The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[Zip City]

As for "liberals only hate Trump because he's a Republican".....79% of self identified Republicans still support Trump. Let that sink in.

[Iowan]

As for "liberals only hate Trump because he's a Republican".....79% of self identified Republicans still support Trump. Let that sink in.

I have a hard time believing that based on his approval ratings.

[Zip City]

As for "liberals only hate Trump because he's a Republican".....79% of self identified Republicans still support Trump. Let that sink in.

I have a hard time believing that based on his approval ratings.

Polling isn't terribly scientific, but if you believe there is a roughly 50/50 split between D and R voters, then take 75% of that 50%, you're at around 33% approval

[PonyGirl]

Maybe you're right. But I don't think so.

Here is why.

Remember when Ben Shapiro was talking about Trump on JRE and he said,"Too many people are too quick to attribute Trump's actions to evil. With this president, never attribute to evil what can be easily attributed to stupidity."

I did see where the pos Duke said that. But that still isn't the same as Trump supporting Nazis.

Don't understand the last part. There is no alt left? As for the rest, already covered that ground.

If somebody can show me where he said he supported the actions of the Nazis in Charlottesville (or any other Nazis) I will gladly join you in calling him the biggest, nastiest, stinkingest turd that has ever occupied the oval office and say he is in fact evil. But so far I can't find where he came close to that.

If we have learned anything from history, it is that the only appropriate reaction to Nazis and anything to do with them, is complete, outright condemnation. That's it. I'm fairly certain that even smug, little Ben Shapiro would be on board with that.

Complacency is not acceptable. Nazis + complacency = atrocities. And I fully believe that it's possible for someone to be passively evil.

[Beebs]

If we have learned anything from history, it is that the only appropriate reaction to Nazis and anything to do with them, is complete, outright condemnation. That's it. I'm fairly certain that even smug, little Ben Shapiro would be on board with that.

Complacency is not acceptable. Nazis + complacency = atrocities. And I fully believe that it's possible for someone to be passively evil.

Great post.

[Beebs]

Tough guy Nazi's previous obsession.

[tinnitus photography]

If we have learned anything from history, it is that the only appropriate reaction to Nazis and anything to do with them, is complete, outright condemnation. That's it. I'm fairly certain that even smug, little Ben Shapiro would be on board with that.

Complacency is not acceptable. Nazis + complacency = atrocities. And I fully believe that it's possible for someone to be passively evil.

Great post.

X2

[John A Arkansawyer]

This is the most depressing thing I've read in some time:

Spectacle of Hate

From cross-dressing to white robes to Tiki torches, what we can learn from white supremacists’ long history of carefully cultivating their own aesthetic.

The Klan was conceived in a tableau vivant, nurtured by minstrels and serenaders, housed by circuses and masquerades, and given an afterlife in Mardi Gras processions.

That sounds like paradise, except for the Klan part.

[Swamp]

http://www.google.com/url?q=https://ind ... watNB_9oJg
No surprises here. I've always refered to Jackson as the original.

[Cole Younger]

Is Trump a racist at heart? Considering over 40 years of discrimination against minorities in the family business (and that's just since he took over), a father who was most likely a klansmen, birtherism, spreading of false inflammatory statistics regarding black on white homicide, the Central park jogger ad incident, Mexicans are rapists, muslim ban, etc etc
I think there's a pretty f'n convincing case to be made. I think it's also pretty indicative of his appeal to racists and xenophobes.

If all the above wasn't enough, combine that with his history of being a compulsive liar, con artist and misogynist and I think that's enough to declare him the stinkiest turd in modern presidential history without even considering Russia or neo-nazis.

