The Impeachment of Trump?

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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. 

All I did was ask whether something asserted was actually said by a person or if it was inferred. In any other thread I would have received an answer and we would have moved on. In this thread it seems that if someone does not immediately get in line that they are suspect and their motives must be questioned.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

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

That was part of my point. Chanting Nazi slogans, displaying swastikas, having certain tattoos, etc. is evidence that they adhere to the Nazi "ideals". It's not like everybody walks around saying "Heil Trump"

[Ten oz]

55 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 )

Here are some examples of what you are calling a "recount the fact that there was violence on both sides" from the article you recommended:

“Marcus Cicero,” another far-right blogger at Occidental Dissent: “Now, to begin Saturday’s rally, the League of the South assembled at an area only a few blocks from Lee Park – I myself was one of the shield men. As we advanced down the street toward the park, I immediately noticed a horde of Antifa, BLM terrorists, and other assorted genetic refuse ready and willing to block the street leading up to our destination.”

"Matt Parrott of Traditionalist Youth Network, a white supremacist group: “With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work.”

"Jordan Green in the Nation, a leftist publication: “A phalanx of black-helmeted white supremacists — members of the Traditionalist Workers Party, Identity Evropa, American Vanguard, and other hate warriors — commanded the steps at the southeast corner of the park, repelling attempted incursions by Wobblies, communists, and a multiracial cast of irregulars eager to fight back. Water bottles and other projectiles flew in both directions, while police tear-gas canisters thudded into an adjacent parking lot, oftentimes lobbed back into the park by plucky leftists.”

"Washington Post reporter Joe Heim: “Counter-protesters fought back, also swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals. Others threw balloons filled with paint or ink at the white nationalists. Everywhere, it seemed violence was exploding. The police did not move to break up the fights.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html

 

That is evidence of nothing. The White Supremacist and far-rght bloggers!?!? Meaningwhile the Washington Post reporter said counter protesters "fought back". This is not evidence which justifies you using the word "fact". It is actually pitiful and you should be a little embarrassed that you directed me to something that contain such absurdities. Less of course it was is meant gaint wink to the fact you are just joking about? (real question)

 

[MigL]

I noticed you left out the statement made by the Redneck Revolt member, a left wing anti-fascist group that brought rifles to the park.
Surely they brought the rifles just for show or other peaceful purposes, and they weren't intending to cause violence; Unlike the weapons brought by white supremacist who brought their weapons to use against the anti-protesters.

And the one by Uni of Virginia student, Isabella Ciambotti, possibly the most believable account, which described violence attributed to anti-protesters.

I don't wink, Ten oz, but I do squint a lot.

[CharonY]

I think there were people ready to become violent in both groups (yes MigL, I know you don't -hopefully- want to defend Nazis, you just want to nitpick). However, one group was a mix of regular folks that were against Nazis, supremacists, etc., (which I would have presumed, should not be controversial) as well as people that were out for violence. On the other side we have folks that were said supremacists, Nazis etc. And they were clearly not shy to make sure that people knew who they were. In fact, they openly said that their presence was to make a show of power for their cause. 

I am pretty sure that you could twist it around and ask why I accept that one group was mixed and entirely condemn another group. Well, the reason is that one was organized by white supremacists calling specifically for like-minded people to attend (I mean, have you seen the posters?). The counter protests were organized (and despite what the president was saying, they had permits) by the Peoples Action for Racial Justice and co-sponsored by the Together Cville and The Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice. In their press release they explicitly called for a peaceful gathering. 

I will re-iterate, it is not only about the specific violent actions but also about the ideologies. One group spreads hate (and do we really need a history lesson to remember what Nazis and like-minded people stand for?) the other were various people opposing them with a bunch of violent numpties thrown in. For the President to equivocate and declaring there were good folks with legitimate concerns out there is just ridiculous. 

There is a simple test that most reasonable people would follow. If people around you start Sieg Heiling through the streets you may have joined the wrong outlet to voice concerns. Whatever your position is, if you got Nazis on one side you should be really carefully consider where you actually stand. And no, I do not believe that not agreeing with Nazis has anything to do with political correctness, but everything with appreciation of history (and not to mention, decency. It should not be hard to be against genocide and ethnic cleansing, for starters).

