Trump officially denounces KKK, Neo-Nazis, racism, etc

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: galaga

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: galaga

Now that the president has called out white Americans, Black and all others are open season.

What? Open season on Blacks?

They are going to be handled the same way. As terrorists hate groups. I edited my post.

That was still an odd phrase to use. Care to explain?

Wasn't odd at all. It's a very common phrase. There is a cartoon my kids used to watch called "Open Season".

I see what you are trying to do and imply. I'm not retarded. Also I'm not white.

a reply to: galaga

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @ Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!

truly bad people..indeed

He's now headed to NY for meetings and with protestors at Trump Tower. Looks like the NYPD have that under control, unlike the clueless Virginia police who ran and hid when things got rough.

a reply to: Grambler

I too had a lengthy response to you.

I'm been having browser crashes out of the blue the last two days too — seriously annoying.

Oh so because millions of people like them, they can't be a hate group?

Of all the possible things that could be taken from what I said, is that really the most reasonable? The point I was trying to make is that there are millions of people who engaged in activism that could be somehow called "black lives matter" and it doesn't require any formal association. I can write "Black Lives Matter" on a sign, walk outside with it and stand by the road screaming "death to unicorns!" and that wouldn't equate to "BLM is anti-unicorn!"

Essentially, the right-wing media and politicians' strategy to discredit BLM is to have somebody film that and then blast it over and over and over.

And here you are on ATS today talking about the alt right, Mike cernovich, some racists friend he had; painting with a broad brush yourself.

Many people call themselves alt right, yet here you are on ATS lumping them altogether.

I disagree with most of what you're saying here. In fact, I'm actually doing the exact opposite. See here. My argument has long been that people have been unwittingly painting themselves by self-identifying with the "Alt-Right" over some misunderstanding of what the "Alt-Right" is.

And furthermore, that Cernovich and a small number of others had been more than happy to push people along this path before the election. Not because Cernovich is himself a neo-Nazi but because it was politically expedient at the time.

Ridiculous standard. Do you have any evidence of Richard Spencer calling for violence, or Mike Cernovich, etc? But you still judge them.

We see riots, calls for violence, and all around hatred coming from BLM all of the time.

The whole, "BLM only does good things, so if something bad happens, it can't be BLM" trope is getting old.

Ridiculous standard? It's your standard form the last thread.

In fact, you just reiterated it again:

We see riots, calls for violence, and all around hatred coming from BLM all of the time.

You made the claim, I asked if you had any evidence of it and then you said it was a ridiculous standard based on my question? How does that work? Again, this is your claim (which in the original post on the other thread was how you substantiated that BLM was a "hate group"):

We see riots, calls for violence, and all around hatred coming from BLM all of the time.

And this is my question:

Do you have any evidence of the founders of BLM, the national organizers or chartered chapters of BLM promoting, advocating, supporting, deliberately inciting or knowingly facilitating riots or riotous behavior or the murder of police?

I never said that I had any evidence of Richard Spencer let alone Mike Cernovich calling for violence. This "call for violence" thing as a definition of a hate group is *your* thing. Furthermore, I never accused Mike Cernovich of being a neo-Nazi or even a white nationalist. I said that he exposed unwitting social media followers to these people.

Richard Spencer is a white supremacist and white nationalist. That's just demonstrable truth. I can post quote after quote from Spencer. I can post Spencer's own writings on the topic. Do you feel that those ideologies qualify Spencer's orgs like NPI as "hate groups?"

You're all over the place on this. The BLM/Alt-Right comparison is one that you're trying to make in the first place. While making this comparison, you are characterizing BLM as a "group" (e.g. "hate group") while treating the Alt-Right as a decentralized movement.

You're moving the goal posts all over as it suits your various arguments best.

BLM and the Alt-Right are both movements. Structurally, as movements, they are comparable in many ways. For instance, anyone can claim affiliation to either. They also differ in many ways that make them harder to compare. While anyone can claim to be BLM, there is a national "BLM," created by the three founders that serves as the ideological core. Then there are recognized but-completely-autonomous chapters. BLM is also an idea and a hashtag.

