Trump

[Tolvo]

There are also transcripts of the event. So you can read him explicitly say what I pointed out he said.

"Q: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

Trump: I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame object both on both sides. I have no doubt about it. You don't have doubt about it either. If you reported it accurately, you would say that the neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville. Excuse me. They didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis. You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group -- excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me. Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him. Good. Are we going to take down his statue. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? It is fine. You are changing history and culture.

You had people and i'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. They should be condemned totally. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. The press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

Q: You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?

Trump: No, no. There were people in that rally. I looked the night before. If you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I am sure there were some bad ones.

The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. You had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest. I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit.

So I only tell you this. There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

Does anybody have a final question? Do you have an infrastructure question?"

Trump explicitly said he was talking about there being a lot of very fine people at the tiki torch rally. Which was full of explicit White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, Klan members.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/10/when-white-nationalists-chant-their-weird-slogans-what-do-they-mean

These people. Chntarelle said she went to bed but I figured i should clear up that misinformation a bit and make it very clear, Trump did indeed say there were very fine people on both sides in regards to Leftists vs Neo Nazis, condemned white supremacy, condemned antifascism, then went on to mention how many of the open white supremacists were good people at the tiki torch rally.

[TheGlyphstone]

Trump didn't actually say anything in that transcript. That's an 'alternative fact'.

[CrownedSun]

I'm mostly just of the opinion of, you know, if Trump DOESN'T count as a Racist then what exactly is racism? Guy spouts off something racist what feels like every other day.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm mostly just of the opinion of, you know, if Trump DOESN'T count as a Racist then what exactly is racism? Guy spouts off something racist what feels like every other day.

If I understand the counterclaim (I might not), it's believed Trump isn't actually saying these things, or is saying them in different context or different meaning, and hostile media is either quoting him out of context, selectively portraying his statements, or just flat-out making them up to make him look bad.

[CrownedSun]

I'm sure there are people who believe that, I know that my Mom liked to believe that the most every story about Trump was out-and-out a lie. Like, "I don't believe you!" level denial of every little thing. That said, I don't think that really applies to the Racism thing, in most of those cases they've heard the same things that we have.

I mean, seriously, the guy tweets horrible shit on an almost daily basis.

Lots of trump supporters will out and out admit that they LIKE the way that he talks, "just like folk," as one of the reasons they like him.

Even from the transcript above,-- and please understand that I'm not making this argument myself,- I can see the argument for him not being racist. (Instead, just a complete fucking moron.) The idea being that he's saying that there were people there, who weren't nazi's, and who were just there to protest the statues being taken down. Even if you ignore the obvious context that explains how silly that idea is, just the context behind the events in questions makes it clear what's going on though, the guy absolutely refused to condemn what had happened for days. He eventually says something, then, immediately starts walking it back and adding in things.

The guy's mental problems are not exactly hidden.

Nor is his racism.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that large portions of the population just don't think, "There are [good decent] Nazi's who were just [at the Klan Rally] to protest taking down the statue," "Send Them Home! They should go back to their [Shithole] Countries!" "I want to shoot immigrants at the border. It'd be so much easier." and so on, as just... things that aren't racist.. That, or they know that he's racist, but just don't care and refuse to admit it. (Which, in some ways,-- I mean, Trump is not the first openly racist president we've had.) But, honestly, I kind of suspect that it's the first more often.

It's one of those, "Our society has gotten too PC, people can't just TALK anymore," type of arguments.

Which I find very disturbing and which very much distresses me.



...but anyway, that's my view on the outside looking in, and from having regular contact with a few Trump supporters.. Hell, I have a number of racist relatives who I've seen exhibit this kind of attitude. I mean, my grandmother basically is racist and believes a lot of racist things, all the while having actively supported civil rights back in the day. I get that things aren't 100% black and white. But, denying that Trump isn't racist just seems so transparently silly to me.

[Iniquitous]

Heard a funny joke though thought I’d share...why aren’t cats allowed in the White House?

triggering punchline

Trump would just grab them.

Lol.

This is disgusting, not funny.  As a victim of sexual assault, I find this in poor taste and am amazed you think this is appropriate to post on a site like this.   The fact that you even put it in spoiler tells me you KNEW it was inappropriate and yet you still posted it.

I find you and your lack of empathy & taste off-putting.

Now for further news on how Dump is trying to eff things up even further (also known as another day in the US)

https://washingtonpress.com/2019/08/11/alarmed-white-house-officials-just-leaked-a-disturbing-trump-executive-order-draft/

I was waiting for something like this.  Dump wants the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms with an aim of addressing Dump’s demonstrably false claims that conservative viewpoints are being suppressed online.

