To those calling the president a Nazi Sympathizer, I want you to take a step back and really think about what you are saying. This is a man who proudly embraces his son in law and by extension his daughter and grand Children who are Jewish. The NAZI groups that we all decry are violently anti sematic. What company would a man keep with people who would gladly rape and kill his own daughter because of who he married or see his grand children burned on a cross or worse? That's a false narrative.

As the commander and chief of this nation he is charged with defending the constitution of the United States, part of that constitution includes the first amendment and the basic right of people to peacefully assemble and express ideas no matter how backward or indefensible. Pointing out that ALT LEFT groups were directly involved in precipitating the violence doesn't denote a moral equivalence between the counter protestors and the whole of white supremacy, it simply points out the facts on the ground for this particular conflict/riot.

There were definitely outside far left groups on the ground. ANTIFA, BLM, IWW etc. This wasn't just a case of local minorities offended that decided to counter protest. All of these groups also have a history of both inciting violence and seeking to SHUT DOWN or SILENCE their opposition. For a long time now on college campuses the safe space movement has been cultivating that idea that in some instances free speech in and of itself is hate speech and experimenting with the idea of repealing parts of the first amendment. That's not compatible with a free society.

As a person of color I could give two witts about the KKK Duke Neo Nazis and the like. I have no respect for their ideology or their desire to resurrect failed movements from the ash heap of history. At the same time, that doesn't mean that they themselves become less than deserving of their basic constitutional rights.


Determining whether or not a demonstration event or protest will be peaceful is the duty of the local jurisdiction. The question has to be asked why the local officials would grant a permit to a group to demonstrate and assemble on this scale, given this subject matter when the backlash and counter protest would be expectedly violent. Ann Coulter can't give a speech about immigration on a college campus but the KKK can demonstrate in open daylight on behalf of a confederate general? Moreover, the security for protest (and predictable counter protest) should have been much more adequate. The idea that you have police shoving people going to war with each other into confined spaces to keep having at each other is insane. You had tear gas being thrown at cops. I've seen still shots of a counter protestor using an improvised flame thrower to try and incinerate a White demonstrator. In reality its a sad miracle that we are only dealing with three deaths in this whole sad affair.

As for the confederate Flag/symbols lets think about this for a moment. What wonderful things will this accomplish? I am not talking about an onerous standard of panacea (BULLSEYE) I am talking about net balance cause and affect. Will the benefit to the people offended by the statues that they read about online outweigh the injury to those who view it as a part of their heritage? If all were going to do is piss on a bees nest and have these violent scrums every 6 months is it really worth the symbolism?

---

(08-15-2017, 11:40 PM)FBT Wrote:

(08-15-2017, 07:05 PM)TJBender Wrote: It's not Clinton or Sanders standing behind a podium loudly defending skinheads, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

I mean, all he was missing today was a sharp rebuke to those uppity negroes to know their place in society.

The sooner Trump goes and Pence takes over, the faster these white supremacist groups shrivel back into their dusty little trailers.

Odd. I watched the presser and don't recall him defending any of the groups you mentioned.  I mustn't have had my mainstream media spoon feeding filter on.

This is the tragedy of our current dialogue.  I heard his presser live.  I knew exactly what he was saying, I agree 100%.  As president, he can't just give a blanket of nobility to anti-American communist sympathizers (some of which are actively cultivating positive PR for North Korea believe it or not IWW).  He can't abandon the constitutional rights of certain Americans just because they are white or even because they are racist. 


But at the same time I knew exactly how the Left and the media were going to spin it. 

FL pointed it out perfectly, there is a difference between supporting someone's view point and supporting their right to make a fool of themselves.  But that's not what is going to be reported and that's not going to be the narrative from his press conference. 

"Blame on both sides" directly refers to the fact that, on that particular day, in that particular park that both sets of protesters acted violently.  That's not a global historical moral equivellance between White supremacy and counter protest.  But that's going to get lost in the MSM filter machine and it won't get flushed out until 2060 if we're lucky.

---