The Impeachment of Trump?

[MigL]

And "wow, just wow" is not ?

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Tolerate as in it is perfectly legal for them to voice their vile, anti-social,opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence.

Just as anyone else then, has the right to protest against them, and voice their opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence.
 

 

It is the violence which is being criticized and their anti Western society message of hate. No one here is saying laws should be changed to prevent them from legal actives. You are making an empty point. 

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

And "wow, just wow" is not ?

Not what?

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

I did define it Delta...
" if we don't tolerate their vile, ant-social, free speech"

And still, that doesn't take away their right to protest and free speech, Ten oz.
But the violence, FROM BOTH SIDES, should not be tolerated !

You are passively defending the Nazis by pretending their were other groups on non-bigots there whose focus was preserving history and by insisting bothsides were violent. Only ONE SIDE brought torches, shields, and helmets. Only ONE SIDE drove a car into a crowd of people. Only ONE SIDE killed someone. Only ONE SIDE is recognized as a hate group and on DHS domestic terror watch lists. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are insufficient to determine intent?

I said nothing about 'intent'. I asked if Is there was a 'creed', or if we have interviews with any of those protesting saying that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are evidence of neither. 

[MigL]

In case I haven't made my position sufficiently clear ( although I believe some people get it )...

If it was up to me, I'd line up all those white supremacists and shoot them.
But in the interests of political correctness ( which frowns on shooting people without a trial ), I had to propose a dissentive view ( as noted by CharonY ).
Rights and free speech ( and to not be painted with the same brush as nut-jobs ) must apply to everyone ( and Ten oz and Delta made that argument  in the O Kahder settlement thread ), or else they apply to no-one. The fact that their speech is vile should in no way justify violence against them. And there was !

The lone good thing about this whole thing is that even more Republicans are deserting/siding against D Trump, so an impeachment may eventually come about ( to get back on topic ).

 

Is not 'dismissive', RangerX.
( try to keep up )

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Is not 'dismissive', RangerX.

( try to keep up )

There you go again, dismissive as though my opinion means nothing, if not retarded.
 

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

In case I haven't made my position sufficiently clear ( although I believe some people get it )...

If it was up to me, I'd line up all those white supremacists and shoot them.
But in the interests of political correctness ( which frowns on shooting people without a trial ), I had to propose a dissentive view ( as noted by CharonY ).
Rights and free speech ( and to not be painted with the same brush as nut-jobs ) must apply to everyone ( and Ten oz and Delta made that argument  in the O Kahder settlement thread ), or else they apply to no-one. The fact that their speech is vile should in no way justify violence against them. And there was !

The lone good thing about this whole thing is that even more Republicans are deserting/siding against D Trump, so an impeachment may eventually come about ( to get back on topic ).

 

Is not 'dismissive', RangerX.
( try to keep up )

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It is the violence which is being criticized and their anti Western society message of hate. No one here is saying laws should be changed to prevent them from legal actives. You are making an empty point. 

Again, no one is saying they aren't entitled to all laws the rest of us are. You are treating that period like a safety blanket. No one is saying free speech doesn't apply to them. As for the violence against them what was it? The Nazispital killed a person and sent nurmerous others to the hospital. What violence against them do you keep referencing?

[Arete]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I said nothing about 'intent'. I asked if Is there was a 'creed', or if we have interviews with any of those protesting saying that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are evidence of neither. 

Christopher Cantwell, White Nationalist Speaker, "Unite the Right" 

“People die violent deaths all the time. This is part of the reason we want an ethno-state. So the blacks are killing each other in staggering numbers from coast to coast, we don’t really want a part of that anymore. The fact that they resist us when we say “Hey we want a homeland” is not shocking to me. These people want violence and the right is just meeting market demand.”  

From the Vice documentary. 

[Delta1212]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

In case I haven't made my position sufficiently clear ( although I believe some people get it )...

If it was up to me, I'd line up all those white supremacists and shoot them.
But in the interests of political correctness ( which frowns on shooting people without a trial ), I had to propose a dissentive view ( as noted by CharonY ).
Rights and free speech ( and to not be painted with the same brush as nut-jobs ) must apply to everyone ( and Ten oz and Delta made that argument  in the O Kahder settlement thread ), or else they apply to no-one. The fact that their speech is vile should in no way justify violence against them. And there was !

