The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[beantownbubba]

historically I don't know of any meaningful change made solely by lawful, peaceful protest

"Solely" is a pretty high bar to meet, but I'd say India/Gandhi and US civil rights/MLK Jr are pretty good examples of largely peaceful significant change.

But leaving aside the hairsplitting, there has long been a serious question about when civil disobedience and civil disorder are appropriate, because surely there are situations in which they are. By civil disobedience I mean something "stronger" than your basic possibly illegal sit-in and by civil disorder I mean physical action like taking down that statue in Durham up to and including physical violence. As best I can tell, these things are really just a matter of degree and history, as written by the ultimate victors, gets to decide (which is a rather subjective standard). Some people think the situation in the US is so dire right now that violence is appropriate and they are heroes whom history will vindicate. Right now that's a minority view. One obvious irony is that while that's a minority view, it's made up of people w/ very different causes and grievances, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other. Then again, rebelling against England was at one time a minority view at least up to and including the boston tea party. Who knew politics could be so hard?

[John A Arkansawyer]

Yes, What About the “Alt-Left”?
What the counter-protesters Trump despises were actually doing in Charlottesville last weekend.

There were, as it turns out, a great number of Charlottesville locals present to witness the violence and lawlessness on display in this town—my town—last weekend. I asked local witnesses, many in the faith community, every one of whom was on the streets of Charlottesville on Saturday, whether there was a violent, club-wielding mob threatening the good people on team Nazi. Here’s what I heard back:

It's worth reading the whole thing.

Out of my faith calling, I feel led to pursue disciplined, nonviolent direct action and witness. I helped lead a group of clergy who were trained and committed to the same work: to hold space on the frontline of the park where the rally was to be held. And then some of us tried to take the steps to one of the entrances. God is not OK with white supremacy, and God is on the side of all those it tries to dehumanize. We feel a responsibility to visibly, bodily show our solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized.

A phalanx of neo-Nazis shoved right through our human wall with 3-foot-wide wooden shields, screaming and spitting homophobic slurs and obscenities at us. It was then that antifa stepped in to thwart them. They have their tools to achieve their purposes, and they are not ones I will personally use, but let me stress that our purposes were the same: block this violent tide and do not let it take the pedestal.

[Beebs]

Ronnie got a lot of things wrong. But he got a couple of things right.

[Smitty]

historically I don't know of any meaningful change made solely by lawful, peaceful protest

"Solely" is a pretty high bar to meet, but I'd say India/Gandhi and US civil rights/MLK Jr are pretty good examples of largely peaceful significant change.

Would MLK's peaceable stance have been as successful if not juxtaposed against Malcolm X and the Black Power movement, Watts, Harlem, etc?

"Mrs. King, I want you to tell your husband that I had planned to visit him in jail here in Selma but I won't be able to do it now. I have to go back to New York, ah, because I, I have to attend a conference in Europe, an African student conference and I want you to say to him that I didn't come to Selma to make his job more difficult but I thought that if the White people understood what the alternative was that they would be more inclined to listen to your husband. And so that's why I came."

[beantownbubba]

ould MLK's peaceable stance have been as successful if not juxtaposed against Malcolm X and the Black Power movement, Watts, Harlem, etc?

Exactly. That's why "solely" is not the correct adjective. OTOH, the actual amount of violence committed by the civil rights side of the civil rights movement was pretty darn small and a good deal of that hurt the black community more than anyone (if one includes the various summer riots as part of the larger movement because almost all of that destruction was within the black communities). The threat and fear of violence was real and it had an impact without question but it was mostly threat and little actual violent action. And as I indicated earlier (i hope) I'm not saying that direct action is never appropriate because I believe the opposite. The difficult and important question is when is it appropriate and when is it not? But beyond all that i think it's correct to say that both the Indian independence movement and the US civil rights movement were largely peaceful.

[PonyGirl]

For the most part, the only reason Trump is as hated as he is, is because he is the Republican in the white House. That's it.

If you really don’t see how Trump differs from your standard, garden variety Republican leader, have a look at the piece below. I think this woman effectively highlights a few of his unique qualities in this regard.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinio ... e35978182/

Otherwise I am inclined to agree that most left leaners are generally unhappy when Republican leaders hold the most important office in your land.

