CNN’s Angela Rye: Statues of Washington, Jefferson and Lee ‘All Need to Come Down’

[Madison320]

@Trumpcuck @dannno

No, he was referring to immigrants, as any non-Trumpcuck with a triple digit IQ can plainly see.

@Madison320

What is it you find incredible? That Trump said Mexicans are rapists, or that such rhetoric propelled his campaign?

Both.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best," Trump said. "They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I'm pro liberty and I see a lot of problems with Trump in this regard. You are not pro liberty. You are anti Trump. Trump's statements following the Charlottesville incident were one of the few times he's gotten it right yet even then you complain.

[Southron]

Had a little mini red terror last night where I live around Confederate statues. Citizens had to guard statues themselves. A few that were left for police to guard got defaced.

[r3volution 3.0]

Both.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best," Trump said. "They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Yes, that's what he said, as I quoted it earlier. Now let's try to figure out why you can't appreciate its meaning:

1. What group is Trump talking about in the first place? Is the "[people] Mexico sends" some special sub-group of immigrants which the Mexican government is encouraging to cross the border, or is it Mexican immigrants in general? It's Mexican immigrants in general. This "Mexico sends" language is typical of anti-immigrant types, ala "we're importing immigrants." It's meant to obscure the fact that the immigrants are people, making choices; anti-immigrants types would rather characterize them as pawns in someone's nefarious scheme.

2. And what does he say about Mexican immigrants? He says "[they] have lots of problems...They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Now, if *some* are good people, what are the rest? He makes it quite clear: "they’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."

That's about all the time I'm willing to devote to exegesis of this grade schooler's speech, so, if you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm pro liberty and I see a lot of problems with Trump in this regard.

Good

You are not pro liberty.

You are anti Trump.

As is every pro-liberty person, by definition.

Because you tied up all my time pissing me off with you silly-assed and more-than-mildly-irritating Socratic Interrogation just to drag me kicking and screaming to the very point I made in the very post that you used to kick this very odyssey off.

You seem confused by your own writing.

In your first post, which you just quoted, you said:

"he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime"

That is false, which is what I'm trying to "drag [you] kicking and screaming" to acknowledge.

Now that I fully understand just how thorough a commie you are, and how little respect you have for my time and to what degree you consider it community property, that you would waste this much of it just to drag me kicking and screaming to a conclusion I reached years ago, I do hope you understand if the next time you ask me a question I completely ignore it.

Fear not, there will be no such questions, about this or any other topic.

[Madison320]

That's about all the time I'm willing to devote to exegesis of this grade schooler's speech, so, if you still don't get it, I don't know what to tell you.

Do you at least agree that his initial response was correct? Where he basically blamed both sides? Or do you think he should've only condemned the alt right protestors?

[acptulsa]

You seem confused by your own writing.

In your first post, which you just quoted, you said:

"he has dialed things back more than any other administration in my lifetime"

That is false, which is what I'm trying to "drag [you] kicking and screaming" to acknowledge.

Instead of dragging me around and trying to piecemeal together a rebuttal out of this aspect of this administration and that aspect of another administration, try refuting the claim with overarching and irrefutable fact some time.

And good luck with that.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you at least agree that his initial response was correct? Where he basically blamed both sides? Or do you think he should've only condemned the alt right protestors?

It's true that both sides are monstrous and should be condemned. However, when you have a history of friendly relations with the one side, and it was that same side which just killed somebody, in the incident in question, playing the objective observer and blaming both sides is a joke - or, rather, a PR move. That statement was Trump simultaneously doing the "Presidential" dance and winking at his alt-right supporters. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose there had been a right/left riot of some kind in 2015, in which the left killed one of the right. If Obama came out with a "well, everyone's to blame" comment, the right would have gone ballistic, and reasonably so.

P.S. Keep in mind, I don't care what Trump says, about any topic, at all, except insofar as it has real effects on things. I have no "moral outrage" over anything Trump said/didn't say re the riot, as the left pretends to have. My only interest in the whole affair is that the alt-right not be further emboldened, that it even retreat, so that we can regain lost ground in the GOP. That's the upshot of all this. Towards the culture war issues that everyone's hopped up about (muh racism, muh diversity, whatever), I give exactly zero (0) $#@!s, one way or another. I think it's a giant waste of time and energy, which is why I want these people off the political stage.

