin of human skin zipped up at the fly.

[RedKing]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.
Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous. People are just grasping at any little thing they can think of to hate Trump at this point. The man is on the brink of instigating a nuclear war, he should have some leeway when it comes to responding to other issues right now.

"It's not my place to decide whether ISIS or the democratically-elected government if Iraq is good or bad. Both have their flaws, and there is hatred and violence from many, many sides here."

The difference is that ISIS beheads people. Also, everyone involved in this situation is an american citizen.

So, in conclusion, you think neo-nazis don't advocate violence. I mean, that's the only idea one can draw from your argument. ISIS are violent, but neo-Nazis aren't. Nazis are pacifists, when they bring clubs and torches to a rally it's an unbelievable stretch that they are anything other than Brave, Patriotic Self-Defenders who intended nothing against the brown, gay, or liberal people in Charlottesville. Oh, and the 500 extra protestors they showed up with are just because of how upstanding and popular they are, that many people spontaneously wanted to join them and leave the police stretched thin.

When they talk about the "Final Solution", they meant 'to the problem of Zika virus in Virginia'. #GoodGuyAdolf

[smjjames]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.
Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous. People are just grasping at any little thing they can think of to hate Trump at this point. The man is on the brink of instigating a nuclear war, he should have some leeway when it comes to responding to other issues right now.

"It's not my place to decide whether ISIS or the democratically-elected government if Iraq is good or bad. Both have their flaws, and there is hatred and violence from many, many sides here."

The difference is that ISIS beheads people. Also, everyone involved in this situation is an american citizen.

I see the point has breached super-cranial airspace.

If your only litmus test for "is this group bad?" is "Do they behead people?" then there's a problem.
Likewise, many ISIS fighters in Iraq are Iraqi citizens, so that entire portion of the analogy is still valid and therefore irrelevant.

Iraq isn't a great example to use to attack the false equivalency, here's a whole bunch of examples showing how ridiculous the false equivalency of "many sides" is.

[Playergamer]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.
Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous. People are just grasping at any little thing they can think of to hate Trump at this point. The man is on the brink of instigating a nuclear war, he should have some leeway when it comes to responding to other issues right now.

"It's not my place to decide whether ISIS or the democratically-elected government if Iraq is good or bad. Both have their flaws, and there is hatred and violence from many, many sides here."

The difference is that ISIS beheads people. Also, everyone involved in this situation is an american citizen.

So, in conclusion, you think neo-nazis don't advocate violence. I mean, that's the only idea one can draw from your argument. ISIS are violent, but neo-Nazis aren't. Nazis are pacifists, when they bring clubs and torches to a rally it's an unbelievable stretch that they are anything other than Brave, Patriotic Self-Defenders who intended nothing against the brown, gay, or liberal people in Charlottesville. Oh, and the 500 extra protestors they showed up with are just because of how upstanding and popular they are, that many people spontaneously wanted to join them and leave the police stretched thin.

When they talk about the "Final Solution", they meant 'to the problem of Zika virus in Virginia'. #GoodGuyAdolf

Stop with the fucking strawmans please. Of course they're reprehensible people, but a couple hundred larpers in a park is nowhere fucking near a terrorist organization that's killed tens of thousands. You're justifying denying their right to hold a rally, and the police literally instigating streetfights, because "they're nazis and words are violence".

[RedKing]

Meanwhile, Germans know how to deal with this.

I'm guessing some people on here would argue that the German bar-goers are equally culpable, for....being Germans or something.

[smjjames]

If Trump wanted to condemn the violence and clashes that happened on both sides and condemn violent protesting, which did happen on both sides, then yes "many sides" could apply, but Trump is just horrible at articulating things.

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.
Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous. People are just grasping at any little thing they can think of to hate Trump at this point. The man is on the brink of instigating a nuclear war, he should have some leeway when it comes to responding to other issues right now.

"It's not my place to decide whether ISIS or the democratically-elected government if Iraq is good or bad. Both have their flaws, and there is hatred and violence from many, many sides here."

