The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

After Trump attacked the Mayor of London in the wake of the terrorist attacks I asked is there anyone the President won't attack or insult? Does the man have any limits?  He had already attacked a POW for getting captured and the parents of a dead soldier.  Along with political opponents and even supporters.  Long standing allies are not safe from his twitter storms.

Well I now have my answer, there is one group Trump will refrain from insulting and condemning.... white supremacist, Neonazis and the KKK.

I have been silent on it for a while.  So much of his behavior is completely indefensible that I don't even want to anger myself by getting in the weeds.  I'm just letting it happen and for his previous supporters to slowly fall off.

I saw someone on my facebook feed yesterday post an "obama didn't call out the militant black groups for the cop killings in dallas" as a false equivalency to trump and this nazi stuff.

It got me so riled up I spent 10 minutes writing a response, and then I just had to take a deep breath and let it go .. cause arguing with this level of purposeful ignorance is just bound to go nowhere. These people know what they're putting out is a bunch of horse shit and they don't care.  If i were to argue or write about every instance that grinds my gears, i would get nothing else done in life.

Demographics are going to have to win this one out. Old people will die and with them the republicans that subjected our country to this national tragedy in the white house. I'd take 10 Machiavellian manipulative hillary's over this one ignorant asshole lowest common denominator of a human being we have now.

I have a related topic I wanted to discuss, but I think it should go in a different thread.

I have a theory on why Trump won the election, but I don't think I can post it here.

Looks like someone finally wrote something for Trump to say.

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” Trump said.

The white supremacists are already on to Trump's game.  Just like every other time, Trump refuses to distance himself, then later he Loudly Condemns the groups he was previously unwilling to repudiate.

It's the same exact thing he did with David Duke: "I don't know who that is, I'll have to look into it" followed by "Oh yeah, I totally denounce that guy."  The deplorables see this as a secret wink and a nod; he's really in their corner, but he has to maintain appearances, so after he lets them know how he really feels, he then offers up a smokescreen.  They are encouraged by it.

I swear to the Lord above I really do not understand how you people are so blinded by hatred that you see everything as evil.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides."

How anyone can take that as a wink,wink is beyond me.  It was very obvious that "hatred and violence" came from more than just the White Supremacists. Ignoring that is outright admission that you are a bigot.  It really sucks that an innocent girl died that day but 30 people were shot in Chicago over the weekend and no one cares because it doesn't attack the white guy. I really just don't get it. 

Problem is "many sides" in this context it is the equivalent of saying that the USA has no right to condemn Nazi Germany for Auschwitz, because US treatment of Japanese Americans was less than humane.  "Both sides" committed crimes against civilians.

When literal Nazis are marching and the only way you can describe it is hate "on many sides," you have given up the moral high ground.

It's funny how I've never heard Trump (or any other Republican) talk about ISIS or Al Qaeda in the context of "violence on many sides."  I guess they aren't the preferred kind of terrorists.

I still wonder how you are this blind. I mean, you are so in denial that this president is the most divisive, hate filled, ignorant, idiot that has ever been in office. He can't say, when asked to his face, why he won't denounce Nazis and the KKK. That should be the easiest thing he could do in office, other than take his golf trips and turn on Fox and Friends. I just can't see how anyone can defend him.

I'm not blind. He's a freaking idiot with the things he says so you have to actually judge him on what he does. He is liable to say anything in the spur of the moment but yet everyone who does business with him says he is smart. He's done more with China in a few months than 8 years of the other guy so he does get things done.

If you think race relations etc. were better before Trump then you obviously aren't paying attention. Prior to Obama a black man could get elected because it wasn't an issue. Now all of a sudden everything deemed "white" is considered bad and you wonder why white trash comes out? Seriously ... they had pretty much gone by the wayside but started poking their heads out when "confederate" things were deemed offensive after one deranged white trash guy shoots up a church while Muslim terrorists couldn't even be called terrorists.  Prior to that we had one stupid little church (Westboro) out there offending people.

In case you haven't heard Trump was elected because everyone is sick of the pandering to whiny political correctness and it will only get worse. Pointing out how he says dumb things won't help people change that.

This country was built on people standing up for freedoms ... not on what offends them ... least we forget.