Cole, if by proof of his support of white supremacy/nazism you want a direct quote praising Hitler or video evidence of him doing a Nazi salute, there's not any (but at this point, who knows what tomorrow will bring?) I believe his courting the alt-right, of which white nationalism is the cornerstone, via Bannon, Milo, Gorka, Alex Jones etc says more than enough, but if there was any doubt it was dispelled with his reaction to Charlottesville. The choice of words, coupled with the ones he didn't say, in his initial statement from Bedminster following the attack at the very least implied some sort of moral equivalence between the neo-nazi white nationalists and those who oppose them and went far beyond a simple gaffe into apologist territory. Days later during the bizarre pigfuck of a press conference in which he finally summoned the nerve to say the words "white nationalist" and "neo-nazi", he immediately undid whatever progress he tried to make by "going rogue" and exceeding his earlier apologism by actively sympathizing with the side carrying tiki torches and chanting slogans straight from the Third Reich and attempting to justify their violence blaming the left for provoking their peaceful protest of a statue
I mean come on, the other side didn't even have a permit!

That's not some radical leftist distortion of the truth either, as evidenced by the reaction from right-wing pundits and the leaders of his own party, although for the most part they still don't have the balls to call him out by name.

What is the statement that his father was most likely a klansman based on?

This is what I mean. Accusing someone of being a member of the Klan is serious accusation to level at someone. And to do so without some very strong evidence is exactly the sort of thing that is running rampant.

Nobody has shown me where Trump supported Nazis. I agree that he should have left no room for the sort of assumptions that are being made. But the fact that so many are willing. To make this leap from what was said or what was left unsaid or at least unsaid in strong enough words, just proves what I am saying. All it took was for Trump to not say enough and he is supporting Nazis.

I have found myself in a position I never imagined and dont want. I sound like I am apologizing and/or making excuses for Trump and I am certain that was what some think I am doing. It is not. I am simply challenging a narrative that as far as I can tell is largely born out of a seething hatred over the fact that a Republican won an election he wasn't supposed to win. Throw in some hysteria and make some assumptions and he is turned into someone who supports Nazis. And I don't believe that is true. There is no real evidence to prove a serious accusation like that but nobody seems to care or even care whether or not it's true. The quote you referenced about Mexicans is another example of this. I don't remember the quote word for word but I am almost positive that he didn't say all Mexicans are rapists. I remember that he did make reference to rape and violent criminals coming across the border. But saying that he said, "Mexicans are rapists" is taking a lot of liberty. It's making it into a completely different statement.

None of this is surprising because it started almost immediately. The same people making these claims were immediately saying Trump was not their president as soon as he won. Then they began talking about forming a resistance to him. Then we saw groups like antifa emerge.

So accusing him of supporting Nazis is just the natural progression of the fury that was already there. In the absence of evidence that he does in fact support Nazis I don't know how there is any way around that conclusion. Because if he didn't say it, what is this based on? And the willingness to accuse his father of most likely being Klan (unless there is proof of that or even some very, very strong circumstantial evidence) and the liberty taken with the "Mexicans" quote underscores this.

Doesn't Milo date black men? How is anything to do with him "more than enough" evidence where neo nazi support is concerned?

I'm fairly certain Alex Jones is has mental problems. As in clinically deranged. I do t know how he is evidence of anything.

I agree that it was stupid to make the "all sides" comment, if for no other reason, it just was not the time to point out all the negatives of antifa.

I am able to not like Donald Trump, and indeed I don't like him, and not say that he said things he did not say. There are plenty of things that he has said that he deserves criticism for without doing that.

But I realize not many even care what he actually said at this point. Once things reach this fevered pitch you can't really talk to people about it. I've seen this in face to face conversations. You can tell by the look in their eyes they either can't hear you or don't want to.

And no, I dont believe this would be what it is if Donald Trump were a Democrat. But I am slowly coming around to the idea that he really is special in terms of how much he is hated. But is that really any better? We hate him so much we don't even care what he actually said we think we know what he probably meant and it's an opportunity to put another nail in his coffin. Is that really any better? It may be worse.

Something is either true or it isn't.

[sactochris]

Is Trump a racist at heart? Considering over 40 years of discrimination against minorities in the family business (and that's just since he took over), a father who was most likely a klansmen, birtherism, spreading of false inflammatory statistics regarding black on white homicide, the Central park jogger ad incident, Mexicans are rapists, muslim ban, etc etc
I think there's a pretty f'n convincing case to be made. I think it's also pretty indicative of his appeal to racists and xenophobes.