The Alt-Right on the other hand is more like a traditional movement in that it started with a clique of individuals and groups that shared a similar ideology. Anyone can claim to be "Alt-Right" but unlike with BLM, the groups that compromise the "Alt-Right" aren't just autonomous, they all have unique names and agendas and leadership. I can point to Identity Evropa and make a distinction to another group. Taki magazine is separate from VDARE.

By contrast, there are several cities where there are conflicting groups claiming to be *the* BLM in the area. For instance, do you remember when Bernie Sanders was interrupted during a speech by self-identifying BLM protesters? There was an unrelated BLM group that issued an apology. Can you see the problem here? It's like if all these Alt-Right groups didn't have names of their own and were just called "Alt-Right."

I'll respond to the rest in a second post.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I acknowledge that white nationalists groups can be violent even if their "leader" does not call for it.

Same with BLM.

Of course most groups are not going to come right out and call for violence, the KKK doesn't do that. Yet I consider them a vile hate group.

But for some reason, this does not apply to BLM for you.

And for Richard Spencer, of course I believe he is a white nationalists, and terrible. My point is he hasn't called for violence, so would you be ok saying Trump was cool inviting him to the white house? Of course not.

And neither would all of the other people yelling about Trump. If he invited any group remotely associated with any white nationalism, people would scream bloody murder.

But again, we know the argument; the REAL BLM is non violent and great. It just so happens that a lot of their rallys turn into riots but they have nothing to do with it.

a reply to: Grambler

This is hilarious.

Shall we go tit for tat on which group the MSM has paid more lip service to and celebrated more, BLM vs. white nationalists?

Buts its telling you are furious ofver the daily caller, and have no problem with the MSM kissing up to BLM>

Come on! Now it's BLM vs "white nationalists?" You start off with a new comparison and then launch into yet another false equivalence. This would have made more sense if we were comparing Tea Party to BLM. So much more sense. Of course, the TP has evaporated but do you remember what darlings of the right-wing media the TP were?

Every one of your arguments is premised in you projecting your unreasonable view of BLM. Of course given your view of BLM, it seems like a double standard.

So if Trump invites richard Spencer to the white house, and says Spencer hasn't engaged in violence, you would be ok with that? I think not. You are ok with black supremacists, but not white, we got you.

Wow. You're not usually so full of bluster and straw men. And the goal posts have moved from NY to LA to Helsinki back to NOLA and now they're somewhere over the Pacific ocean.

Who did Obama invite to the WH? DeRay McKesson. Is DeRay McKesson a black supremacist? If not, what are you talking about? Please, show me where Obama invited a black supremacist to the WH. I can provide you with tons and tons and tons of verbiage straight from Spencer showing EXACTLY what he is. Can you do the same for McKesson? No, your whole argument here is that McKesson = BLM = somebody chanted "pigs in a blanket" once = Obama invited a *black supremacist* to the WH?

That's just nonsense. If you have evidence of McKesson being a black supremacist, let's see it. If this *isn't* a false equivalence, you should be able to demonstrate that McKesson is comparable to Spencer.

Can you do that? If you respond to *nothing* else. Please respond to that.

This is the ultimate hypocrisy.

On one hand, somehow Trumps comments condemning all violence wasn't enough.

But on the other hand, what Obama said about BLM, the group that inspired the murder of police officers at their very memorial, isn't a problem for you.

What are you talking about? You didn't offer any proof of what you were saying. I call you out for it and I'm a hypocrite? Lmao! My friend you know as well as I do that the onus is on you to back up your claim.

This does not equal "praise of BLM" :

cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid

I see you didn't post that part though. Imagine if Trump had said "Its tragic this lady died, but many of the white nationalist there were merely peacfully protesting".

Because you have made up your mind a long time ago that BLM is a "group" and a "hate group" at that and that they're responsible for all sorts of things. You just called DeRay McKesson a "black supremacist" and you provided absolutely no proof of it. You're gonna have to do better than that.

I like you ante, but your double standard here is unreal.