The difference is that ISIS beheads people. Also, everyone involved in this situation is an american citizen.

So, in conclusion, you think neo-nazis don't advocate violence. I mean, that's the only idea one can draw from your argument. ISIS are violent, but neo-Nazis aren't. Nazis are pacifists, when they bring clubs and torches to a rally it's an unbelievable stretch that they are anything other than Brave, Patriotic Self-Defenders who intended nothing against the brown, gay, or liberal people in Charlottesville. Oh, and the 500 extra protestors they showed up with are just because of how upstanding and popular they are, that many people spontaneously wanted to join them and leave the police stretched thin.

When they talk about the "Final Solution", they meant 'to the problem of Zika virus in Virginia'. #GoodGuyAdolf

Stop with the fucking strawmans please. Of course they're reprehensible people, but a couple hundred larpers in a park is nowhere fucking near a terrorist organization that's killed tens of thousands. You're justifying denying their right to hold a rally, and the police literally instigating streetfights, because "they're nazis and words are violence".

Um, you're the one who said that the police failed and let the clashes happen.

[Frumple]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.

Everything else aside, no, I'm pretty sure it actually is an american president's responsibility to acknowledge neo-nazis and whatnot as bad. We nuked people because of the mess their shit kicked off, we're kinda' committed at this point. He also denounced the violent actions of both sides, in a case where one side actually bloody killed someone. In an act of domestic terrorism. Trump's response was insufficient to the magnitude of the issue by a long damned shot.

Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous.

He's harshly criticized for giving what appeared to be an as-sincere-as-he-gets condolence to the dead cops minutes after their situation was known, while giving a lukewarm response to the citizen murdered by a right-wing extremist... something like an hour later? Somethin' like that. When the second happened before the first. Junk along those lines. There's more going on with this crap than you seem to have noticed, y'ken?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I didn't say words are violence. I said beating people with lit tiki torches is violence.

Oh, and there was that thing with the car terrorism. The actual act of murderous terror that actually occurred at this actual rally.

Like, do we live in the same universe? I'm not even tacked with most of the "punch a nazi" rhetoric, but this borders on absurdism.

[smjjames]

Loathe as I am to defend Trump, I cannot agree with the criticism he is receiving for failing to name specific groups and disavow them. It's not the President's responsibility to decide which ideological groups are good or bad. Trump denounced the violent actions, and that was an entirely sufficient response to this situation.

Everything else aside, no, I'm pretty sure it actually is an america president's responsibility to acknowledge neo-nazis and whatnot as bad. We nuked people because of the mess their shit kicked off, we're kinda' committed at this point. He also denounced the violent actions of both sides, in a case where one side actually bloody killed someone. In an act of domestic terrorism. Trump's response was insufficient to the magnitude of the issue by a long damned shot.

Also, he responded within hours of the violence ramping up, and was harshly criticized for not saying anything sooner. That is just utterly ridiculous.

He's harshly criticized for giving what appeared to be an as-sincere-as-he-gets condolence to the dead cops minutes after their situation was known, while giving a lukewarm response to the citizen murdered by a right-wing extremist... something like an hour later? Somethin' like that. When the second happened before the first. Junk along those lines. There's more going on with this crap than you seem to have noticed, y'ken?

The woman was confirmed as being dead later though. Not sure the timeline of that compared to the helicopter crash. Not saying that it was presidential for him to do that later, it's just the whole optics of everything.

[Arx]

If we're still arguing the "they would have killed people anyway" line, why don't you just conclusively wrap it up by providing an example of a neo Nazi mob getting together to lynch people at a public rally?

[SalmonGod]

There's an even easier counter to this.

The white nationalists DID engage in violence the night before.  When they were marching around with their tiki torches, they actively beat people up.  There was no counter-protest until the following day, and it was in response to the violent actions at the white nationalist rally the night before.

I've seen statements online from black people in the area thanking the counter-protest for showing up because they were fucking scared.

So this idea that they were just taking precautions against antifa showing up flies in the face of not only the history of the ideology and its directly stated intents, but also the reality of what actually verifiably happened at this very event in question.