If all the above wasn't enough, combine that with his history of being a compulsive liar, con artist and misogynist and I think that's enough to declare him the stinkiest turd in modern presidential history without even considering Russia or neo-nazis.

Cole, if by proof of his support of white supremacy/nazism you want a direct quote praising Hitler or video evidence of him doing a Nazi salute, there's not any (but at this point, who knows what tomorrow will bring?) I believe his courting the alt-right, of which white nationalism is the cornerstone, via Bannon, Milo, Gorka, Alex Jones etc says more than enough, but if there was any doubt it was dispelled with his reaction to Charlottesville. The choice of words, coupled with the ones he didn't say, in his initial statement from Bedminster following the attack at the very least implied some sort of moral equivalence between the neo-nazi white nationalists and those who oppose them and went far beyond a simple gaffe into apologist territory. Days later during the bizarre pigfuck of a press conference in which he finally summoned the nerve to say the words "white nationalist" and "neo-nazi", he immediately undid whatever progress he tried to make by "going rogue" and exceeding his earlier apologism by actively sympathizing with the side carrying tiki torches and chanting slogans straight from the Third Reich and attempting to justify their violence blaming the left for provoking their peaceful protest of a statue
I mean come on, the other side didn't even have a permit!

That's not some radical leftist distortion of the truth either, as evidenced by the reaction from right-wing pundits and the leaders of his own party, although for the most part they still don't have the balls to call him out by name.

What is the statement that his father was most likely a klansman based on?

This is what I mean. Accusing someone of being a member of the Klan is serious accusation to level at someone. And to do so without some very strong evidence is exactly the sort of thing that is running rampant.

Nobody has shown me where Trump supported Nazis. I agree that he should have left no room for the sort of assumptions that are being made. But the fact that so many are willing. To make this leap from what was said or what was left unsaid or at least unsaid in strong enough words, just proves what I am saying. All it took was for Trump to not say enough and he is supporting Nazis.

I have found myself in a position I never imagined and dont want. I sound like I am apologizing and/or making excuses for Trump and I am certain that was what some think I am doing. It is not. I am simply challenging a narrative that as far as I can tell is largely born out of a seething hatred over the fact that a Republican won an election he wasn't supposed to win. Throw in some hysteria and make some assumptions and he is turned into someone who supports Nazis. And I don't believe that is true. There is no real evidence to prove a serious accusation like that but nobody seems to care or even care whether or not it's true. The quote you referenced about Mexicans is another example of this. I don't remember the quote word for word but I am almost positive that he didn't say all Mexicans are rapists. I remember that he did make reference to rape and violent criminals coming across the border. But saying that he said, "Mexicans are rapists" is taking a lot of liberty. It's making it into a completely different statement.

None of this is surprising because it started almost immediately. The same people making these claims were immediately saying Trump was not their president as soon as he won. Then they began talking about forming a resistance to him. Then we saw groups like antifa emerge.

So accusing him of supporting Nazis is just the natural progression of the fury that was already there. In the absence of evidence that he does in fact support Nazis I don't know how there is any way around that conclusion. Because if he didn't say it, what is this based on? And the willingness to accuse his father of most likely being Klan (unless there is proof of that or even some very, very strong circumstantial evidence) and the liberty taken with the "Mexicans" quote underscores this.

Doesn't Milo date black men? How is anything to do with him "more than enough" evidence where neo nazi support is concerned?

I'm fairly certain Alex Jones is has mental problems. As in clinically deranged. I do t know how he is evidence of anything.

I agree that it was stupid to make the "all sides" comment, if for no other reason, it just was not the time to point out all the negatives of antifa.

I am able to not like Donald Trump, and indeed I don't like him, and not say that he said things he did not say. There are plenty of things that he has said that he deserves criticism for without doing that.

But I realize not many even care what he actually said at this point. Once things reach this fevered pitch you can't really talk to people about it. I've been this in face to face conversations. You can tell by the look in their eyes they either can't hear you or don't want to.