Edited August 17, 2017 by CharonY

[geordief]

7 hours ago, Delta1212 said:

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.

Well said .

 

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I noticed you left out the statement made by the Redneck Revolt member, a left wing anti-fascist group that brought rifles to the park.
Surely they brought the rifles just for show or other peaceful purposes, and they weren't intending to cause violence; Unlike the weapons brought by white supremacist who brought their weapons to use against the anti-protesters.

And the one by Uni of Virginia student, Isabella Ciambotti, possibly the most believable account, which described violence attributed to anti-protesters.

I don't wink, Ten oz, but I do squint a lot.

You noticed I left out? I provided a link for the full list to be viewed. None of those accounts minus the Washington Post account come from media source that are remotely creditable. The list was just a bunch of extremist bloggers. There is plenty of video from the event, people will be charged with crimes, and a person died. We can all see where the violence came from. Referring me to hate group blog posts in an attempt to spread out blame amongst all is ridiculous and beneath what I have grown to expect from members of this forum. I think any seasonable person would reject all those accounts as pure garbage. 

 

You are paying these people far more respect than they deserve. You are posting as if they are just some standard Political action group and this is all just a battle of opinions. They are not and this is not. They are a recognized hate group with a noted history of violence who seek the end of Western Society as we know it. They are more akin to ISIS than they are any standard Political advocacy group.

 

"In a Joint Intelligence Bulletin, members of the intelligence community highlighted the growing threat posed by white supremacists and the rise of extremist violence in the United States, months before the violent clashes and subsequent deaths in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday. 

The bulletin, dated May 10, 2017 and posted by Foreign Policy on Tuesday,  provided what the agencies described as "new insight into the targeting preferences of white supremacist extremists" and the current state of white supremacist-related violence in the country."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/fbi-dhs-may-report-warned-of-threat-posed-by-white-supremacists/#ampshare=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-dhs-may-report-warned-of-threat-posed-by-white-supremacists/

[EdEarl]

The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, predicts Trump will Resign in Disgrace, in a network news broadcast that is on youtube. He says Trump has continually alienated various people and groups, including the oligarchs. He has lost his supporters; thus, he has few options. "It's only a matter of time."

[Delta1212]

41 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, predicts Trump will Resign in Disgrace, in a network news broadcast that is on youtube. He says Trump has continually alienated various people and groups, including the oligarchs. He has lost his supporters; thus, he has few options. "It's only a matter of time."

I don't see that happening. The only way Trump is going to resign is if there are serious and directly obvious personal consequences for not doing so. Merely having no support and being rendered completely ineffectual isn't going to push him to it.

There has also been a striking lack of direct criticism of Trump by sitting members of his own party. Many Republicans in government have condemned the content of what he said. Very, very few have referenced Trump by name in those condemnations or made any mention that what they are condemning is at all related anything that he said.

He doesn't have very many defenders in the GOP over this at the moment, but he equally doesn't have terribly many overt critics either.

I have a feeling that we're going through another round of "Surely this is where his support will collapse, right? ...right?" only to find that it does not. At most a little shrinkage but nothing more.

[MigL]

The two examples I provided Ten oz were from the same LA Times article.
So no, you didn't provide the full list.

The Redneck Revolt are an extremist group that was with the anti-protesters .
So yes, there were violent extremist groups on both sides.

If two groups face off in a protest and there are violent elements in both groups ( even though one group has way more violatiles ), is it any wonder that trouble and tragedy result ?

I am of the opinion that KKK and white supremacist Nazi groups should be allowed to protest.
The 'light of day' is what kills these types of movements. If they remain hidden, they fester and grow.
These groups are the "hemorrhoids' of society, and if hemorrhoids were on your face and exposed, everyone would quickly do something about them.
( sorry for the disgusting analogy )

Edited August 17, 2017 by MigL

[DrP]

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

I am of the opinion that KKK and white supremacist Nazi groups should be allowed to protest.
The 'light of day' is what kills these types of movements. If they remain hidden, they fester and grow.
These groups are the "hemorrhoids' of society, and if hemorrhoids were on your face and exposed, everyone would quickly do something about them.
( sorry for the disgusting analogy )

I have to agree with MigL here - This is why BREXIT happened imo...   anyone in the UK even dared to ask a question about immigration concerns or dared to criticise and of the bureaucracy of the EU over the past couple of decades has been shouted down and called a racist. They aren't allowed to talk about it in public without being shouted down, so they talk about it with others that want to talk about it and then become subject to their own confirmation bias because the only people they ever discuss the matter with are racists and xenophobes.   