So, yay censorship and the loss of free speech?

Next up!

https://www.newsweek.com/labor-department-proposes-religious-bias-exemption-hiring-practices-federal-contracts-1454412

Let's break this down.  Gay? Can be fired. Pregnant and not married? Can be fired. Poly? Can be fired. Divorced? Can be fired. Transgendered? Can be fired. In short?  If the employer has "sincere religious beliefs" against any of the above, they can fire you.

So, yay revoking protections against religious bias?

And last on the list (so far!)

https://time.com/5651168/trump-endangered-species-act/

"the government will now consider economic factors before categorizing a species as endangered or threatened."

'Cause, you know, money before everything else!

[Phelan8801]

This is disgusting, not funny.  As a victim of sexual assault, I find this in poor taste and am amazed you think this is appropriate to post on a site like this.   The fact that you even put it in spoiler tells me you KNEW it was inappropriate and yet you still posted it.

As a survivor of sexual assault myself I actually found it funny... So, let's not start lynching folks just yet.

https://washingtonpress.com/2019/08/11/alarmed-white-house-officials-just-leaked-a-disturbing-trump-executive-order-draft/

I was waiting for something like this.  Dump wants the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms with an aim of addressing Dump’s demonstrably false claims that conservative viewpoints are being suppressed online.

So, yay censorship and the loss of free speech?

Next up!

The order essentially violates constitutional first amendment rights. From what little I know of American law, it would never be held up in court. But it is a disturbing example of how far he's willing to go.

https://www.newsweek.com/labor-department-proposes-religious-bias-exemption-hiring-practices-federal-contracts-1454412

Let's break this down.  Gay? Can be fired. Pregnant and not married? Can be fired. Poly? Can be fired. Divorced? Can be fired. Transgendered? Can be fired. In short?  If the employer has "sincere religious beliefs" against any of the above, they can fire you.

So, yay revoking protections against religious bias?

And last on the list (so far!)

https://time.com/5651168/trump-endangered-species-act/

"the government will now consider economic factors before categorizing a species as endangered or threatened."

'Cause, you know, money before everything else!

Again, unconstitutional, unlikely to be held up even by a far right supreme court. But still disturbing. Gotta say, the man's starting to go off the deep end into full blown strongman authoritarianism.

[Deamonbane]

Funny or not, it was clearly intended to be 'triggering' for the people that she was debating. Poor taste and intended as such.

So, maybe not lynching, not that that was ever on the table anyways, but I feel like she should definitely apologize for it.

[Phelan8801]

Funny or not, it was clearly intended to be 'triggering' for the people that she was debating. Poor taste and intended as such.

So, maybe not lynching, not that that was ever on the table anyways, but I feel like she should definitely apologize for it.

Regardless of intent, I believe that A) We spend far too much of our time being offended on internet these days. Time that we could instead spend engaging and debating actual toxic ideas and policies like those discussed in the above posts. Instead of jokes.

and

B) The structure of the  joke makes it clear it's intended to make fun of Trump, it makes it clear he has no self control, it is not making fun of sexual assault victims. That she decided to drop it there is probably a clear sign that she was trying to trigger someone, yes. But do we have to jump up and take the bait each time?

In my mind, it actually just made her look inarticulate, because she was defending Trump and then dropped a joke that was clearly dunking on him, whether she did it because she thought it was funny or because she was 'owning the libs' it still undermined her own points. Also, lastly, that joke is funny.

[Oniya]

So, this just happened:  House Judiciary Committee subpoenas Lewandowski and Dearborn.

Both of these men were mentioned frequently in the Mueller Report, in connection with Section 2 - Obstruction of Justice by President Donald Trump.

[TheGlyphstone]

Trump's tendency to declare blatantly unconstitutional things as planned orders has been going on for a long time. He doesn't need them to happen to win, it's either he gets what he wants to he gets to flash his credentials to the base and reinforce the belief that he's being unfairly limited. It's a win-win pattern.

[Oniya]

The number of times that he uses 'unfair' or 'not fair' puts me in mind of Sarah from Labyrinth - and David Bowie's epic comeback.

[Deamonbane]

Regardless of intent, I believe that A) We spend far too much of our time being offended on internet these days. Time that we could instead spend engaging and debating actual toxic ideas and policies like those discussed in the above posts. Instead of jokes.

and

B) The structure of the  joke makes it clear it's intended to make fun of Trump, it makes it clear he has no self control, it is not making fun of sexual assault victims. That she decided to drop it there is probably a clear sign that she was trying to trigger someone, yes. But do we have to jump up and take the bait each time?