[Swordsmyth]

It's true that both sides are monstrous and should be condemned. However, when you have a history of friendly relations with the one side, and it was that same side which just killed somebody, in the incident in question, playing the objective observer and blaming both sides is a joke - or, rather, a PR move. That statement was Trump simultaneously doing the "Presidential" dance and winking at his alt-right supporters. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose there had been a right/left riot of some kind in 2015, in which the left killed one of the right. If Obama came out with a "well, everyone's to blame" comment, the right would have gone ballistic, and reasonably so.

P.S. Keep in mind, I don't care what Trump says, about any topic, at all, except insofar as it has real effects on things. I have no "moral outrage" over anything Trump said/didn't say re the riot, as the left pretends to have. My only interest in the whole affair is that the alt-right not be further emboldened, that it even retreat, so that we can regain lost ground in the GOP. That's the upshot of all this. Towards the culture war issues that everyone's hopped up about (muh racism, muh diversity, whatever), I give exactly zero (0) $#@!s, one way or another. I think it's a giant waste of time and energy, which is why I want these people off the political stage.

The truth is the truth, If both sides are at fault he SHOULD say it, Obummer would never have said it but if he had nobody should have complained.

[Madison320]

It's true that both sides are monstrous and should be condemned. However, when you have a history of friendly relations with the one side, and it was that same side which just killed somebody, in the incident in question, playing the objective observer and blaming both sides is a joke - or, rather, a PR move. That statement was Trump simultaneously doing the "Presidential" dance and winking at his alt-right supporters. The same would be true if the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose there had been a right/left riot of some kind in 2015, in which the left killed one of the right. If Obama came out with a "well, everyone's to blame" comment, the right would have gone ballistic, and reasonably so.

First of all there's good reason to believe the driver may have acted in self defense. Second we don't know his connection with the alt right. Imagine if a black guy was was driving towards a KKK mob, the KKK mob starts hitting the car with bats and the black driver took off into the crowd and killed someone. You think Obama should come out and condemn black violence?

I think the worst thing Trump did was during his followup news conference he called the driver a murderer. Do you think the president should be declaring someone guilty, before the trial? Especially in light of the evidence?

[Ender]

First, I'm not a fan of Johnson, he was a distant second choice after Rand. That said, what would Johnson have done? He would have TRIED to dismantle a large part of the federal government, and end foreign interventions, and reign in the police state. Would he have succeeded? Who knows. But TRUMP ISN'T EVEN TRYING; rather to the contrary.



He's more involved in Syria than Obama/Hillary was, so...



That is a grievous insult to Warren Harding.

That's definitely a grievous insult to Warren Harding. Harding was one of the best, and most forgotten, presidents of the 20th century.

Trump's a spoiled brat that can't keep his friggin' mouth shut about ANYTHING. His insane babble's intentions seems to be keeping everyone on "sides" and fighting each other so that everyone totally misses the big picture and what is really going on with the US, wars, and more & more freedom loss.

JMHPOV

[r3volution 3.0]

First of all there's good reason to believe the driver may have acted in self defense.

I see no reason to believe that.

Second we don't know his connection with the alt right.

He's second from the left in the first photo:



Another view:



So, he's standing with NAZIs, at a NAZI rally, in a NAZI uniform, carrying a NAZI shield.

There have since been reports that he openly expressed pro-NAZI views in highschool.

Conclusion? Yea, he's a NAZI.

[Madison320]

I see no reason to believe that.

Did you see the video of his car being struck before he accelerated?

You didn't answer my question. Imagine if a black guy was was driving towards a KKK mob, the KKK mob starts hitting the car with bats and the black driver took off into the crowd and killed someone. You think Obama should come out and condemn black violence?

You didn't answer my second question either so I'll ask it again. Do you think the president should be declaring someone guilty, before the trial? Especially in light of the evidence?

[r3volution 3.0]

Did you see the video of his car being struck before he accelerated?