Whether these people have obnoxious racist beliefs or just have seemingly ignorant questions about immigration people should engage them and educate them of their ways rather than cutting them off. They just congregate somewhere else and get sucked into their own echo chambers...  some of these people genuinely believe what they are saying, they aren't necessarily evil....   although some are clearly just obnoxious c*&%s.

 

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

I am of the opinion that KKK and white supremacist Nazi groups should be allowed to protest.
The 'light of day' is what kills these types of movements. If they remain hidden, they fester and grow.
These groups are the "hemorrhoids' of society, and if hemorrhoids were on your face and exposed, everyone would quickly do something about them.
( sorry for the disgusting analogy )

I don't think that their right to demonstrate was protested. The issue was that the leader of the nation said that they were just fine folks that wanted to protest the removal of a statue. To use your analogy, the President just told everyone that the hemorrhoids were fine (because they said he was great). Normalizing hemorrhoids in your face is a problem.

To paraphrase swansonT, if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, goosesteps like a duck, threatens Jews like a ducks, Hitler salutes like a duck, that duck is a bloody Nazi and should be called out as such (I may have taken a wrong turn there somewhere). And as you can see, even after murder obviously not everyone (including the highest office) does something quickly about them. In fact, only recently the President slashed funds for fighting right-wing terror groups. Yeah, so it seems that there is quack in office, too.

The real issue is that if there is not a massive outcry (as it seems to start now) one risks to normalize and legitimize the extremes (take a look at some of the non-mainstream right-wing parties in Europe).

 

[Delta1212]

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

The two examples I provided Ten oz were from the same LA Times article.
So no, you didn't provide the full list.

The Redneck Revolt are an extremist group that was with the anti-protesters .
So yes, there were violent extremist groups on both sides.

If two groups face off in a protest and there are violent elements in both groups ( even though one group has way more violatiles ), is it any wonder that trouble and tragedy result ?

I am of the opinion that KKK and white supremacist Nazi groups should be allowed to protest.
The 'light of day' is what kills these types of movements. If they remain hidden, they fester and grow.
These groups are the "hemorrhoids' of society, and if hemorrhoids were on your face and exposed, everyone would quickly do something about them.
( sorry for the disgusting analogy )

I used to believe in the light of day analogy. I'm not so sure that I do any longer. Not because of this in particular, but because it's been over a year since they started moving out of the shadows and at this point, if anything, there is just further growth, entrenchment and an increasing boldness.

Sunlight can scour, but that which it doesn't kill, it tends to feed.

When some practice or other comes to light that was thought to be shameful by the people doing it and there are no consequences to speak of, the practice tends to grow and spread even more quickly but now out in the open.

While there have been some negative consequences for a handful of specific participants in the rally, the negative backlash against the racism has been extremely muted compared with what one would normally expect from a modern society, and the lukewarm condemnation by the president paired with an even more strenuous and impassioned condemnation of "the other side" is more likely to embolden the Nazis than it is to burn them out.

[iNow]

You don't kill bad ideas by silencing them. You kill bad ideas by addressing them.

These insecure, ignorant, inferiority complex ridden knuckle draggers should be allowed to share their views and march (and only a tiny insignificant few people are claiming otherwise). Likewise, people who wish to defend more forward looking inclusive values should be allowed to share their views and march in response.

The scales will tip. The haters will retreat to the shadows. They won't be extinguished, but their embers contained. Let them proudly display their ignorance, and let us proudly display why it has no place in a modern society.

[DrP]

5 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

While there have been some negative consequences for a handful of specific participants in the rally, the negative backlash against the racism has been extremely muted compared with what one would normally expect from a modern society....

