The Impeachment of Trump?

[CharonY]

The demonstration just turned deadly.

 

Quote

Video recorded at the scene of the car crash shows a 2010 gray Dodge Challenger accelerating into crowds on a pedestrian mall, sending bodies flying — and then reversing at high speed, hitting yet more people. Witnesses said the street was filled with people opposed to the white nationalists who had come to town bearing Confederate flags and anti-Semitic epithets.

A 32-year-old woman was killed, according to police, who said they were investigating the crash as a criminal homicide. The driver of one of the vehicles was taken into custody and charges were pending, said Al Thomas, the Charlottesville police chief.

 

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Trumps says he condemns the recent violence "on many sides" (which he repeated to emphasize there were MANY sides) in VA, when hate groups including, KKK, Neo-Nazi, white supremecist groups, and others united to protest the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue.  This is an example of his racism and senile dementia.  There were not "many" sides.  There were hate groups UNITED against the removal of the statue, and a group opposed to them.  That makes only 2 sides, the racists, and the anti-racists.  Trump makes a false equivalence to say the violence was from "many sides". 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-condemns-violence-on-many-sides-after-charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally-2017-8

 

Not to mention the many dog-whistle phrases. The Daily Stormer was ecstatic at Trump's response https://thinkprogress.org/white-supremacists-cheer-trumps-response-to-charlottesville-violence-3d0d50196c52/

they also claimed the car smashed into the crowd in self-defense. Disgusting.

 

[iNow]

FFS. Enough already! The pendulum needs to swing the other way fast and ferocious. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

they also claimed the car smashed into the crowd in self-defense. Disgusting.

 

There are videos and photos of the crash. I don't think that it would matter to them, though. The photo (I'd rather not post some of the more disturbing ones, but they are unfortunately all over the place) shows a clear run on the protestors, self-defense my arse.

[Ten oz]

The "on many sides" remark by Trump is shameful. This has been a line used throughout to 2016 campaign and continues now. Most reasonable people have a natural tendency to accept some give and take with concessions. Direct finger pointing can often seem extreme or rude. Trump supporters take advantage of the compromising natural of the majority. When Trump gets caught in lies his supporters lamant that Hillary Clinton also lies or that all politicians lie. The bothsides do it argument are used to down play all manners of unethical behavior by implying parity in all individuals responsibility to a situation. There isn't always parity though and bothside don't always share blame. This platitude needs to be more abrasively confronted for what it is. Saying "on many sides" is just a way to avoid criticizing his supporters.

[iNow]

Now, imagine the driver in that car wore a burka or hijab. Anyone here think our president would be equivocating then like he is here? If so, I have a bridge I want to sell you. 

[geordief]

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now, imagine the driver in that car wore a burka or hijab. Anyone here think our president would be equivocating then like he is here? If so, I have a bridge I want to sell you. 

Imagine that and stare into the abyss.

Still ,it makes me question his allegiance to the Russian meddling. He seems equally "loyal" to these Nazi scum so maybe we need to wonder why he is that way. Is "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" some kind of a prosthetic for what struggles to exist in most of us as some kind of a moral compass?

 

[Airbrush]

"My administration is restoring the sacred bonds of loyalty between this nation and its citizens, but our citizens must also restore the bonds of trust and loyalty between one another. We must love each other, respect each other, and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other."

What Trump is saying, above, is Trump's administration is working on getting loyalty from the citizens.  But also the racists and the anti-racists should trust and be loyal to each other.  Anti-racists should also stop beating up on racists.  Also I think it implies that KKK should respect and be loyal to Neo-Nazis, and each Supremacist group should be loyal to each and every other White Supremacists group.  Then he supports keeping the statue of Robert E. Lee with the "cherish our history" which is absurd in the context of the torchlight march the night before and riot and killing in VA, over the statue.

Trump's initial remark after a woman was killed by a car driven by a racist, was that the violence must stop "on MANY sides...on MANY sides".  He carefully crafted his statement to end with one of his trademark, repetitious, punch lines, with emphasis on the words "on MANY sides". 

Then today he finally made a specific statement, because he was forced into it, BUT ONLY AFTER boasting about the economy, stock market, and job growth, then he ended with specific denunciation of racists groups as "repugnant".  Does that mean they are a "basket of deplorables"? 

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Airbrush

[Arete]

Somewhat offtopic - feel free to delete if it's too far from the mark:

The organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally and others are claiming that the counter-protesters violated their First amendment rights. 

Now, the First amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Ergo - it protects free speech in the sense that it prevents the government from limiting what you can say. If you decide to gather publicly to espouse your views, and another private citizen engages is a counter protest, shouts over you, disrupts your gathering, etc. It has NOTHING to do with your constitutional rights. The First amendment doesn't mean that anyone else has to listen to or respect your public speech. 

