Printable View
What was the MSM’s point of view by taking Trump’s comments out of context? That he supported white nationalists? He wasn’t. You said he tried to give them cover by talking about good people on both sides, conventionally ignoring that he was saying that not everyone there protesting was a white supremacist. I still see things online referencing Trump’s supposed support of white supremacists at Charlottesville.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You could draw the conclusion that he was supporting white nationalism by giving them cover.
Why would "good people" come and participate in a rally about white nationalism and antisemitism, display Nazi symbols and chant about replacement theory?
You can't draw the conclusion that Ohmar was supporting breaking the law.
I agreed with your original thought that often media takes words out of context to support a particular point of view. I disagree this is one of those cases.
Since he said both sides you could make the similar argument that he was supporting Soviets and other authoritarian Socialists. Both arguments would be false.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
From ABC News:
if the midterms were today, 51% of reg voters say they’d support the GOP candidate in their district, 41% say the Democrat. That’s the biggest lead for Republicans in the 110 ABC/Post polls that have asked this question going back 40 years.m
You guys have failed miserably Paul. And we’re 10 months in.
This IS the exestential threat that you incessantly railed about with the former guy.
Hope we survive it
"Former President Donald Trump is amping up his battle against "RINOs, sellouts, and known losers" who voted in favor of the infrastructure bill, calling on other Republicans to challenge them in primaries. "
So much for republican infrastructure support.
Meanwhile, Cruz still going after Big Bird.
Looks like Ole Joe is indeed a racist... Even Kamala sees it, as reported on CNN:
"Suspicion has sprouted out of the bitterness. Last month, White House aides leapt to the defense of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who was being hammered with outrage by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and like-minded online pundits for taking paternity leave after the adoption of his twins in September. Harris loyalists tell CNN they see in that yet another example of an unfair standard at play, wondering why she didn't get similar cover any of the times she's been attacked by the right.
"It's hard to miss the specific energy that the White House brings to defend a White man, knowing that Kamala Harris has spent almost a year taking a lot of the hits that the West Wing didn't want to take themselves," said a former Harris aide, reflecting conversations last month among several former aides and current allies."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/14/polit...ent/index.html
Who are the Dems going to nominate as their VP to replace Biden next year when they unleash the 25th Amendment on old Joe? They can't allow another idiot with an even lower approval rating than Joe to take the promotion, so they have to remove Kamala first. Will it be the guy who just took two months off to learn how to breast feed?
I like your posts for the most part because they make me think. Believe this one still has me scratching my head though. How do you call this giving them cover?Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
From TrumpWas that code or dog whistle for “I’ve got your back?”Quote:
and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.
If you feel everyone there who didn’t want the statue torn down were bad people, so be it. Nothing like guilty by association and that’s exactly what the press wanted people to think.
Most people can look at the BLM and other social justice protests across the country last year and say there were some good people because there were quite a few. Just because you believe or don’t believe in a certain cause doesn’t mean there are not good people in a particular group. There will always be those who tarnish the reputation of others. Of course there are fringe groups from both sides that do not have redeeming qualities IMO.
Final point. Heard Wisconsin is planning for protests if Rittenhouse is found not to be guilty. To me it would say the justice system worked, to others they’ll see this as racial injustice. If peaceful protests do happen, I can still say there are some good people in that group. Don’t understand why they would, but I don’t have to.
Good post Eggs, but only the opportunist race grifters can see race in an incident where every single involved person is white.Quote:
Originally Posted by noteggs
Ahmed Aubrey? Absolutely. Convict and put those jerks away.
Rittenhouse? All I see is white.
Paul’s valued “Politifact” ruled this “False”
“ At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”
Politifact “Fact Checkers” are wrong. Rittenhouse was legal per Wisconsin law. The gun charge was dismissed in court.
So much for that biased site.
Maybe it's a distinction I shouldn't necessarily draw, but it is the result of watching 4 years of the prior administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by noteggs
When given a direct chance to repudiate the white nationalists in a debate, he said stand back and stand by. I think that helped Jan 6th insurrection.
When BLM organizes a protest for racial justice, often (way too often) some people come and use the gathering for creating mayhem.
But the purpose of the protest was to address a substantive issue.
What was the point of Charlottesville?
It was organized by white nationalist, neo-facist groups to (ostensibly) object to the removal of a statue of a traitor to our union.
It involved racist chants, marches with torches, nazi flags and symbols, etc.
Why would you go to a rally with those known organizers and reasons for protests? Those activities they engaged in were not a few people doing crazy things like occur with the BLM protests. They were activities that were the planned essence of the rally.
Maybe a distinction without a difference. I don't know. I wish he would have just condemned the activities, and called out the Proud Boys in the debate.
I believe his bully pulpit could have cooled things down, especially if used correctly in the run-up to Jan 6th.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Appreciate your ideas.