And no, I dont believe this would be what it is if Donald Trump were a Democrat. But I am slowly coming around to the idea that he really is special in terms of how much he is hated. But is that really any better? We hate him so much we don't even care what he actually said we think we know what he probably meant and it's an opportunity to put another nail in his coffin. Is that really any better? It may be worse.

Something is either true or it isn't.

It might be based on the fact that Trump's father was arrested at a klan rally and was wearing a robe at the time. Little things like that can paint a pretty clear picture.

[Cole Younger]

Thank you. I didn't know that. How was this not talked about more? How did Clinton not hammer him with it?

[Zip City]

When it comes to Nazis, anything short of immediate and outright condemnation is as good as support. There is no "Nazis are bad, but...". There is no hedging. Trump avoided denouncing them until public pressure forced him to, which is akin to support. You can say he's not directly saying he's pro-Nazi, but passive support is bad enough

[beantownbubba]

I think Trump's father's involvement w/ the KKK is pretty well known. I assume it was not made a campaign issue because we Americans generally don't like to visit the sins of fathers on to their sons w/out good reason, and as you say, accusing someone of being in the KKK is explosive enough that one shouldn't casually toss it around based solely on family relationships. The Donald himself has also been involved in a number of discrimination/segregation housing suits during his career. I don't remember the details but they're out there.

Let me throw this against the wall, Cole and you can tell me if anything sticks. You've made the case that anti-Trumpists are just responding to him because he's a Republican president and what he actually says or does doesn't matter. I think there is a certain amount of that but we disagree considerably on the numbers; I'd call it a minor part of the larger response to Trump. There are a whole bunch more people that simply won't give Trump the benefit of the doubt and will interpret whatever he says/does in the worst way possible. This also arguably fits w/in your thesis. The problem is that even if some people do this all the time and a lot of people do it some of the time it still doesn't mean that all people do it all the time, which leaves a category of words & deeds as to which the negative response is substantive and significant. I think you're too willing to dismiss this possibility and I'd ask you to reconsider it. I believe it applies to the nazi/Charlottesville case and to a number of other "incidents" that have occurred since Trump's election. Even if that number is less than half the number of outrages the press reports, that's still a lot of legit outrage.

As to the nazi issue specifically, others have already made the case that given the uniquely horrible nature of nazi beliefs/theory/history, anything short of a direct repudiation is acceptance or even support. I think there's more than a little to that but I can also see that the way that explanation fits into your larger theory makes you skeptical. So consider this: Presidents (and other senior politicians) do not speak normal English (even when they manage to speak proper English, which is apparently beyond Trump, but I digress). For lack of a better word, let's call it the language of diplomacy because that's a subset of what I'm talking about and it expresses the concept pretty well. When the State Dept announces that it would look unfavorably on continued piracy in the Indian Ocean, everyone knows that means that the life expectancy of Somali pirates just halved. The examples are infinite. That's why people are so freaked out by Trump's fire & fury remarks re N. Korea - they are not couched in the language of diplomacy and because they are so direct and unusual, they carry multiple times the fear and uncertainty that more typical language meaning the same thing would.

In the specific Nazi case there is in fact an expected and understood range of responses/statements/formulations. Going outside those expectations has a greater impact than it would if it was just us talking here, but that's totally appropriate. When a US politician does not immediately disavow support from known lunatics/fringe elements or if a US politician does not clearly denounce violent political behavior especially when coming from "suspect groups" that itself has meaning beyond the words and interpreting the words in that context is not only legitimate but I believe it's the correct way to understand what's really being said.

I think that's what's happening re Charlottesville, the nazis and the confederate statues, especially when you follow the sequence of events from Trump's initial statement to his attempt at smoothing things over to his decision to double down on his original comments and then pile on w/ his remarks about the statues and equating Lee/David w/ Washington/Jefferson. While it might go a smidge too far to say it's "impossible" to interpret all that as anything other than support for the nazis, interpreting it that way is by far the better, more correct understanding of what's going on..

[Cole Younger]

I think Trump's father's involvement w/ the KKK is pretty well known. I assume it was not made a campaign issue because we Americans generally don't like to visit the sins of fathers on to their sons w/out good reason, and as you say, accusing someone of being in the KKK is explosive enough that one shouldn't casually toss it around based solely on family relationships. The Donald himself has also been involved in a number of discrimination/segregation housing suits during his career. I don't remember the details but they're out there.