Why do you think that is? I would be curious to learn your thoughts.

In other news, Toronto hosted the G20 a few years ago and with that came a significant influx of fairly extreme leftist protesters. Some of them were actually compelling, well-reasoned, inspiring, super-smart, non-destructive people who seemed genuinely motivated to make the world a better place. Others were right up there on the whack-job-o-metre with that guy from the Vice vid, who I found terrifying. Given the choice between sitting by him on the metro or Travis Bickle, I'd choose Travis every time.

Also... Taylor Swift for President... Imagine how inane that would have sounded 2 years ago and how at the moment it seems like a massive improvement.

[sactochris]

For the most part, the only reason Trump is as hated as he is, is because he is the Republican in the white House. That's it.

That could not be further from the truth. For someone who has railed against partisan politics, this is a very presumptuous partisan conclusion to draw. Trump is as hated as he is because he is a hateful, divisive, narcissistic, fear-mongering asshole. Party affiliation does not begin to explain the level of disdain people have for him.

Cole, that's some ignorant shit you're spewing now, dude.

[Cole Younger]

I'll address Zip and Cortez's posts in this one post.

Cortez, while what you say is true, I did not use the words "far left" in the op, to me it is implicit that I'm talking about people on the extreme end. Otherwise I would have just used the word "liberals" as there is a difference. But even so, in my response to bubba, I made it clear that he was not the sort of person I was referring to as he is a reasonable and well informed person. Not an ideologue whose views are rooted in emotion. The folks I am talking about rarely have a position that is one of intellect. They respond to everything with emotion. Which is why every republican candidate or president is evil rather than someone with whom they disagree. Their reactions to the presidents and candidates that I mentioned substantiate this. I don't know if you just didn't notice what I said to bubba or just ignored it and are trying to engage in a bit of gotcha. I have never seen you post much here except in reaction to my posts and even then it is limited so I have no good grasp on where you stand politically. But with this in mind it was hardly he blanket statement you made it out to be. As for your final point, we actually agree. Our ideas about what is far left and what is far right most likely differ but those on the extreme ends are as you say they are.

Zip, while I understand Trump is considered particularly or uniquely objectionable, most of the criticisms I see leveled at him have to do with his personality. And I maintain that a lot of it is simply because he is a Republican and is president. That is not so surprising when you consider the way ideologues have accepted ideas from a candidate of their party when they found it abhorrent when it was coming from one of the other party. Your taking it as a personal criticism or insult only makes sense if you have done this or if you consider yourself part of the fringe of the left.

[Cole Younger]

For the most part, the only reason Trump is as hated as he is, is because he is the Republican in the white House. That's it.

That could not be further from the truth. For someone who has railed against partisan politics, this is a very presumptuous partisan conclusion to draw. Trump is as hated as he is because he is a hateful, divisive, narcissistic, fear-mongering asshole. Party affiliation does not begin to explain the level of disdain people have for him.

Cole, that's some ignorant shit you're spewing now, dude.

Not at all. The only reason for you to think so is if you are one of the ideologues I'm deacribing. When you dial it up to ten for a milquetoast like Romney you do an admirable job of discrediting yourself. If seeing that clearly makes me guilty of ",ignorant shit" in your mind I can live with that.

[Iowan]

I'll address Zip and Cortez's posts in this one post.

Cortez, while what you say is true, I did not use the words "far left" in the op, to me it is implicit that I'm talking about people on the extreme end. Otherwise I would have just used the word "liberals" as there is a difference. But even so, in my response to bubba, I made it clear that he was not the sort of person I was referring to as he is a reasonable and well informed person. Not an ideologue whose views are rooted in emotion. The folks I am talking about rarely have a position that is one of intellect. They respond to everything with emotion. Which is why every republican candidate or president is evil rather than someone with whom they disagree. Their reactions to the presidents and candidates that I mentioned substantiate this. I don't know if you just didn't notice what I said to bubba or just ignored it and are trying to engage in a bit of gotcha. I have never seen you post much here except in reaction to my posts and even then it is limited so I have no good grasp on where you stand politically. But with this in mind it was hardly he blanket statement you made it out to be. As for your final point, we actually agree. Our ideas about what is far left and what is far right most likely differ but those on the extreme ends are as you say they are.