Whether or not your common right to not be assaulted in violent protests/counter-protests is important, but irrelevant to your right to free speech under the First amendment. If you want to engage in hate speech to an agreeable, compliant, non-confrontational audience, don't do it in public - and if you do, don't whine about your "rights" when people vocally disagree. 

[Strange]

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

https://xkcd.com/1357/

[Delta1212]

Did anyone else watch Trump's statement this afternoon?

 

I'm kind of shell shocked...

[koti]

45 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

Did anyone else watch Trump's statement this afternoon?

 

I'm kind of shell shocked...

I watched it, I don't even know what to think anymore. The protester controversy being one thing, Trump is behaving like a high school bully towards the media, not remotely like the POTUS.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Delta1212 said:

Did anyone else watch Trump's statement this afternoon?

 

I'm kind of shell shocked...

You mean where after the belated condemnation of Nazis he started to defend the supremacists, condemn the "many sides" or the "alt-left" and then somehow equivocate figures of the confederacy with Washington and Lincoln...? I mean, it even appeared to be a prepared statement. Also, since when has it become controversial to condemn Nazis (and I hope no one is arguing that the Swastikas were just a fashion statement...)? It gets more and more bizarre.

Edit: Well it is not necessarily that bizarre if one assumes that his behaviour is geared to no offending his base. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

Edited August 16, 2017 by CharonY

[Sicarii]

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You mean where after the belated condemnation of Nazis he started to defend the supremacists, condemn the "many sides" or the "alt-left" and then somehow equivocate figures of the confederacy with Washington and Lincoln...? I mean, it even appeared to be a prepared statement. Also, since when has it become controversial to condemn Nazis (and I hope no one is arguing that the Swastikas were just a fashion statement...)? It gets more and more bizarre.

Edit: Well it is not necessarily that bizarre if one assumes that his behaviour is geared to no offending his base. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

The Swastikas were a celebration of Indian and East Asian cultures, duh!

[iNow]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Well it is not necessarily that bizarre if one assumes that his behaviour is geared to no offending his base. 

He knows who his base is and he's clearly pandering to it. He knows you gotta dance with the one that brought you. 

Bigger challenge: He's using this to distract us from his teams work dismantling the EPA, rolling back financial regulations, ignoring election tampering, and... of course... campaign shenanigans with Russia (which, have you noticed, has dropped completely out of the news cycle)?

My prediction: The next big act to distract us / pretend to be resetting race relations will be the firing of Steve Bannon.

Edited August 16, 2017 by iNow

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

He knows who his base is and he's clearly pandering to it. He knows you gotta dance with the one that brought you. 

Bigger challenge: He's using this to distract us from his teams work dismantling the EPA, rolling back financial regulations, ignoring election tampering, and... of course... campaign shenanigans with Russia (which, have you noticed, has dropped completely out of the news cycle)?

My prediction: The next big act to distract us / pretend to be resetting race relations will be the firing of Steve Bannon.

I am not sure that it goes that deep. After all, whenever Putin comes up, he meticulously avoids any level of criticism. If he can't do that, I doubt that there is much tactics in anything else. With regard to the Russia investigation, there are only bits and pieces and there is only so much one can report before there is an actual report by Mueller or any smoking gun that appears. But even then there were news today that emails were leaked in which a low-level staffer tried to coordinate a meeting with the Russians but was mostly rebuked. That basically has two sides to it. On the one hand, it is harder to deny that the higher echelons knew nothing about Russian interests, on the other hand it appears that people within the Campaign actually tried to keep their distance. I.e. it is seemingly nothing more revealing than the emails from Don Jr.

[Arete]

So I know Trump has been pretty much teflon throughout his political career, but surely, no one comes back from this... 

Quote

"You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was very violent and nobody wants to say it, but I will"

Yeah, so one wants to say it Donald, because it equates being a Nazi/White Supremacist, with violently opposing a Nazi/White Supremacist. Over 400,000 Americans DIED  violently opposing Nazis, and the majority of the country considers them heroes. 

Quote

There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before. If you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

The "quiet protest" involved a predominately white male crowd marching through a largely liberal college campus, carrying torches and swastikas, chanting "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us." I mean... seriously? Seriously?

Quote

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?

Holy shit. The icing on the whole shit show is the President of the United States is openly sympathising with the fricken White supremacists, and equating the Founding Fathers with Confederate Generals. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Arete

[Ten oz]

Donald Trump is who we thought he was. Those who defend him are deplorable as accurately labeled during the campaign. This is the same guy who had a "team of investigators" in Hawaii uncovering things about where Obama was born. All attempts to rationalize supporting Trump are exercises in cognitive dissonance. Amongst those who continue to support the GOP overall  are standing shoulder to shoulder with racist hate groups and are in bed with a lying snake oil salesmen. 