The video I've seen shows him driving rapidly some dozens of yards down an empty street towards a crowd.

I see the crowd swarm his car after the collision, not before.

Begins at 0:12

You didn't answer my question. Imagine if a black guy was was driving towards a KKK mob, the KKK mob starts hitting the car with bats and the black driver took off into the crowd and killed someone. You think Obama should come out and condemn black violence?

Probably not (self-defense is very fact-specific and hard to discuss hypothetically), but that isn't what occurred in Charlottesville.

Do you think the president should be declaring someone guilty, before the trial? Especially in light of the evidence?

I have no problem at all with the the President or anyone else stating the obvious.

He still gets a trial, of course.

[Madison320]

The video I've seen shows him driving rapidly some dozens of yards down an empty street towards a crowd.

I see the crowd swarm his car after the collision, not before.

At :16 a guy on the left hits his car. That's before he accelerates.

Probably not (self-defense is very fact-specific and hard to discuss hypothetically), but that isn't what occurred in Charlottesville.

So you're admitting if the roles were reversed, you'd think he was innocent?

I have no problem at all with the the President or anyone else stating the obvious.

He still gets a trial, of course.

A fair trial?

[Aratus]

I see no reason to believe that.



He's second from the left in the first photo:



Another view:



So, he's standing with NAZIs, at a NAZI rally, in a NAZI uniform, carrying a NAZI shield.

There have since been reports that he openly expressed pro-NAZI views in highschool.

Conclusion? Yea, he's a NAZI.

I agree. He clearly drove into a crowd of people more
than two blocks from him, when he was in his vehicle.

[r3volution 3.0]

At :16 a guy on the left hits his car. That's before he accelerates.

By 0:16 he's already at the crowd, feet away/seconds from the collision.

That doesn't explain why he was driving toward the crowd rapidly in the first place.

So you're admitting if the roles were reversed, you'd think he was innocent?

No. I said that if a driver runs people over after being swarmed by a mob, that's probably self-defense.

And that that scenario is not what occurred in Chartlottesville.

A fair trial?

Fair as he'd have gotten regardless

[Aratus]

I like Joan of Arc.

In today's climate,

FDR's public statues

could end up in a

New Deal museum,

Next to Jefferson

and Andy Jackson...

[Madison320]

By 0:16 he's already at the crowd, feet away/seconds from the collision.

That doesn't explain why he was driving toward the crowd rapidly in the first place.



No. I said that if a driver runs people over after being swarmed by a mob, that's probably self-defense.

And that that scenario is not what occurred in Chartlottesville.



Fair as he'd have gotten regardless

Let's see what comes out at the trial, shall we?

[r3volution 3.0]

Let's see what comes out at the trial, shall we?

That we shall.

[Aratus]

He admired Jefferson and Jackson, he served under W.Wilson during WW1
And when at Columbia, after Harvard, he was exposed to the Dunning school
on Reconstruction. Do not egg on today's Democrats. Do keep in mind FDR's
ancestors knew Alexander Hamilton. He let Eleanor champion civil rights...

[Aratus]

Aratus looks up.
AF knows politicians
are inconsistent
But ideologues aren't

[Anti Federalist]

I like Joan of Arc.

The Idiot Mob® does not.

Joan of Arc statue in French Quarter tagged with 'Tear It Down' graffiti

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s...affiti_te.html

[JustinTime]

And the day before when Trump asked if this will end with Washington and Jefferson statues being removed, the media nyucked it up mocking him and saying that was crazy, two days later this woman, some pastor in Chicago, and some actor Ive never heard of but apparently with quite a Twitter following all call for exactly that.

Trump makes these people look like Baghdad Bob, remember Saddam Hussein's spokesman who said there were no US tanks in Baghdad and they were right behind him? Sad situation, I hated that war but I did get a chuckle out of Bob's misfortune.

Anyhow, its scary to think that so many Americans cant see that Trump is 100% right. This *is* designed to erase our history and replace it with new, Marxist type stuff.

[Ender]

The Idiot Mob® does not.

Joan of Arc statue in French Quarter tagged with 'Tear It Down' graffiti

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.s...affiti_te.html

How come this isn't sexist?