Zip, while I understand Trump is considered particularly or uniquely objectionable, most of the criticisms I see leveled at him have to do with his personality. And I maintain that a lot of it is simply because he is a Republican and is president. That is not so surprising when you consider the way ideologues have accepted ideas from a candidate of their party when they found it abhorrent when it was coming from one of the other party. Your taking it as a personal criticism or insult only makes sense if you have done this or if you consider yourself part of the fringe of the left.

Cole, when you point out that most of the criticism of Trump is directed at his personality, you're basically making the argument that it's not about his politics. Because it really isn't. So much of the negative response to Trump has almost nothing to do with traditional liberal vs. conservative tropes. He's an unprecedented piece of shit.

He is siding with Nazis.

Let that sink in. What part of traditional American flag waving boot up their conservativism does that jive with? Fucking none of it. Hating Nazis has been one of those things that 99% of Americans agreed on before now. This is unfuckingprecedented.

[Cole Younger]

I'll address Zip and Cortez's posts in this one post.

Cortez, while what you say is true, I did not use the words "far left" in the op, to me it is implicit that I'm talking about people on the extreme end. Otherwise I would have just used the word "liberals" as there is a difference. But even so, in my response to bubba, I made it clear that he was not the sort of person I was referring to as he is a reasonable and well informed person. Not an ideologue whose views are rooted in emotion. The folks I am talking about rarely have a position that is one of intellect. They respond to everything with emotion. Which is why every republican candidate or president is evil rather than someone with whom they disagree. Their reactions to the presidents and candidates that I mentioned substantiate this. I don't know if you just didn't notice what I said to bubba or just ignored it and are trying to engage in a bit of gotcha. I have never seen you post much here except in reaction to my posts and even then it is limited so I have no good grasp on where you stand politically. But with this in mind it was hardly he blanket statement you made it out to be. As for your final point, we actually agree. Our ideas about what is far left and what is far right most likely differ but those on the extreme ends are as you say they are.

Zip, while I understand Trump is considered particularly or uniquely objectionable, most of the criticisms I see leveled at him have to do with his personality. And I maintain that a lot of it is simply because he is a Republican and is president. That is not so surprising when you consider the way ideologues have accepted ideas from a candidate of their party when they found it abhorrent when it was coming from one of the other party. Your taking it as a personal criticism or insult only makes sense if you have done this or if you consider yourself part of the fringe of the left.

Cole, when you point out that most of the criticism of Trump is directed at his personality, you're basically making the argument that it's not about his politics. Because it really isn't. So much of the negative response to Trump has almost nothing to do with traditional liberal vs. conservative tropes. He's an unprecedented piece of shit.

He is siding with Nazis.

Let that sink in. What part of traditional American flag waving boot up their conservativism does that jive with? Fucking none of it. Hating Nazis has been one of those things that 99% of Americans agreed on before now. This is unfuckingprecedented.

Well the part about his personality was included because until this weekend I rarely saw anyone articulate what made him so horrible and when pressed they would say something that had to do with his personality. Basically, "I don't know but he's an asshole.". He was an asshole because he was a Republican who flamed the left.

Who other than the scum that gathered in Charlottesville is supporting Nazis? This time it was actual Nazis that showed up. But before this weekend the word nazi was applied to anyone the far left didn't like or wanted to silence including Trump. Where is all the nazi support?

[Cole Younger]

Also, if anyone is reading this and finds themselves thinking that I am supporting Nazis, you're on some strong stuff. Likewise, none of this is in support of Donald Trump.

If you say he is insufferable in his arrogance and crudeness, I agree with you. If you say he is a bad president, Im still with you.

These posts are my desire to deal with what is true rather than hysteria. When did Trump come out and say he supported Nazis and agreed with them? Because the "all sides" comment, while stupidly ill-advised, and woefully insufficient, is nowhere close to supporting Nazis. The two things just aren't the same.

[John A Arkansawyer]

For the most part, the only reason Trump is as hated as he is, is because he is the Republican in the white House. That's it.

I don't think that's entirely true, but I do think whatever Republican got elected would be pretty well despised by the left, just like whatever Democrat gets elected is pretty well despised by the right. We are a divided and polarized nation.

That said, Trump really is different.* I don't think any of the other major 2016 candidates would have gotten the reaction he did. Not even close.