This only because the president seems to back them or see them as equal in their views... (which I know you sort of go on to say anyway). Without his support for their protest they would not have been so emboldened. How he bundles confederate generals in with past presidents I do not know....  I am probably showing my ignorance here but I thought the whole civil war was to do with race and slavery....  the confederates lost. So why glorify their memory at all unless you are harbouring some sort of desire to return to the slave trading days? In his speech he genuinely did not seem to see a difference between the likes of Lincon and Lee....  He genuinely believes what he says...   he is just like my (and some other peoples) dad...  he won't listen to anyone and will see any disagreement with him as a personal attack....  But we 'all' could see he was like this before we voted him in, so, I am not sure what people are so shocked about....  we saw it all coming a mile off.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

You don't kill bad ideas by silencing them. You kill bad ideas by addressing them.

These insecure, ignorant, inferiority complex ridden knuckle draggers should be allowed to share their views and march (and only a tiny insignificant few people are claiming otherwise). Likewise, people who wish to defend more forward looking inclusive values should be allowed to share their views and march in response.

The scales will tip. The haters will retreat to the shadows. They won't be extinguished, but their embers contained. Let them proudly display their ignorance, and let us proudly display why it has no place in a modern society.

Here Here. 

[Delta1212]

40 minutes ago, DrP said:

This only because the president seems to back them or see them as equal in their views... (which I know you sort of go on to say anyway). Without his support for their protest they would not have been so emboldened. How he bundles confederate generals in with past presidents I do not know....  I am probably showing my ignorance here but I thought the whole civil war was to do with race and slavery....  the confederates lost. So why glorify their memory at all unless you are harbouring some sort of desire to return to the slave trading days? In his speech he genuinely did not seem to see a difference between the likes of Lincon and Lee....  He genuinely believes what he says...   he is just like my (and some other peoples) dad...  he won't listen to anyone and will see any disagreement with him as a personal attack....  But we 'all' could see he was like this before we voted him in, so, I am not sure what people are so shocked about....  we saw it all coming a mile off.

Here Here. 

There has been a major campaign of historical revisionism pretty much since the end of the Civil War and especially since the time of the Civil Rights movement to recast the war as being about "States Rights" and a more limited federal government and not about slavery at all, or acting as if slavery was only a very minor part of the issues involved, and that the Confederate States probably would have abolished slavery themselves pretty soon anyway if they'd won the war.

This ignores pretty much the entire history of the run up to the Civil War, the fact that many if not most of the states specifically mention slavery as their primary reason for rebelling in their articles of secession and that the right that they were trying to preserve for the states was the right to own slaves. It also ignores how completely dependent the economic and social order of the South was on the institution of slavery.

It's poppycock, but it's an extremely popular meme, especially amongst people who espouse small government conservatism or who grew up in areas where there is a strong desire to recast the Confederacy as misunderstood heroes and where the war is often referred to as The War of Northern Aggression despite literally starting when South Carolinians started firing on a US fort.

The modern politics surrounding the Civil War are very weird, especially, I would imagine, to anyone who didn't grow up here immersed in it.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Delta1212

[DrP]

12 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

There has been a major campaign of historical revisionism pretty much since the end of the Civil War and especially since the time of the Civil Rights movement to recast the war as being about "States Rights" and a more limited federal government and not about slavery at all, or acting as if slavery was only a very minor part of the issues involved, and that the Confederate States probably would have abolished slavery themselves pretty soon anyway if they'd won the war.

This ignores pretty much the entire history of the run up to the Civil War, the fact that many of not most of the states specifically mention slavery as their primary reason for rebelling in their articles of secession and that the right that they were trying to preserve for the states was the right to own slaves. It also ignores how completely dependent the economic and social order of the South was on the institution of slavery.

It's poppycock, but it's an extremely popular meme, especially amongst people who espouse small government conservatism or who group up in areas where there is a strong desire to recast the Confederacy as misunderstood heroes and where the war is often referred to as The War of Northern Aggression despite literally starting when South Carolinian started firing on a US fort.

The modern politics surrounding the Civil War are very weird, especially, I would imagine, to anyone who didn't grow up here immersed in it.

Thanks for the insight.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

The two examples I provided Ten oz were from the same LA Times article.
So no, you didn't provide the full list.

The Redneck Revolt are an extremist group that was with the anti-protesters .
So yes, there were violent extremist groups on both sides.

If two groups face off in a protest and there are violent elements in both groups ( even though one group has way more violatiles ), is it any wonder that trouble and tragedy result ?

