remember all the trump cucks who said protesting a democratically elected leader was somehow wrong, that ppl have to "grow up" and "get over it"? funny how silent they are when the alt-right, neo-nazis, and white supremacists get butthurt over a democratic decision to take down a monument dedicated to a racist and traitor. right wing hypocrisy at its best yet again...



he did not. he said something along the lines of: 'you could call him a terrorist or a murderer, you can call him whatever you like...', again avoiding a clear statement to signal his white nationalist friends that he's on their side.

it's funny how the vast majority of america, including many ultra conservative republicans, are urging him to stop dog whistling to the neo-fascists, but trump just can't help himself. the only people that keep defending him are the racist bigots and his loyal followers hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, including jsp...

Both sides should protest democratic decisions they disagree with, that's a fundamental guarantee of American democracy- you can disagree with decisions even if you accept they are law of the land and make your objection known
Neither side has a right to violently protest

I don't have any issue with people who went into the streets to protest Trump's election peacefully. I might disagree with them, but that's their right.
However, the anti-Trump protests were often violent or destructive, and many were simply riots with no political agenda, just aimless anger.
Its the smashing of businesses, looting, vandalism, arson, destroying cars, that must all be condemned. When black thugs kidnapped a mentally disabled white guy and tortured him while shouting 'fuck trump', that was horrible.

TIL:

Explicitly condemning it and saying you can call them whatever bad words you want is ACKCHYUALLY a message saying he is a nazi

recognizing the violence of groups like antifa in addition to the violence of the alt-right is even more proof hes a nazi.

oh dear

heinrich again up past 4 am local time (no job to go to tomorrow, he's supported by the state while he seeks his dream job of being a professional fluffer) ignoring reality again. gives him time to brush up on his bigotry:

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=75465012&f=119&p=510741102


http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=75018691&f=205&p=509519356

when confronted on his homophobic slurs, he changes the meaning of the slur

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=75018691&f=205&p=509524284

fender aka Heinrich von goebbels has pmed several users with this exact message, instructing users to address him as such:



Fender's opinions of minorities on d2jsp


fender is on record calling numerous minorities on this forum "racist national socialists", despite him being a privileged bigot who pissed all his opportunity away, now left to try and lick out a dishonest living in a gutter in Dresden.

This post was edited by excellence on Aug 16 2017 08:23pm

The shitbags at NPR had the most weaselly bullshit method of pushing this narrative today on the radio
"Trump's statement that appears to defend white supremacists". Must have heard them repeat that same phrase 10 times, and they usually only repeat stories 5 times while I drive
They know he explicitly singled out and condemned white supremacists, but they can run their weasel words to push the exact opposite narrative based entirely on the media furor, themselves being party to it.

looks like fender aka heinrich and sauci had their visa approved, a shame they spent their time in the States doing this

e: sadly its to be expected from radical european racists visiting a foreign land where liberty central to the nation

This post was edited by excellence on Aug 16 2017 08:42pm

oh i absolutely agree. they 100% have the right to protest the council's decision to take down the memorial to a racist, traitor and slavery proponent - i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of mocking the left for protesting while using the same right to fight for their bigoted world views...
also, i obviously agree with you that violence (both against property and especially against people) has no place in these protests, neither from antifa thugs nor from neo-fascists - but again, not the point here.



nice strawman, i neither said nor implied that trump himself is a "nazi" - in fact, i stated multiple times that i don't even think he is a full-blown racist. sure, he has made a lot of racist comments and doesn't mind racist policies (as long as they don't discriminate against whites), but i don't think he's fully committed to the ideology of racial superiority - he's just an old bigot with according views when it comes to other races and religions. the point i DO criticise him for is that he doesn't at all mind catering to that racist scum, since it rewards him with loyal supporters. he clearly appealed to and emboldened those people with his rhetoric (during his campaign AND during his presidency).

i see you're yet again perpetuating the simplistic narratives of the apologist crowd, unsurprisingly.
however, i have to inform you that most people are a little more intelligent and nuanced, so they are well aware that whenever trump speaks off the cuff, he avoids clear condemnations of the alt right and rather resorts to vague statements about 'all sides'. another fact that will apparently come as a surprise to you: people can distinguish between trump clearly stating "this is an act of terrorism" and "you can call him a terrorist or whatever you like".

he only ever clearly denounces them when the pressure (again, from ALL sides except the racists themselves, and people like you and the other anonymous cultists online) gets too high - then he stays on script and lets the brain behind the speech on the teleprompter take control.

don't believe just ME though, the reactions of people like david duke and richard spencer, thanking him for his comments and stating they don't actually feel denounced, clearly indicate that trump's message was received as intended. but hey, if you rather act like context and subtext don't exist (i think that was actually the first talking point on the leaked white house memo on how to handle this officially) to pretend this is 'just fine' - i can't force you to be a little more sophisticated and use some common sense.

and sure, at some point trump, in between all of his dog whistling, officially stated that he denounced neo-nazis (before he went back to his 'all sides are to blame' and 'many fine people' narratives) - if that's really good enough for you, there you go - obviously speaks volumes but again, not surprised...