Let me throw this against the wall, Cole and you can tell me if anything sticks. You've made the case that anti-Trumpists are just responding to him because he's a Republican president and what he actually says or does doesn't matter. I think there is a certain amount of that but we disagree considerably on the numbers; I'd call it a minor part of the larger response to Trump. There are a whole bunch more people that simply won't give Trump the benefit of the doubt and will interpret whatever he says/does in the worst way possible. This also arguably fits w/in your thesis. The problem is that even if some people do this all the time and a lot of people do it some of the time it still doesn't mean that all people do it all the time, which leaves a category of words & deeds as to which the negative response is substantive and significant. I think you're too willing to dismiss this possibility and I'd ask you to reconsider it. I believe it applies to the nazi/Charlottesville case and to a number of other "incidents" that have occurred since Trump's election. Even if that number is less than half the number of outrages the press reports, that's still a lot of legit outrage.

As to the nazi issue specifically, others have already made the case that given the uniquely horrible nature of nazi beliefs/theory/history, anything short of a direct repudiation is acceptance or even support. I think there's more than a little to that but I can also see that the way that explanation fits into your larger theory makes you skeptical. So consider this: Presidents (and other senior politicians) do not speak normal English (even when they manage to speak proper English, which is apparently beyond Trump, but I digress). For lack of a better word, let's call it the language of diplomacy because that's a subset of what I'm talking about and it expresses the concept pretty well. When the State Dept announces that it would look unfavorably on continued piracy in the Indian Ocean, everyone knows that means that the life expectancy of Somali pirates just halved. The examples are infinite. That's why people are so freaked out by Trump's fire & fury remarks re N. Korea - they are not couched in the language of diplomacy and because they are so direct and unusual, they carry multiple times the fear and uncertainty that more typical language meaning the same thing would.

In the specific Nazi case there is in fact an expected and understood range of responses/statements/formulations. Going outside those expectations has a greater impact than it would if it was just us talking here, but that's totally appropriate. When a US politician does not immediately disavow support from known lunatics/fringe elements or if a US politician does not clearly denounce violent political behavior especially when coming from "suspect groups" that itself has meaning beyond the words and interpreting the words in that context is not only legitimate but I believe it's the correct way to understand what's really being said.

I think that's what's happening re Charlottesville, the nazis and the confederate statues, especially when you follow the sequence of events from Trump's initial statement to his attempt at smoothing things over to his decision to double down on his original comments and then pile on w/ his remarks about the statues and equating Lee/David w/ Washington/Jefferson. While it might go a smidge too far to say it's "impossible" to interpret all that as anything other than support for the nazis, interpreting it that way is by far the better, more correct understanding of what's going on..

I defer to you on this, bubba. If anything I've said left you in doubt as to what my personal thoughts/feelings are about Nazis, I apologize.

[beantownbubba]

I defer to you on this, bubba. If anything I've said left you in doubt as to what my personal thoughts/feelings are about Nazis, I apologize.

Nope, not one bit. Like you, I'm trying to understand what Trump said and didn't say and how people reacted to it. The first part of my post is about how you specifically think about anti-Trumpists' reactions to what Trump says & does and suggests that your "model" doesn't fit all cases. But the rest, the part specifically about the Charlottesville/nazi incident and subsequent events, is about what Trump did or didn't say, not anything that you said or didn't say. To the extent it's directed at you I'm saying that looking only to the actual spoken words is not the right way to listen to or understand "government speak" but I'm not saying anything about your personal views on the situation or nazis.

[Cole Younger]

I defer to you on this, bubba. If anything I've said left you in doubt as to what my personal thoughts/feelings are about Nazis, I apologize.

Nope, not one bit. Like you, I'm trying to understand what Trump said and didn't say and how people reacted to it. The first part of my post is about how you specifically think about anti-Trumpists' reactions to what Trump says & does and suggests that your "model" doesn't fit all cases. But the rest, the part specifically about the Charlottesville/nazi incident and subsequent events, is about what Trump did or didn't say, not anything that you said or didn't say. To the extent it's directed at you I'm saying that looking only to the actual spoken words is not the right way to listen to or understand "government speak" but I'm not saying anything about your personal views on the situation or nazis.