I am of the opinion that KKK and white supremacist Nazi groups should be allowed to protest.
The 'light of day' is what kills these types of movements. If they remain hidden, they fester and grow.
These groups are the "hemorrhoids' of society, and if hemorrhoids were on your face and exposed, everyone would quickly do something about them.
( sorry for the disgusting analogy )

I provided the link to the article, not you. As such I provided the whole kit and caboodle. Stop qouting extremist group blog postings as facts which prove something. They are bias bits of unsubstantiated nonsense. I am not interested in the blog posts of fascists or Nazis. 

 

Nazi groups are a global nuisance. They are responsible for violence and murder all over the E.U., Eastern Europe, and the U.S.. They are not your standard political advocacy groups. You're pretending this is a standard Political competition ideas. ISIS, Al Qauda, Hamas, and Nazis are all terrorists group. Politicians left and right speak in a unified vioce against terrorist. No one defends ISIS by pointing out violence on both sides in Syria. No Politician left or right defends Al Qauda. Bothsides unilaterally agree to drone bomb and kill them. So these Nazis are actually getting a very fair shake here. Violence follows these groups throughout Western society and Eastern Europe. It is not unexpected that their "protest" turned violent. DHS has been warning about their violent potential and increasing aggression for some time now. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

I am probably showing my ignorance here but I thought the whole civil war was to do with race and slavery....  the confederates lost. So why glorify their memory at all unless you are harbouring some sort of desire to return to the slave trading days?

Earlier, swansont shared the link below in response to one of my posts. It seems to tackle this question head on. It was about intimidation and symbolism, and the timing is important, too statue erections (tee hee) spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/15/16153220/trump-confederate-statues

There is a whole segment of our population that seems to paradoxically feel it's better to push others down than it is to rise themselves up. Trump in various ways seems to hold this worldview, too, by treating every interaction as if it's zero sum / broken down into pure winners and pure losers. Oobla dee, I guess.

[zapatos]

I think a very straightforward method to minimize the impact of the alt-right is to keep opposing sides separate during demonstrations. As others have pointed out either directly or indirectly, we are losing the real message because people are equating the two groups, as both are guilty of violence. If we can keep the two sides separate then the only thing to talk about is the message the two sides represent, which is basically racism vs equality (or some version of that). Generally speaking, the alt-right will lose that battle in the minds of most people.

[waitforufo]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Earlier, swansont shared the link below in response to one of my posts. It seems to tackle this question head on. It was about intimidation and symbolism, and the timing is important, too statue erections (tee hee) spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/15/16153220/trump-confederate-statues

There is a whole segment of our population that seems to paradoxically feel it's better to push others down than it is to rise themselves up. Trump in various ways seems to hold this worldview, too, by treating every interaction as if it's zero sum / broken down into pure winners and pure losers. Oobla dee, I guess.

"spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted" by Democrats.

[zapatos]

Just now, waitforufo said:

"spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted" by Democrats.

Does the fact that it was Democrats who enacted Jim Crow laws change the problem we are having in any way? Or was that just another opportunity to take a shot at Democrats?

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think a very straightforward method to minimize the impact of the alt-right is to keep opposing sides separate during demonstrations. As others have pointed out either directly or indirectly, we are losing the real message because people are equating the two groups, as both are guilty of violence. If we can keep the two sides separate then the only thing to talk about is the message the two sides represent, which is basically racism vs equality (or some version of that). Generally speaking, the alt-right will lose that battle in the minds of most people.

Actually, that was the official plan. Both groups were supposed to demonstrate in different parks (one for the Unite the right, two for the counter protests). However, there were spillovers and according to the police chief the Unite the right group was not  adhering to the approved plan (and I assume that violent counter protesters were not either, but I really don't know). When a state of emergency was declared things went well out of hand.

[Delta1212]

5 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

"spiked at the same time Jim Crow laws were being enacted" by Democrats.

By Democrats who promptly joined the Republican Party during LBJ's presidency.

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

By Democrats who promptly joined the Republican Party during LBJ's presidency.

And I'd have to check to be certain, but I'm pretty sure none of them are still in office, so I'm unclear why the fact they were Democrats was brought up in the first place.