When you dial it up to ten for a milquetoast like Romney you do an admirable job of discrediting yourself.

That's a pretty good point. I've been trying to explain that to people. Unfortunately, we've got everything dialed up to at least eleven right now and no one hears very well.

That was one of the things I really dug about Bernie Sanders, the "never ran a negative ad" thing. I sure didn't like Clinton, but I also thought the email scandal was almost certainly bogus. I've toyed with the question of whether he might've won if he'd gone after her hard on that and other bullshit scandals, instead of focusing exclusively on the corruption caused by big money politics. I think he might've, but I'm sure he'd've lost my vote, and I think he'd've lost to Trump in that scenario.**

But "This election is the most important ever! This rightie/leftie is the rightiest/leftiest ever!" (since the last one) is as phony and as predictable as a countdown at a Jerry Lewis telethon or a public radio pledge drive.

ETA:

Until this weekend I rarely saw anyone articulate what made him so horrible and when pressed they would say something that had to do with his personality

I've been saying the same thing since roughly March 2016: He incited his crowds to commit violence on protestors. That crossed a red line for me. Until that point, I'd figured he was the best of a bad bunch--not too competent but smart enough to hire people better than himself. That was actual fascistic behavior on his part, and why I view his apparent errors--he still hasn't called the Charlottesville mayor, you know--in a suspicious light.

*You have no idea what it cost me to vote for another Clinton, the less greater evil.
**In the "Sanders pulls out a narrow victory in Iowa" and "Clinton and Sanders face off in New Hampshire" universe, where he wins without going negative, I think he beats Trump.

[Cole Younger]

For the most part, the only reason Trump is as hated as he is, is because he is the Republican in the white House. That's it.

I don't think that's entirely true, but I do think whatever Republican got elected would be pretty well despised by the left, just like whatever Democrat gets elected is pretty well despised by the right. We are a divided and polarized nation.

That said, Trump really is different.* I don't think any of the other major 2016 candidates would have gotten the reaction he did. Not even close.

When you dial it up to ten for a milquetoast like Romney you do an admirable job of discrediting yourself.

That's a pretty good point. I've been trying to explain that to people. Unfortunately, we've got everything dialed up to at least eleven right now and no one hears very well.

That was one of the things I really dug about Bernie Sanders, the "never ran a negative ad" thing. I sure didn't like Clinton, but I also thought the email scandal was almost certainly bogus. I've toyed with the question of whether he might've won if he'd gone after her hard on that and other bullshit scandals, instead of focusing exclusively on the corruption caused by big money politics. I think he might've, but I'm sure he'd've lost my vote, and I think he'd've lost to Trump in that scenario.**

But "This election is the most important ever! This rightie/leftie is the rightiest/leftiest ever!" (since the last one) is as phony and as predictable as a countdown at a Jerry Lewis telethon or a public radio pledge drive.

*You have no idea what it cost me to vote for another Clinton, the less greater evil.
**In the "Sanders pulls out a narrow victory in Iowa" and "Clinton and Sanders face off in New Hampshire" universe, where he wins without going negative, I think he beats Trump.

Whew. Thank you John A! You get it. Completely.

[Iowan]

Also, if anyone is reading this and finds themselves thinking that I am supporting Nazis, you're on some strong stuff. Likewise, none of this is in support of Donald Trump.

If you say he is insufferable in his arrogance and crudeness, I agree with you. If you say he is a bad president, Im still with you.

These posts are my desire to deal with what is true rather than hysteria. When did Trump come out and say he supported Nazis and agreed with them? Because the "all sides" comment, while stupidly ill-advised, and woefully insufficient, is nowhere close to supporting Nazis. The two things just aren't the same.

I'll address Zip and Cortez's posts in this one post.

Cortez, while what you say is true, I did not use the words "far left" in the op, to me it is implicit that I'm talking about people on the extreme end. Otherwise I would have just used the word "liberals" as there is a difference. But even so, in my response to bubba, I made it clear that he was not the sort of person I was referring to as he is a reasonable and well informed person. Not an ideologue whose views are rooted in emotion. The folks I am talking about rarely have a position that is one of intellect. They respond to everything with emotion. Which is why every republican candidate or president is evil rather than someone with whom they disagree. Their reactions to the presidents and candidates that I mentioned substantiate this. I don't know if you just didn't notice what I said to bubba or just ignored it and are trying to engage in a bit of gotcha. I have never seen you post much here except in reaction to my posts and even then it is limited so I have no good grasp on where you stand politically. But with this in mind it was hardly he blanket statement you made it out to be. As for your final point, we actually agree. Our ideas about what is far left and what is far right most likely differ but those on the extreme ends are as you say they are.