The lone good thing about this whole thing is that even more Republicans are deserting/siding against D Trump, so an impeachment may eventually come about ( to get back on topic ).

 

Is not 'dismissive', RangerX.
( try to keep up )

I kind of suspected you were doing something like this, hence my trying to pin down what you were using as a definition of tolerance.

 

The primary reason that I was and will continue arguing with you on this, unless you really were being entirely facetious, is that your characterization of what the rally was is off-base in a way that provides cover for white supremacists and Nazis.

If the government were to ignore due process in arresting the Nazis, or were to arrest the Nazis without them having broken any laws, then I would criticize those actions. If some attacked a Nazi in a manner that was not immediate self-defense or defense of another, and that person was arrested for doing so, I'm not going to complain about the arrest just because the person they attacked is a Nazi.

I don't think it has come up here, or if it has I don't think I participated in the conversation, but the ACLU has come under a bit of fire in the last week for stepping in to defend Jason Kessler, who was incidentally one of the people who organized the rally over the weekend. I agreed with their decision to do so for precisely the same reasons I have articulated in the past.

Once again, in the same vein as has been covered in the past, I do not have to support what someone says or does in order to support the government sticking to upholding the rights that they are supposed to guarantee everyone under their purview. In this case, I do support the right to hold such a rally as the one that just occurred, but I very vehemently do not support the rally itself, and also do not think that you can draw a moral equivalence between the two sides in this case. Both may have done things that they should not have done, but one side was clearly and markedly worse both in their cause and in the outcomes that resulted from the actions of their supporters. Drawing such an equivalence is reprehensible and promoting the smoke-screen justification for the rally downplays what actually took place.

That is something that can't be allowed to stand, especially not when it is being given cover by the highest ranks of government office rather than being defended by it. 

Had you stopped at the line of saying that the Unite the Right rally had the right to say the things they were saying, I would have agreed with you. You went quite a bit further than that, and I'm sorry, but acknowledgement of the existence of a particular right does not extend to accepting justifications for what is said during the exercise thereof.

 

Also, incidentally, I don't believe that private citizens using violence to oppress speech is an example of a right being violated. That requires government action. It is, absent the above mentioned justification of defense, however, still a criminal act and I think should be treated as such where evidence exists for prosecution thereof. If that's all you wanted to hear, I, again, would have happily provided such a statement had you not wandered into the realm of justifying the rally itself.

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, Arete said:

Christopher Cantwell, White Nationalist Speaker, "Unite the Right" 

“People die violent deaths all the time. This is part of the reason we want an ethno-state. So the blacks are killing each other in staggering numbers from coast to coast, we don’t really want a part of that anymore. The fact that they resist us when we say “Hey we want a homeland” is not shocking to me. These people want violence and the right is just meeting market demand.”  

From the Vice documentary. 

Yes, I've since read the excerpt from Delta1212 and watched much of the video. They've made their position quite clear. I don't think they are open to or capable of reason.

[Arete]

32 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, I've since read the excerpt from Delta1212 and watched much of the video. They've made their position quite clear. I don't think they are open to or capable of reason.

I can absolutely appreciate your desire to approach the subject with an open mind, and unfortunately the label white supremacist/Nazi is in many cases here, self applied. 

I find it hard to find the notions put forth by such people any different from the Caliphate demanded by ISIS - thus it falls into something of a grey area for me with regard to free speech. While hate speech is protected under the First amendment, hate speech with the intent to incite violence is not. Much of the rhetoric, along with the deliberate intimidation and menacing physical attributes (the torchlight mach was supposedly deliberately meant to be reminiscent of National Socialist Party marches) along with the proud display of weapons means that it treads pretty close to the line between the two. 

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, Arete said:

I find it hard to find the notions put forth by such people any different from the Caliphate demanded by ISIS 

Isn't it obvious... we're dealing with Vanilla ISIS    

 

 

too soon?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Isn't it obvious... we're dealing with Vanilla ISIS    

 

 

too soon?

Heh heh. No, it's a nice break.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I said nothing about 'intent'. I asked if Is there was a 'creed', or if we have interviews with any of those protesting saying that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are evidence of neither. 