 

As for Confederate monuments being part of our history; where are all the monuments celebrating English royalty? We were a colony after all. That is our history. Post the war for Independence why didn't we erect monuments to King Philip? It is usual to erect monuments, name schools & parks, and create museums to mark our wars. It is unusual for our (USA) foes to be venerated. Yes it is part of our history but the execution of it is not consistent with our values or treatment of other historical times. 

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

  Post the war for Independence why didn't we erect monuments to King Philip? 

George III, perhaps?

[MigL]

I will only say this once ( mostly because this thread is about the impeachment of D Trump )...
iNow made the point that if it was a middle Eastern type driving the car, people's perception would be vastly different.
Yes it would. Most of you guys would be bending over backwards explaining that all Muslims are not like that, only a few radicalized ones, and the chances of that type of violence affecting you, personally, are very slim.
How is that different from the protest ?
People were protesting the removal  of the Statue of a war hero. The fact that it was an unjust war, and symbolism of the statue, has no bearing. The fact that a number of protesters were Nazis also has no bearing, as some were not. You can't paint all people with the same brush, or does that only apply when you're trying to show how 'progressive' you are ?
And even the Nazis, no matter how despicable their viewpoint, are allowed to protest. And be protested against. But no-one has the right to inflict violence against the other group. And there was violence on both sides ( which may be what D Trump was referring to ).
In America anyway, you're not allowed to suspend/remove rights of those you don't agree with.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

George III, perhaps?

Was reading about Prince Philip's war over the weekend so that is what came to mind. 

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

I will only say this once ( mostly because this thread is about the impeachment of D Trump )...
iNow made the point that if it was a middle Eastern type driving the car, people's perception would be vastly different.
Yes it would. Most of you guys would be bending over backwards explaining that all Muslims are not like that, only a few radicalized ones, and the chances of that type of violence affecting you, personally, are very slim.
How is that different from the protest ?
People were protesting the removal  of the Statue of a war hero. The fact that it was an unjust war, and symbolism of the statue, has no bearing. The fact that a number of protesters were Nazis also has no bearing, as some were not. You can't paint all people with the same brush, or does that only apply when you're trying to show how 'progressive' you are ?
And even the Nazis, no matter how despicable their viewpoint, are allowed to protest. And be protested against. But no-one has the right to inflict violence against the other group. And there was violence on both sides ( which may be what D Trump was referring to ).
In America anyway, you're not allowed to suspend/remove rights of those you don't agree with.

No one in here or anyplace else I am aware of are claiming all white people, Christians, or whatever are Nazis. The majority of counter protesters were white. We are only claiming the ones with torches and Nazi flags are Nazis. As for the GOP the Nazis made it clear they support Trump and Trump made it clear he doesn't want to lose that support. As such the GOP is in bed with them by continuing to accept their support. Doesn't mean all the GOP are Nazis. Just means they knowingly tolerate Nazis. 

 

Confederates are war heroes? They fought against and not for the U.S.. Is Sir Henry Clinton a war Hero you feel the U.S. should celebrate. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Ten oz
Formatting

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

 People were protesting the removal  of the Statue of a war hero. 

How can someone who commits treason be considered a hero?

Article III section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

[iNow]

The statues ARE part of our history and simply belong in a museum, not elevated on a pedestal. 

[geordief]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And even the Nazis, no matter how despicable their viewpoint, are allowed to protest

I don't think they came to protest (unless one is naive). They came as a show of strength and find support in numbers. (are you so dumb?) Apparently they had  metal under their gloves and we all saw the heavy weaponry they were carrying as their latest fashion statement.

 

Their slogans were incitements to violence which decent people  hoped never to hear again. 

 

And by the way do we not know who the Nazis were?What they have done in recent history.?

Oh ,not to forget that they support Trump  which on its own is hardly a character reference.

 

 

Someone downvoted me .I wonder why.

Edited August 16, 2017 by geordief

[Handy andy]

How many people have died from gun crimes in America the same day the car was driven into the protesters.?

Any political leader promoting or condoning activity likely to support behaviour not in the best interests of the majority of the people in their country, are committing treason. For America to provoke a war with North Korea and drag other countries along with them is not in the interests of anybody except the arms industry. Politicians have demonstrated an ability to avoid prosecution in the past, why does anyone think Trump will be any different and get impeached ?

Bush and Blair waged an illegal war against Iraq which would was not in the interests of anyone except the arms industry. Bush wasn't prosecuted, Blair was found guilty of waging an illegal war, but was not prosecuted for treason, which is one of the few crimes in the UK still carries the death penalty. Does treason carry the death penalty in the US, should trump be executed for treason if he starts a world war, which if China gets involved may well happen?

China is now building a fleet to rival the US pacific fleet, they have also stopped the restriction on birth control, are they planning for a war, against an aggressive colonial power?