Zip, while I understand Trump is considered particularly or uniquely objectionable, most of the criticisms I see leveled at him have to do with his personality. And I maintain that a lot of it is simply because he is a Republican and is president. That is not so surprising when you consider the way ideologues have accepted ideas from a candidate of their party when they found it abhorrent when it was coming from one of the other party. Your taking it as a personal criticism or insult only makes sense if you have done this or if you consider yourself part of the fringe of the left.

Cole, when you point out that most of the criticism of Trump is directed at his personality, you're basically making the argument that it's not about his politics. Because it really isn't. So much of the negative response to Trump has almost nothing to do with traditional liberal vs. conservative tropes. He's an unprecedented piece of shit.

He is siding with Nazis.

Let that sink in. What part of traditional American flag waving boot up their conservativism does that jive with? Fucking none of it. Hating Nazis has been one of those things that 99% of Americans agreed on before now. This is unfuckingprecedented.

Well the part about his personality was included because until this weekend I rarely saw anyone articulate what made him so horrible and when pressed they would say something that had to do with his personality. Basically, "I don't know but he's an asshole.". He was an asshole because he was a Republican who flamed the left.

Who other than the scum that gathered in Charlottesville is supporting Nazis? This time it was actual Nazis that showed up. But before this weekend the word nazi was applied to anyone the far left didn't like or wanted to silence including Trump. Where is all the nazi support?

I think that comment supports the actions of those in Charlottesville by deflecting the criticism that should solely be on them at this point.

David Duke has tweeted his thanks to Trump for doing so.

His whole doubling down and blaming the non-existent alt left was him obviously supporting that's agenda. He's doing everything but Sieg Hiel a Swastika.

[Iowan]

I agree with you Cole that the "nazi" label is flung around far too frequently, but I think this is the case where it's not much of an exaggeration.

[Cole Younger]

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.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Whew. Thank you John A! You get it. Completely.

You're very welcome! I'm also trying to see what is instead of what I want it to be.

What's funny about that is that on a scale of zero to ten, where zero is dead-center moderate and ten is far left, I'm somewhere from a nine to a nine and a half. I will (for instance) defend the anti-fascists when they use justifiable and proportionate force, even if it's illegal. I just am not under any illusions it's good that things have come to that, because it's not. I wore a purple shirt today because the woman the Nazi killed, Heather Heyer, had her memorial service today, and her mom asked people to wear purple because it was her daughter's favorite color. I suppose I should be glad we've got a useful martyr, but I'm not. I'd much rather that woman had her daughter back. Even if this fucked-up bullshit eventually leads to things getting better (and it might), it's still fucked-up bullshit and it's still going to lead to a lot of grief for a lot of people. People are supposed to be better than this, and people can be better than this, but we just aren't right now, and that makes me really sad.

[Cole Younger]

Whew. Thank you John A! You get it. Completely.

You're very welcome! I'm also trying to see what is instead of what I want it to be.

What's funny about that is that on a scale of zero to ten, where zero is dead-center moderate and ten is far left, I'm somewhere from a nine to a nine and a half. I will (for instance) defend the anti-fascists when they use justifiable and proportionate force, even if it's illegal. I just am not under any illusions it's good that things have come to that, because it's not. I wore a purple shirt today because the woman the Nazi killed, Heather Heyer, had her memorial service today, and her mom asked people to wear purple because it was her daughter's favorite color. I suppose I should be glad we've got a useful martyr, but I'm not. I'd much rather that woman had her daughter back. Even if this fucked-up bullshit eventually leads to things getting better (and it might), it's still fucked-up bullshit and it's still going to lead to a lot of grief for a lot of people. People are supposed to be better than this, and people can be better than this, but we just aren't right now, and that makes me really sad.

Outstanding post, brother.

[Iowan]

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.

