^this. good post.




One person murdered one other person. You paint it as if its the non-antifa side solely and clearly targetting and murdering innocents as a matter of policy, when it was one individual.
ANTIFA has made a habit of victimizing innocent/non-violent persons, and many come to events with the express purpose of escalating and engaging in violence.

Expansive acts of violence were taken part in by both sides.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 16 2017 11:59pm

it seems like every time i expose your fallacies, you just type some kind of generalising rage post to somehow 'justify' your complete failure to address the arguments. there is no audience, buddy. no one is interested in our squabbles, no one reads our essays, so feel free to outright say what your take on this is.

are you really not able to realise how trump continuously appeals to the bigots on the far right? can you really not distinguish between a genuine denouncement and some obligatory statement, made under political pressure, in between vague comments suggesting blame on both sides? i really hope you don't actually completely lack the nuance to see that, and that you're just too proud to admit you might be wrong. if you genuinely think trump's approach to this is adequate, i have to say i feel sorry for you - again, even ultra conservatives are disgusted by his reaction...

we've already established i dont buy the 'explicit condemnation = obvious support signaling that hes on their side' theory.
Super secret signalling conspiracies that go directly against what he says are unprovable and what goomshill said.

Trump tripling down on criticism and condemnation of white supremacists etc after MSM say its not enough does not indicate they aren't truly held beliefs.

Legitimately criticizing both sides is not evil signalling or illegitimate, no matter how much you dont like him.
Antifa are deserving of criticism and trump recognizing that this isnt a one-sided black-and-white issue is quite good.
Do you think the media would be crucifying a lefty as an evil nazi if they criticized violence on both sides of a violent event? Or is that something that usually garners praise and uncritical approval?


then you must be super right then huh?

but surely you understand why the media would put more focus on the terrorist attack that occurred over the terrorist attack that did not occur. If violence is your focus, the fascists were clearly the worse offenders. If ideology is your focus, the fascists are clearly the worse offenders. It's one thing to condemn violence all around, it is another thing entirely to portend that the two sides were on an equal moral ground, or that both sides had "very fine people"





This is not something that is left to interpretation, the president did in fact spend more time condemning the anti-fascist side over the white supremacist side, and the president did in fact say that the self described white supremacist rally had some "very fine people" on their side before going on rant about how the media spent more time focusing on the violence committed by the side that took part in a terrorist attack against innocent civilians instead of focusing more on the violence committed by the side that did not commit a terrorist attack before saying that the media was unfair to the side of the white supremacists.

This post was edited by TCassa89 on Aug 17 2017 12:55am

to quote walter ulbricht: "no one has the intention of erecting a wall!" - but i think it's redundant to even address the point that trump is the most notorious liar in office in modern history, since i'm sure you're intelligent enough to distinguish between "i just assume he means the opposite of what he said" and "in the context of his comments and behaviour before and after this statement, i have the strong impression that he's not being genuine"...



that's fine because there is no such theory. that's just another failed attempt to ridicule my argument by gross misrepresentation. my "theory" is based on context and subtext, looking at not only one statement made under significant political pressure, but at his behaviour and statements before and after that.



addressed above



the obvious deflection attempt aside, i can just reiterate that it's generally right to criticise every side participating in violence. in light of this disgusting attack, however, it's rather misplaced, and you know it.
just imagine for a moment some antifa thug had killed a trump supporter during the campaign at one of trump's rallies, and obama would have made similar comments like 'all sides need to stop the violence' - and only after significant pressure he then would have denounced the killer. heads would have exploded, including yours - and that even without any context of obama being sympathetic towards violent leftist thugs. so your little 'technically, he's right to denounce them' narrative is just that - a simplistic excuse to justify the reaction of your cult leader while the whole world rightfully criticises him for it.



not necessarily, but it's a strong indication if even people who have been loyal to him all the time openly criticise him for it. but i guess even you already figured that, hence your desperate little reply using meme lingo and pre-schooler sarcasm...

The violence did occur on both sides.
Is attacking people to shut down their political speech terrorism or not?


Debatable and not clear.


Says the leftist..
Both fascism and communism are extremely horrible.
ANTIFA have an offshoot ideology that openly supports attacking peaceful people for perceived views they dont like.

Not everyone on the rightwing side were actual neonazis/supremacists.


Its one thing to condemn the violence on both sides, its another to pretend ANTIFA are the good guys with minor flaws fighting against the axis of evil.