In my mind, it actually just made her look inarticulate, because she was defending Trump and then dropped a joke that was clearly dunking on him, whether she did it because she thought it was funny or because she was 'owning the libs' it still undermined her own points. Also, lastly, that joke is funny.

I don't think that calling someone out on a joke that was extended in poor constitutes being offended. It's more holding that person accountable for their words. If you think that's too much time to be offended by the trivialization of sexual assault, that's your opinion. Addressing jokes as a symptom of underlying toxic ideas and policies does count as engaging and debate actual toxic ideas and policies. In my opinion.

That said, I don't want to derail from the topic of the thread. If you'd like to discuss it further, my PM inbox is open, or we can open up another thread for the topic.

[Oniya]

Also - wat?  https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-eyes-a-new-real-estate-purchase-greenland-11565904223

Yes, you read that link right.  Trump - with varying degrees of seriousness - is floating the idea of buying Greenland. 

People outside the White House have described purchasing Greenland as an Alaska-type acquisition for Mr. Trump’s legacy, advisers said. The few current and former White House officials who had even heard of the notion described it with a mix of anticipation and apprehension, since it remains unclear how far the president will push the idea.

[Skynet]

Regardless of intent, I believe that A) We spend far too much of our time being offended on internet these days. Time that we could instead spend engaging and debating actual toxic ideas and policies like those discussed in the above posts. Instead of jokes.

and

B) The structure of the  joke makes it clear it's intended to make fun of Trump, it makes it clear he has no self control, it is not making fun of sexual assault victims. That she decided to drop it there is probably a clear sign that she was trying to trigger someone, yes. But do we have to jump up and take the bait each time?

In my mind, it actually just made her look inarticulate, because she was defending Trump and then dropped a joke that was clearly dunking on him, whether she did it because she thought it was funny or because she was 'owning the libs' it still undermined her own points. Also, lastly, that joke is funny.

Considering that said poster has expressed support of Trump and various right-wing policies in the past, you're giving her too much credit.

[Sara Nilsson]

Also - wat?  https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-eyes-a-new-real-estate-purchase-greenland-11565904223

Yes, you read that link right.  Trump - with varying degrees of seriousness - is floating the idea of buying Greenland.

hey it is a good distraction. At this point I am sure he knows it isn't viable, but he knows it is so absurd people will talk about it and forget to talk about what is important.

Or am I giving him too much credit again?

[Oniya]

hey it is a good distraction. At this point I am sure he knows it isn't viable, but he knows it is so absurd people will talk about it and forget to talk about what is important.

Or am I giving him too much credit again?

I doubt he'll be able to stay focused on the Greenland thing for very long once Lewandowski starts chatting with the Judiciary Committee.

[Tolvo]

Wait till he finds out which one is the green one and which one is being hit hard by wildfires due to climate change.

[Oniya]

Wait until he finds out it isn't as big as it looks on a Mercator projection.

[Sara Nilsson]

Wait until he finds out it isn't as big as it looks on a Mercator projection.

Oh to be a fly on the wall when they try to explain THAT to him!

[Tolvo]

Come on, based on Trump's politics he must only use the Azimuthal equidistant projection. Though it might be tricky since it may support his anti-science stance but he does hate the UN also.

[Oniya]

I 'unno - that makes South America look a lot bigger than the US.  Of course, that might explain his obsession with the wall. 

[Skynet]

Not to drift the thread, but commenting on an earlier post:

Trying to show what the media doesn’t. The media has cast him as a racist...I don’t see it at all and many people don’t. Sorry. I believe the footage not the WE or vox or TYT or any other liberal based media which has already made up their mind on Trump and is pushing a narrative.

I wrote a well-sourced thread over here showing why many of his actions and statements are considered racist. I hope that people here find it of use.

[Tolvo]

I 'unno - that makes South America look a lot bigger than the US.  Of course, that might explain his obsession with the wall. 

Well he'd want a giant wall just like the giant ice wall keeping in all the water of the oceans on the flat Earth, so that if those ice walls melt due to NOTHING TO SEE HERE all the US water will stay and the USA will have all the water. Clearly his true plan is not a wall, but a big bowl. The USA Super Bowl.

[Kitteredge]

Now that the glaciers are receding, Greenland stands to be a site of a lot of resource extraction. A lot of minerals potentially there, among other things. Same reason the U.S. has likely lasted in Afghanistan. If they can figure out how to strip mine the place, the resources there are utterly untapped.