Hmm. Really. 

I guess I'm more in the "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" camp.

[iNow]

Think about how this is dominating everyone's conversations everywhere. It's like he's hacked our social interactions. Whether we're on SFN, other forums, reading blogs, on FB, Twitter, watching television, sitting at the pub or cafe, walking in the grocery store... People like us who otherwise get along really very well are ALL arguing over things we largely agree about. If I weren't so vehemently against what he's doing and what this all stands for, I'd have to respect it. It's not easy to get an nation of people to all focus on one shiny object at the same time.

[rangerx]

Just now, iNow said:

Think about how this is dominating everyone's conversations everywhere. It's like he's hacked our social interactions. Whether we're on SFN, other forums, reading blogs, on FB, Twitter, watching television, sitting at the pub or cafe, walking in the grocery store... People like us who otherwise get along really very well are ALL arguing over things we largely agree about. If I weren't so vehemently against what he's doing and what this all stands for, I'd have to respect it. It's not easy to get an nation of people to all focus on one shiny object at the same time.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/republican-reactions-donald-trump/index.html

The White House is "without regrets". It won't end well, or any time soon.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Hmm. Really. 

I guess I'm more in the "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" camp.

Maybe in the Politics Forum. Usually you are a stickler for evidence.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Think about how this is dominating everyone's conversations everywhere. It's like he's hacked our social interactions. Whether we're on SFN, other forums, reading blogs, on FB, Twitter, watching television, sitting at the pub or cafe, walking in the grocery store... People like us who otherwise get along really very well are ALL arguing over things we largely agree about. If I weren't so vehemently against what he's doing and what this all stands for, I'd have to respect it. It's not easy to get an nation of people to all focus on one shiny object at the same time.

Yeah, any disagreements here seem to be on the fringes. It's more difficult to have conversations when the topic generates so much emotion.

[MigL]

I point you to the article by the LA Times 'Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville', Ten oz.
It lists numerous first hand accounts by many people, white supremacists, ant-protestors, reporters, etc.
All recount the fact that there was violence on both sides, not just retaliatory, but initialized by both sides, long before the vehicular run down incident.
That is what I'm opposed to. Violence designed to silence free speech and opposing opinions. And while not to the same extent, you cannot argue that some of the anti-protestors were innocent of wrong-doing.

I have no love for D Trump, but his statement that there was violence/fault on both sides is fairly accurate.
( and that was the intent of my first post on the subject )

[Delta1212]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

I point you to the article by the LA Times 'Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville', Ten oz.
It lists numerous first hand accounts by many people, white supremacists, ant-protestors, reporters, etc.
All recount the fact that there was violence on both sides, not just retaliatory, but initialized by both sides, long before the vehicular run down incident.
That is what I'm opposed to. Violence designed to silence free speech and opposing opinions. And while not to the same extent, you cannot argue that some of the anti-protestors were innocent of wrong-doing.

I have no love for D Trump, but his statement that there was violence/fault on both sides is fairly accurate.
( and that was the intent of my first post on the subject )

There is a way to address the fact that violence from anyone is inappropriate that does not ignore the fact that there was a major white supremacist rally during which someone who was protesting against them was killed by a white supremacist when he intentionally drove his car into a crowd, which Trump did in his initial remarks.

He then made a statement addressing those concerns days later which it later came out he was essentially forced to do over his own protestations by his staff, complained when the press coverage of his handling remained negative even after he made the statement everyone said he should have made in the first place and then the day after that he effectively repudiated everything he'd said the day before and went back to "Both Sides Are  Bad."

 

Trump's statement that there was violence on both sides is true in the same way that it is true that there were Jews who committed crimes against Germans in the 1930s: It might technically be true, but completely irrelevant in light of the larger discussion of what was going on and useful only as a tool to draw false equivalencies and distract from larger problems.

Even if there was no violence at all from anyone on either side, the rally that happened would not be ok. Legal, but not ok, and the fact that deadly violence was used by that side on top of it makes any attempt to draw an equivalence between the two morally bankrupt in the extreme.