He had to explain it to the pearl clutching leftists who called his recognition of leftist violence into question.

Yes some people rallying in support of protecting the monument are fine people.
Or do you think every noncounter-protester there was an evil terrorist supporting nazi?
Or perhaps there were differing people with differing views and actions? all but one of which had nothing do with hitting someone with a car.
You are doubling down on painting a whole side as taking part in a terrorist attack/attacking innocents.

yes the media pretending only one side is at fault and condemning people who recognize the violence of the left is reasonably considered unfair treatment.

I'm sorry, but

1. "very fine people" do not stand in unison with people waving nazi flags, chanting nazi slogans, and giving the nazi salute at a rally that was organized by self described white supremacists. You don't want a statue taken down, fine.. that doesn't require standing in unison with a self described white supremacist rally

2. I never said the anti-fascists were good guys, I said they had good guys and bad guys on their side. Heather Heyer (the woman who was killed in the terrorist attack) was a good person. Marianne Rubin (the woman who escaped nazi Germany and stood in unison AGAINST fascism in Virginia) is a good person. The fascist side does not have good guys on their side, good guys don't march in unison with white supremacists. Period

3. Even if you are not a white supremacist, if you are marching in unison with them at a self identified white supremacist rally, then you are not a "very fine person"

4. It is not debatable which side was more violent, only one side targeted innocent civilians in a terrorist attack

5. Yes, there was violence committed on both sides, and we ought to condemn any violence committed that isn't done in self defense of oneself or others, but if you are going to try and pretend that the two sides are on an equal moral ground, then you need to be called out on your bullshit

This post was edited by TCassa89 on Aug 17 2017 01:40am

I could easily say the same thing about marching with violent communists. But reality is much more grey.
There assuredly were people there that didnt support fascism and werent horrible people. Nor were they all in unison with the people with nazi flags.

As a frequent pusher of 'not all muslims' type rhetoric one might think you would be less eager to repeatedly try to lump everyone loosely related together as being pro-nazism and committing terrorism/murder.. but i guess not.


Only one side had one person who acted on his own and ran someone over with a car*

ANTIFA regularly commits acts of violence that can be classified as terrorism, and many explicitly went to this protest to violently suppress people. Thats terrorism too.


Repeating thats its bullshit while whitewashing the issue does not actually make it bullshit.

In many ways many members of antifa are worse than many of the right wing people there, aside from the one murderer. the ones who dont violently try to force their beliefs on others or attack others for having different beliefs.
But you want to keep pushing the idea that antifa is soo much clearly better when they are the scum of the earth too.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 17 2017 02:09am

'b-b-but muh antifaaaa...' - yes, buddy, you're right: the antifa has violent thugs too that need to be called out for their moronic actions, and no one complains if the the president does that when they do. the problem is when a white nationalist commits an act of domestic terrorism and trump keeps talking about "all sides" and whines about how the "fine people" on the far right are treated unfairly, and only under significant political pressure condemns it explicitly. you can't be daft enough not to realise why even republicans have an issue with that... you're making a fool of yourself again with your desperate attempt to justify trump's reaction...

Criticizing the violence of multiple sides in the actual events in question isnt somehow detached or unwarranted. They were literally committing acts of violence at these protests/rallies.
Its not whataboutism, its aboutism.

You want him to pretend they weren't and only criticize one side? Is that reasonable and unbiased? and is differing from your preferences of who he should condemn and how he should do it a sign of evil?
Condemning the violence on all sides of violent conflict among guilty groups is standard.

This idea that no one complains when he does call them out is hilariously false and betrayed by your own posts.



Do you think some media smearing everyone there as nazis and white supremacists is treating them fairly?
he explicitly made a dictation between the 'fine people' and nazis/supremacists/violence, despite your insinuations here.

Hes condemned the latter numerous times and continues to do so. But thats no good and because there was 'pressure'?
yes pressure from media outlets painting him as a nazi sympathizer and secret signaler for daring to recognize the violence of the left, as they obfuscate and misrepresent what he said.
condemn harder, clap harder.


You are making a fool of yourself with illogical anti-trump hysteria and name calling in every thread regardless of merit or how far you have to reach to vilify him or anyone else who disagrees with you.

Neocon pieces of shit like mccain and graham (who have ongoing feuds with trump) taking issue with trump here is unsurprising and does not make what he said wrong.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 17 2017 08:16am