I'm not sure Trump is acting out of malice. I think it's self preservation. Somewhere between malice and incompetence. And I think that excusing Nazis/white supremacists is not a crime of intent. If you're that incompetent, I really don't care that you're not malevolent. The result is no different.

Trump made up the term alt left yesterday. Yes, there are extreme left wingers. Some are violent. They aren't very organized, they aren't murdering, and they don't have the leader of the free world white-washing their actions.

[Cole Younger]

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.

I'm not sure Trump is acting out of malice. I think it's self preservation. Somewhere between malice and incompetence. And I think that excusing Nazis/white supremacists is not a crime of intent. If you're that incompetent, I really don't care that you're not malevolent. The result is no different.

Trump made up the term alt left yesterday. Yes, there are extreme left wingers. Some are violent. They aren't very organized, they aren't murdering, and they don't have the leader of the free world white-washing their actions.

Well I think this discussion has kind of gone as far as it can. Agree that whether it is done out of ignorance or evil, it ain't good. No argument there.

To me the willingness to use alt right and the reluctance to use its opposite number kind of proves my original point but at this point I don't even care. On to something else.

[John A Arkansawyer]

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."

Josh Marshall has said that for quite a while. He calls it Trump's Razor: The stupidest explanation for Trump's actions are the likeliest. But Trump is also pretty good with the media. The theory behind whether he's supporting Nazis is the 'dog-whistle' theory, where you use phrases and words that mean one thing to most people but something altogether different to another group. I think there's something to that. Other politicians have certainly done it, and he's turned out to be a pretty good politician (unfortunately). He's probably able to play that game without thinking about it. And the fascists are playing up to that, interpreting what he says (or doesn't say) in the way most useful to them. But he's also an amateur who won't listen to his coaches, so maybe he's just saying ignorant shit because he's ignorant. It's hard to judge someone who doesn't play by the regular rules. It might even be a second childhood.

But I'm not in a mood to take the generous interpretation with this guy. He's powerful and dangerous--he's got a high capability--and so I'm extra cautious with him.

[Smitty]

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.

[Smitty]

[Smitty]

Let that sink in. What part of traditional American flag waving boot up their conservativism does that jive with? Fucking none of it. Hating Nazis has been one of those things that 99% of Americans agreed on before now. This is unfuckingprecedented.

Russians, nazis and confederates. It's like the ultimate anti-american supergroup.

[dogstar]

Let that sink in. What part of traditional American flag waving boot up their conservativism does that jive with? Fucking none of it. Hating Nazis has been one of those things that 99% of Americans agreed on before now. This is unfuckingprecedented.

Russians, nazis and confederates. It's like the ultimate anti-american supergroup.

You forgot the North Koreans, but then everyone seems to have forgotten them with the Charlottesville distraction going on.

[Smitty]

Let that sink in. What part of traditional American flag waving boot up their conservativism does that jive with? Fucking none of it. Hating Nazis has been one of those things that 99% of Americans agreed on before now. This is unfuckingprecedented.

Russians, nazis and confederates. It's like the ultimate anti-american supergroup.

You forgot the North Koreans, but then everyone seems to have forgotten them with the Charlottesville distraction going on.

Ha, I surely did, although I'm confused on where exactly they fit. Are they enemies of the anti-american supergroup, who inexplicably are in control of america at the moment? If so, where the fuck doe that leave the rest of us?
What a surreal fucking time to be alive.

[John A Arkansawyer]

The Monuments Must Go
An open letter from the great, great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson.

While we are not ashamed of our great great grandfather, we are ashamed to benefit from white supremacy while our black family and friends suffer. We are ashamed of the monument.

[Smitty]

Whose heritage?
Public Symbols of the Confederacy
This graph showing when confederate monuments actually went up was pretty eye-opening for me. The timings of their construction are pretty damning and don't support the argument that they exist as innocent historical markers.


Edit: well fuck, that infographic is a little bigger than I anticipated.

[Swamp]

Will the Masons let the statue of Albert Pike come down? It sits in the middle of Judiciary Square as if it's mocking our nations goals. He allegedly used Choctaw Indians to take the scalps of slain yankee soilders. He was also one of the founders of the kkk............ he was a Mason but then George was a president.
On a side note, R L didn't want confederate monuments.