It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I was in Charlottesville. Trump was wrong about violence on the left

page: 18
46
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kryties

Well you know that thing called tivo was invented.

Where people can pause,rewind, and record, and rewatch things they see on tv.

So not the same metric.


So Trump Tivo'd the first night and watched it repeatedly did he?


So as opposed to your op.

There were millions of witness and video proof of what they saw.

Instead of some piece that amounts to nothing more than confirmation bias.




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Kryties


I find it a pathetic answer, frankly.


I find it equally as pathetic that someone can look at a still image then claim to know everything that happened in the lead-up and aftermath of what occurred in the split second the photo was taken.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

If you didn't take the time to seek out both sides of the story, why should I spoon feed it to you? There are a few threads about it here on ATS--seriously, if you are truly interested in seeing the evidence about which we are talking, you would take five minutes and look it up yourself.

People are getting so lazy lately on ATS--over many topics--that it's becoming nearly unbearable to many of us. People will spend more time demanding links and videos than it would have taken for them to just look it up.

And I agree with Network Dude--if that was your point, communication skills are lacking, because that doesn't reflect anything claimed in the OP.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

They were not fine people if they were there to protest in solidarity with WS's and Neo-Nazis, whether they were part of the violence or not.


Who said it had to be in solidarity.

In a blm riot, are all peoe there in solidarity with the rioters?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

It's disgusting and appalling any American would actually give even the slightest support to White Supremacists and neo-Nazis. If Trump supporters are still blind and ignorant after Trump's appalling statement, there's really no hope to think they have any sense of logic or moral fortitude in them. No other president has caused so much divisiveness in this country.

It's also appalling, that we have republican representatives and his own staff who clearly know his statement was ignorant. Yet they refuse to call him out by name and don't have any sense of moral allegiance to rebuke this president and resign their posts in protests. Even the Vice President, who I feel cares only to use his position to have an easy step into the White House. Doesn't have the moral fortitude to put his ambition to become president aside and call-out the president for something that goes totally against American values and beliefs. We've had many conservatives here blasting the democratic party saying their self-destructing their party. Well, from the looks of it, the GOP are certainly doing that for themselves.

There comes a time, when representatives and supporters from either party need to put their party loyalty aside and recognize the dangerous rhetoric, and the lack of credibility their party leader continually espouses. His extreme narcissistic personality aligns itself with the character of many past and current world dictators. These traits completely overshadow any popular issues from which he gains any type of support.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Grambler
So to recap,

We have the chief of police saying both sides were violent.

Not one person has addressed this.

I post a video giving time stamps step by step of violent leftists.

No one responds.

So I have to ask, are some people just refusing to look at any evidence that doesn't fit their narative?


Nobody is claiming the Left weren't violent at all. Just the reasoning and whether they started it or not.

Please stop deflecting by continually trying to claim people are saying the Left weren't violent at all. It detracts from the ACTUAL topic of who started it and whether the Left were also attacking, or merely defending.


Oh, well if both sides were guilty then you have no problem with what trump said.


I said the "Left" were somewhat violent at stages, I never said why. DEFENCE is one valid reason to be acting violent.


Show me in the video I posted, and put time stamps on of leftists attacking, where that was defense.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The "left" attacked no-one at Charlottesville. First hand accounts prove that the Right instigated and continued the violence and that the "Left" merely defended itself.

Did you even read the article before responding?


Do you think we don't have televisions and access to youtube?

How dumb and one sided can you get...

Des




edit on 17-8-2017 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Who said it had to be in solidarity.


I did. I was being very specific, knowing that there could be others there that were protesting that were not connected to WS's and antifa/Black Bloc. As I said, that would be a third "side" to this equation.

As it stands, it does appear that Trump was referring to both sides of the violence. In that case, there were no fine people on the WS side.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

No it did not. The rally was in the morning. It was dispersed. They were leaving. If the antifa and others would have simply let the rednecks go home and drink some PBR that death would have been avoided. The SAME group of KKK Neo-Nazis was in the same park a month ago and this did not happen so what changed? The people who were there to provoke and start the march that occurred.

A state of Emergency was declared at the park and the National Guard was onsite. Ready. When the AntiFa and BLM and other started marching in the streets it should have also been shutdown. No permits. Why was it allowed.

I know everyone wants this to be a KKK/nazi hate situation but it is not. They are already all despised . They are all deplorable and I would never back, endorse nor join but if those are their beliefs it is their right. I do not like it but it is what it is.


edit on 08pm31pmf0000002017-08-17T13:46:07-05:000107 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone




Ho dumb and one sided can you get...


Pretty one sided.