Right. I did t mean I thought you were suggesting that. Just removing any doubt if there was any. I see there was not and I'm glad.

[pearlbeer]

I defer to you on this, bubba. If anything I've said left you in doubt as to what my personal thoughts/feelings are about Nazis, I apologize.

Nope, not one bit. Like you, I'm trying to understand what Trump said and didn't say and how people reacted to it. The first part of my post is about how you specifically think about anti-Trumpists' reactions to what Trump says & does and suggests that your "model" doesn't fit all cases. But the rest, the part specifically about the Charlottesville/nazi incident and subsequent events, is about what Trump did or didn't say, not anything that you said or didn't say. To the extent it's directed at you I'm saying that looking only to the actual spoken words is not the right way to listen to or understand "government speak" but I'm not saying anything about your personal views on the situation or nazis.

"You would have to have a hole in your own to point a finger at somebody else's sheet."

There isn't much point in debating Trump's direct affiliations with hate groups of any kind. He is a fucking asshole...and affiliated or not, he is at the very least, tone deaf to the horrors of racism. In my book, that makes you a fucking racist asshole.

[Iowan]

Thank you. I didn't know that. How was this not talked about more? How did Clinton not hammer him with it?

Because Democrats are fucking terrible campaigners.

Swift Boat, anyone?

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Bannon out

This will be interesting, to say the least, from here forward

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

http://theslot.jezebel.com/arnold-schwa ... 1797972731

Schwarzenegger goes on to a message for the men and women who rallied around the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville and killed Heather Heyer the following day (set to very graphic images of WWII historical footage, if you’re watching the video):

“I have a message to the neo-Nazis, to the white nationalists, and to the neo-Confederates: Your heroes are losers. You are supporting a lost cause. And believe me, I knew the original Nazis, because you see, I was born in Austria in 1947, shortly after the Second World War. And growing up, I was surrounded by broken men, men who came home from a war filled with shrapnel and guilt, men who were misled into a losing ideology. And I can tell you: that these ghosts you idolize spent the rest of their lives living in shame and right now, they’re resting in hell.”

[John A Arkansawyer]

I understand they did extensive polling on whether to cut Bannon out:

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

those who watch Game of Thrones (or, as I call it, Swords, Dwarves, and Whores) will get this reference: I saw a blog piece the other day asking if Bannon has Greyscale

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Apparently the counter protest in anticipation of a Klan rally in Durham today has turned into a dance party. Evidently, the Klan never showed up.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Note the acrostic:

[Beebs]

Apparently the counter protest in anticipation of a Klan rally in Durham today has turned into a dance party. Evidently, the Klan never showed up.

Now that is winning!

[John A Arkansawyer]

Well, here's some good news. I don't know him well, but he's a good guy so far as I've seen:

Good morning, friends! It's true: I'm a registered candidate for Mississippi's First Congressional District. I'm excited about this campaign and the support that I've received from y'all already.

[Beebs]

Seems that drumpf couldn't be bothered to record the weekly presidential address this week.

[Wolf]

Thank you. I didn't know that. How was this not talked about more? How did Clinton not hammer him with it?

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

[Dean]

Is Trump a racist at heart? Considering over 40 years of discrimination against minorities in the family business (and that's just since he took over), a father who was most likely a klansmen, birtherism, spreading of false inflammatory statistics regarding black on white homicide, the Central park jogger ad incident, Mexicans are rapists, muslim ban, etc etc
I think there's a pretty f'n convincing case to be made. I think it's also pretty indicative of his appeal to racists and xenophobes.

If all the above wasn't enough, combine that with his history of being a compulsive liar, con artist and misogynist and I think that's enough to declare him the stinkiest turd in modern presidential history without even considering Russia or neo-nazis.