This post was edited by fender on Aug 16 2017 09:49pm

It was a VERY slight exaggeration/abbreviation that replaced "white nationalist" with nazi.
You literally said this was him signalling to them that he is on their side.



Another unjustified ad hom tirade when confronted with opposing views and inconvenient facts you dont like.

Recognizing the violence of radical or "alt-'left' groups instead of going with the simplistic nazis vs innocent good guys narrative is important and relevant and nuanced not the opposite.. (nuance, which you give lip service to valuing but ignore in practice)



Ah yes the numerous times he has denounced these groups isn't enough for you. Just lies due to pressure.
Conspiracy theory nonsense.

How many times would be enough for you? and how would it not constitute secret messaging to white nationalists by condemning them?


Responses from unsavory figures do not prove trump's intent is to signal to them that he is on their side or otherwise. very fallacious line of reasoning.
It only makes sense that they would be happy he pointed out the violence of the left. That doesnt make it wrong or evil or secret signalling to do so.

Do you believe left wing violence should be recognized and condemned? or it is evil and white nationalist signalling to do so? So far you have indicated the latter.

Yeah we both agree, everyone agrees, 95% of America agrees, and Donald Trump is getting crucified for saying what we just all agreed on.
He basically said the same things in his press conference I'd been saying online.



He was on twitter condemning the violence in Charlottesville in the hours and minutes before the attack happened
Either he really is time travelling Biff Tannen, or he was actually on point addressing the violence before it escalated.



Which side is being simplistic again? Because I'm willing to recognize the distinctions of Nazis vs White Supremacy vs White Power vs Anti-Identity Politics. But when the media goes off the rails, we get ridiculousness like even NPR saying "Trump is defending white supremacists" when he is explicitly condemning them and then pointing out the nuance of ideological diversity that was present.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Aug 16 2017 10:32pm

it's acceptable that you didn't understand it the first time since the clarifications (that i DON'T think he's a hardcore racist) i refered to in my reply, weren't in the post you quoted, and i obviously can't expect you to be familiar with all my posts. but there is no reason for you to still misunderstand / misrepresent me since i elaborated on that point. no need to engage in pointless rhetoric trying to justify your misrepresentation AFTER knowing the facts...



no, just contesting your point that a basically forced (just to avoid further moronic 'counter-arguments': not physically or by authority, but politically) official statement under these circumstances (2 days after the incident, after making remarks blaming 'all sides', and before going back to his 'all sides' and 'fine people' generalisations) is a clear signal, when the whole world notices when and how he denounces who, and how he communicates his messages. again, i can just explain it to you, i can't understand it for you - if you don't WANT to see it you obviously won't...



he denounced them twice. both times when the pressure from all sides, including the party of his choice, was immense. both times he did everything to avoid clear statements before - remember how he acted like he didn't even know david duke the first time?



again a strawman. i never claimed the responses alone 'proved his intent' - i specifically used the word 'indicate'. your dishonest misrepresentations, desperately trying to prove me wrong while ignoring the actual argument, are getting out of hand. but let me just act like you actually didn't get it and were interested in an exchange of opinions and arguments: i mentioned their statements to further support what has become apparent (at least to most people) throughout his campaign and presidency: he keeps appealing to those racists and bigots and they keep supporting him - just look at all the 'maga' trucker caps and trump paraphernalia - if common sense, logic, and the aforementioned supportive evidence isn't enough.




i thought i was pretty clear about being aware that your the simplistic approach, to ask about violence from the left to be condemned (as ofc it should be!), is just a distraction to justify a 'technically, he's right - so this is fine' conclusion. i guess 'technically' it would have also been correct to point to american warmongering in the middle east and ask 'all sides' to stop the violence after 9/11...

again, if trump's reaction is good enough for you, that's your decision - and it's my decision what to think of that, as it speaks volumes - even to many american conservatives...