The end goal here is one party rule were any dissent gets labeled as 'nazi'.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And that's where my logic took over because who in his position would every say something positive about kkk, neo Nazi, antifa or any of the violent disgusting hateful groups. Well to be blunt they wouldn't...but the media played word games as usual to frame what he said in a way that would reflect negatively on him. This is not something that takes a genious to figure out, but you do have to stop and think before you react or you fall right into it.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Hey people ?

Did the good guys in world war 2 run around in black hoodies, and cover their face with maskin fightin them evil 'nazis' ?

Nope.

There there are fascists over in the middle east that run around dressed like that.



Sure about that?






posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

See my post on this page and page 17 to correct yourself on trumps statement...unless you're purposely trying to misrepresent what he said. I don't think it takes a genius to sort out what he meant just a few seconds of logical thought.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Kryties

If you didn't take the time to seek out both sides of the story, why should I spoon feed it to you?



It's really simple: Don't claim to have first-hand video evidence then not post it, even after being asked multiple times.

It's got nothing to do with being "spoon-fed" it's simply wanting the person claiming to have evidence to actually post it. If they can't post it, then don't claim to have it. Simple.

Why is this such a difficult thing to understand?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I just asked a similar point on Facebook in response to a Southern Poverty Law Center article written in 2016, where the president is defending their decision not to include BLM as a hate group, citing it was because their leaders don't make hateful statements, they denounce violence, and not everyone who chants racist things on behalf of BLM speaks for the group.

My point was then that if this logic is used, then the same logic should be applied to Trump's claims that there were decent people on both sides of this violence If they don't apply the same logic across the board, then they are advocating tossing out the baby with the bathwater in one instance (with Trump) and not with the other (BLM). And to make it even worse, Trump wasn't even a part of the rioting, hateful, violent group on either side, so he's even further removed from culpability.

The double standard is utterly asinine--either someone is guilty by association, or they're not. It can't be just one or the other on whimsical, ideologically driven choices.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Who said it had to be in solidarity.


I did. I was being very specific, knowing that there could be others there that were protesting that were not connected to WS's and antifa/Black Bloc. As I said, that would be a third "side" to this equation.

As it stands, it does appear that Trump was referring to both sides of the violence. In that case, there were no fine people on the WS side.
yes there were no fine WS.

I didn't see trump say that though.

He said there were fine people there protesting the removal of the statue. I believe that.

Just like at a blm riot I believe there are good people not in solidarity with the rioters.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The "left" attacked no-one at Charlottesville. First hand accounts prove that the Right instigated and continued the violence and that the "Left" merely defended itself.

Did you even read the article before responding?


Do you think we don't have televisions and access to youtube?

How dumb and one sided can you get...


OK, so then please post it.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I am sure there were fine people that left or were in a different area of that group.


Wow. Where? Where were these people? Find any evidence of these people existing.


But trump couldn't have been talking about yhem, he had to be praising Nazis.


Yeah, he couldn't have been talking about people who didn't exist.


Funny, every time blm riots, and beats people, and screams vile things, I am told they don't represent all of the protesters.


The false equivalence is reaching levels of mass hysteria on the Right. What percentage of the protesters on the Right were not neo-Nazis/KKK/etc? Where are the regular folks in that group? I'm looking through video form Saturday now and it's an ocean of geared up white nationalists along with about 30 heavily armed III%ers.

Could you find me one image. Just one. From either day. That shows all these regular folk? What do you estimate this group to be composed of? I mean, just give me a rough idea what percentage of the Unite the Right rally-goers were not white nationalists/neo-Nazis/KKK/etc? Because, I'm going to say that just about 100% of those attendees fit that bill.

This wasn't a big event to protest the removal of a statue. This was a rally for white nationalists and white supremacists. Your premise is completely off base from the jump. Look at these flyers for the rally:





Do you honestly believe that this was anything that normal people who were simply concerned about the removal of a statue would ever be caught dead at? It's absurd.

Let's flip this. If several hundred torch wielding Antifa descended on a small Mid-West town and beat up a couple dozen, non-violent, unarmed locals. What would your reaction be?

You want to compare this to a protest attended by activists affiliating themselves with BLM, where 95% percent of the people are just average people.

I'm going to post several images from BLM protests. You take a look and you tell me if you can't tell the difference between that and those at the Unite the Right rally.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Everyone has pictures.








posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Kryties


I am having trouble understanding how these two comments do not contradict each other.


If the antifa and others would have simply let the rednecks go home and drink some PBR that death would have been avoided.




I know everyone wants this to be a KKK/nazi hate situation but it is not. They are already all despised . They are all deplorable and I would never back, endorse nor join but if those are their beliefs it is their right. I do not like it but it is what it is.


In the first you're clearly blaming the "left" for what that murderous Nazi did when he rammed his car into them, then you claim that you despise those same people you just defended.


edit on 17/8/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join