Cole, if by proof of his support of white supremacy/nazism you want a direct quote praising Hitler or video evidence of him doing a Nazi salute, there's not any (but at this point, who knows what tomorrow will bring?) I believe his courting the alt-right, of which white nationalism is the cornerstone, via Bannon, Milo, Gorka, Alex Jones etc says more than enough, but if there was any doubt it was dispelled with his reaction to Charlottesville. The choice of words, coupled with the ones he didn't say, in his initial statement from Bedminster following the attack at the very least implied some sort of moral equivalence between the neo-nazi white nationalists and those who oppose them and went far beyond a simple gaffe into apologist territory. Days later during the bizarre pigfuck of a press conference in which he finally summoned the nerve to say the words "white nationalist" and "neo-nazi", he immediately undid whatever progress he tried to make by "going rogue" and exceeding his earlier apologism by actively sympathizing with the side carrying tiki torches and chanting slogans straight from the Third Reich and attempting to justify their violence blaming the left for provoking their peaceful protest of a statue
I mean come on, the other side didn't even have a permit!

That's not some radical leftist distortion of the truth either, as evidenced by the reaction from right-wing pundits and the leaders of his own party, although for the most part they still don't have the balls to call him out by name.

What is the statement that his father was most likely a klansman based on?

This is what I mean. Accusing someone of being a member of the Klan is serious accusation to level at someone. And to do so without some very strong evidence is exactly the sort of thing that is running rampant.

Nobody has shown me where Trump supported Nazis. I agree that he should have left no room for the sort of assumptions that are being made. But the fact that so many are willing. To make this leap from what was said or what was left unsaid or at least unsaid in strong enough words, just proves what I am saying. All it took was for Trump to not say enough and he is supporting Nazis.

I have found myself in a position I never imagined and dont want. I sound like I am apologizing and/or making excuses for Trump and I am certain that was what some think I am doing. It is not. I am simply challenging a narrative that as far as I can tell is largely born out of a seething hatred over the fact that a Republican won an election he wasn't supposed to win. Throw in some hysteria and make some assumptions and he is turned into someone who supports Nazis. And I don't believe that is true. There is no real evidence to prove a serious accusation like that but nobody seems to care or even care whether or not it's true. The quote you referenced about Mexicans is another example of this. I don't remember the quote word for word but I am almost positive that he didn't say all Mexicans are rapists. I remember that he did make reference to rape and violent criminals coming across the border. But saying that he said, "Mexicans are rapists" is taking a lot of liberty. It's making it into a completely different statement.

None of this is surprising because it started almost immediately. The same people making these claims were immediately saying Trump was not their president as soon as he won. Then they began talking about forming a resistance to him. Then we saw groups like antifa emerge.

So accusing him of supporting Nazis is just the natural progression of the fury that was already there. In the absence of evidence that he does in fact support Nazis I don't know how there is any way around that conclusion. Because if he didn't say it, what is this based on? And the willingness to accuse his father of most likely being Klan (unless there is proof of that or even some very, very strong circumstantial evidence) and the liberty taken with the "Mexicans" quote underscores this.

Doesn't Milo date black men? How is anything to do with him "more than enough" evidence where neo nazi support is concerned?

I'm fairly certain Alex Jones is has mental problems. As in clinically deranged. I do t know how he is evidence of anything.

I agree that it was stupid to make the "all sides" comment, if for no other reason, it just was not the time to point out all the negatives of antifa.

I am able to not like Donald Trump, and indeed I don't like him, and not say that he said things he did not say. There are plenty of things that he has said that he deserves criticism for without doing that.

But I realize not many even care what he actually said at this point. Once things reach this fevered pitch you can't really talk to people about it. I've seen this in face to face conversations. You can tell by the look in their eyes they either can't hear you or don't want to.

And no, I dont believe this would be what it is if Donald Trump were a Democrat. But I am slowly coming around to the idea that he really is special in terms of how much he is hated. But is that really any better? We hate him so much we don't even care what he actually said we think we know what he probably meant and it's an opportunity to put another nail in his coffin. Is that really any better? It may be worse.

Something is either true or it isn't.

"Something is either true or it isn't"

someone needs to tell Trump this,

or his supporters at least...