Lmao. I don't take it personally and I know you don't either. I don't think we'll be lining up to hit each other with sticks anytime soon. That said, you my friend are completely wrong on most of what you're saying here.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


People seem to forget Trump is on record calling David Duke a bigot and racist since at least 2000. Apparently Trump needs to follow Duke around and denounce him over and over and over ..... ad nauseum. How many times will it take for people to accept that Trump has denounced bigotry and racism? He disavowed Duke during the campaign IIRC. It will never be enough for some.



Here is over 8 minutes of compilation of Trump disavowing and/or rebuking Duke and/or the KKK. It will never be enough for some people though.

a reply to: theantediluvian

This again comes down to what you define BLM as.

You and others claim that they are only the good things, all of the riots and deaths and violence and threats that has occurred at there rallies were just other people, not true BLM people.

If you hold this standard, then you can not blame any group for violence at the Charleston rally. Did any of the leaders call for violence? Nope.

But you and I both think that some of these white supremacist groups have many violent elements.

I will admit I don't know if Deeray is a black supremacist; but he represents a group that includes them as members.

If Trump invited a white lives matter leader to the white house, even one that wasn't a supremacist, he would be shouted at till the end of his presidency.

Again, the hypocrisy is that not only has Trump not invited anybody from one of these nationalists groups, he condemned violence from all sides; and yet still he said to be not hard enough on these white supremacists.

And as always, you are my friend and I respect your opinion.

But I think that claiming trump didn't say enough with his original statement where he condemned all of the violence is far less ergregious than having blm members in the whitehouse for Obama or Obama cheering the peaceful protestors at a memorial for dead cops killed by one of the protestors.

Trumps statement was meaningless. It was 100 percent political expediency. It was done without any heart, soul or real conviction. The man has no moral convictions but his own narsscicism.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

Again, a double standard.

Obamas gone and this constant comparison is just Right wing masturbation. btw...Hillary lost.

It's time for Trump and his supporters to take personal responsibility for their racism. Watch more videos and listen to the Trump styled neo nazis calling people on the street..."Nig***s" and "Nigg++ lovers" ....what matters is that they think Trump supports them. I think he does.

He doesn't have a great record of telling the truth.

Wait - you want 60+ million people to take responsibility for a few Neo-Nazi groups that were part of the protest against the removal of General Lee's statue?

Do you even realise how insane that sounds???

Take a good look in the mirror, because it is thinking like yours that actually drives division.

Ya trying to argue common sense with someone who has none on this issue. its a waste of time.

originally posted by: Willtell
Trumps statement was meaningless. It was 100 percent political expediency. It was done without any heart, soul or real conviction. The man has no moral convictions but his own narsscicism.

I get it now. You need to see tears.

Only then, once your emotion has been touched, tickled and fancied will you truly believe.

why?

Why do YOU need to be made to feel good about it?

a reply to: Khaleesi

This video you posted:


...deserves it's own thread.

Trump actually thought the reform party was falling apart at the time because someone like David Duke joined it.

In response to the question of what the biggest problems in the Reform Party were:

Well you've got David Duke who just joined. A bigot, a racist, a problem. This is not exactly the people you want in your party

Hands up who saw that on CNN...

It's funny how something so specific could be ignored, whilst innuendo, mind reading, and implied guilt by the omission of specific words are used to smear Trump today.

Shameful behaviour from the hard left anti-Trumpers.

a reply to: amazing

Seems the last president never once called out radical islamists. That must have made you really upset too. You just can't catch a break!

a reply to: olaru12

This is my favorite kind of stupid, because at least it makes me laugh. Obama idiots blamed Bush for everything for 8 years. Obama is out of office for 6 months and you're all "it's time to move on." You're full of #, and nothing you say or think has any value.

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: amazing

Seems the last president never once called out radical islamists. That must have made you really upset too. You just can't catch a break!

Yeah that's one thing I can lay blame to Obama, he really didn't call out Radical Islamic Terrorists and at least Trump does. So that's one good thing about this presidency. It would be nice of Trump would call out the radical far right, without public pressure but that might be too much to ask considering his second in command is from Brietbart.