A statement being literally true does not mean that it is not also Trojan horsing a lie by implication nor does it render the statement immune from criticism.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Think about how this is dominating everyone's conversations everywhere. It's like he's hacked our social interactions. Whether we're on SFN, other forums, reading blogs, on FB, Twitter, watching television, sitting at the pub or cafe, walking in the grocery store... People like us who otherwise get along really very well are ALL arguing over things we largely agree about. If I weren't so vehemently against what he's doing and what this all stands for, I'd have to respect it. It's not easy to get an nation of people to all focus on one shiny object at the same time.

There is a percentage of Trump's supporters who have spent the last decade or longer being wrong about a lot. They have lost the debate on climate change, The Bush admin was a failure, GOP under Obama inept, and etc. There is baggage with that. Many of the same people who fiercely insisted we needed to invade Iraq also argued against the auto bail, against the ACA, against DACA, against gays serving openly, Gay Marriage, and etc. They found themselves defending people like George Zimmerman, Johannes Mehserle, and so on. On issue after issue the national view coming down against them. DACA, Gays Marriage, Obama, and etc are popular. Even with growing control over Congress and State Legislature they failed to develop policies which were useful or popular. Then Trump came along and gave they a win. A win most didn't think they wouldn't get. Now suddenly they can go back win all the debates they lost. The can say f#ck the Paris Agreement, bye bye to the ACA, go home dreamers, and etc. They can final win without the burden of being correct about anything. Of course managing a govt isn't about winning and losing. Retribution for past failed policy isn't useful. What makes since one year may not the following year as the world isn't a stagnate place. Political debate should always be based in the present with consideration for what can be learned from the past.

 

Only way to preserve this is to fight. They don't have facts on there side. Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement doesn't change climate science. So they must fight to stay above the wave of information and fact checking of their lies. Many people who never would have considered defending Nazis a year ago now find themselve on egg shell being careful to not condemn them too harshly because they know once the dam cracks on Trump it is over. People know Trump is bad but after a year of defending him on twitter, facebook, and etc many just don't have to read "I told you so". Pride over sense. It has created a palpable sense on pending collaspe. On both sides everyone nows this charade can't continue but the right doesn't want to blink. Like the final days of a ponzi scheme there is a frantic sense that one big infusion of cash can keep everything going another month and give them time to think of a new plan or the FBI could kick in the front door in the next 5 minutes and end it all.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I said nothing about 'intent'. I asked if Is there was a 'creed', or if we have interviews with any of those protesting saying that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are evidence of neither. 

So, do you think that people that take great pains to appear like Nazis are not trying to send a message that they have such a position? If not why would you try so hard to associate yourself with such a movement? 

Of course, some leaders of the movement try to distance themselves from the violent aspects and call for a peaceful ethnic cleansing (which, depending on situation is described as voluntary segregation, though at rallys it turns it implies forceful removal). Or take a look on the various websites in which they discuss their ideology. But really. What do you think people mean to say when they say "Sieg Heil?". What do you think of people flying the ISIS flag for that matter?

And frankly, if we really have to discuss whether Nazi ideology is acceptable or whether racial segregation and associated ideologies should be an option, then I am quite worried about the current state of our society. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by CharonY

[Airbrush]

Trump:  "So, this week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself where does it stop?"

Yes Donald, if Robert E. Lee comes down, next week probably the Washington Monument will have to come down.   Yeah, that's the ticket idiot!   This is an example of Trump's personality disorder.  The examples he gives don't make sense.  He gets away with it time after time.

[rangerx]

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

I have no love for D Trump, but his statement that there was violence/fault on both sides is fairly accurate.
( and that was the intent of my first post on the subject )

The sticking point being moral equivalency. In every incident, accident or  tragic event, there's a thing called proportional culpability.

Under no circumstances the girl deserved to die, hence it's about 1:100 and has NOTHING to do with her or her families loss. Clinging to 1% is desperate partisanship and little else. It solves nothing. It merely emboldens the other 99%.

[Delta1212]

4 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Trump:  "So, this week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself where does it stop?"

Yes Donald, if Robert E. Lee comes down, next week probably the Washington Monument will have to come down.   Yeah, that's the ticket idiot!   This is an example of Trump's personality disorder.  The examples he gives don't make sense.  He gets away with it time after time.

That's been a really common alt-right talking point lately, actually. Pretty much verbatim.