I have a question. What is the point of going to a Nazi rally to protest? I mean ... the anti protesters brought weapons too so it's really a rhetorical question.

Everyone knows Nazis are bad and everyone knows they don't care about the statue they were supposed protecting so to even engage them is to give them a forum they really do not deserve. Other than going out to fight them there is no logical reason. 

This is one point CF and I can agree on. We've seen it over and over again, if you don't go to counter protest or don't have the news covering it like it is an actual newsworthy event then usually these things eventually turn up being pathetic showings of five people holding signs with no one to argue against. The most important thing you can do to support their agenda is to show up and counter protest because that creates a news cycle and helps their cause.

Assumes facts not in evidence.  There were hundreds of Nazis (or: people who were happy to march next to Nazis) holding torches the night before, and there are many people who are unwilling to unconditionally denounce them today after they murdered a woman.

We are well past the point of "Just ignore them and they'll go away."  The actions of the President of the United States on this matter should have made that crystal clear.  When a candidate wins a presidential election by openly courting white nationalists, installs them in his circle of advisors, and refuses to clearly denounce them after they murder someone at a protest, treating them like a fringe group you can ignore is not on the table.

They don't have to be completely ignored (and they should not be), but showing up to their marches is only furthering their cause and has been shown time and time again. It is ineffective and the only outcome is violence and in this case death.

They were openly carrying weapons (legal there) and were prepared for a fight. The only thing showing up would do is set the stage for that fight.

It can be and should be handled in a different way. We are just lucky that this is all that happened.

On the first part...I agree. Every time he opens his mouth (or his Twitter account), he shows himself to be an idiot.

As for the second part, here are a few things I am judging him on (in no particular order):

1) Filling his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies, despite criticizing them and the entirety of Wall Street during his campaign
2) Slipping some form of tax cut for the rich into virtually every single piece of legislation he pushes
3) Going to the National Prayer Breakfast and asking the country's religious leaders to pray for the ratings of his reality TV show.
4) Assigning a person who hates public schools to be Secretary of Education
5) His first experience in foreign affairs after being elected...trying to coerce a Scottish official to stop the building of a wind farm off the coast from one of his golf courses
6) Insulting our military at every turn (from the Gold Star parents to John McCain), and still calling himself a patriot
7) Being a general idiot when it comes to insurance (Wah, it's too hard!)
8) Not filling out the diplomatic staff for Asia, as we dive into a conflict in Asia
9) Being far more concerned about SNL than the USA
10) Lashing out at the media (or anyone else) that says anything bad about him, or simply doesn't do what he wants

That was a three minute burst...I could probably increase list to a couple hundred or more with a little time and effort.

Trump is the worst thing that Americans have ever done to America. He's the most unpresidential President in our nation's history, and the only thing he cares at all about is increasing his own wealth and influence.

So, to everyone who voted for Trump...thanks a heap for hating people who are different than you so much that you'll ass-rape the country with the most hideous orange dildo that money can buy.


(edited for a typo)

Just for some perspective, the viewpoint (http://reformjudaism.org/blog/2017/08/14/charlottesville-local-jewish-community-presses) from Congregation Beth Israel in Charlottesville this weekend:

On Saturday morning, I stood outside our synagogue with the armed security guard we hired after the police department refused to provide us with an officer during morning services. (Even the police department’s limited promise of an observer near our building was not kept — and note, we did not ask for protection of our property, only our people as they worshipped).

Forty congregants were inside. Here’s what I witnessed during that time.

For half an hour, three men dressed in fatigues and armed with semi-automatic rifles stood across the street from the temple. Had they tried to enter, I don’t know what I could have done to stop them, but I couldn’t take my eyes off them, either. Perhaps the presence of our armed guard deterred them. Perhaps their presence was just a coincidence, and I’m paranoid. I don’t know.

Several times, parades of Nazis passed our building, shouting, “There's the synagogue!” followed by chants of “Seig Heil” and other anti-Semitic language. Some carried flags with swastikas and other Nazi symbols.

A guy in a white polo shirt walked by the synagogue a few times, arousing suspicion. Was he casing the building, or trying to build up courage to commit a crime? We didn’t know. Later, I noticed that the man accused in the automobile terror attack wore the same polo shirt as the man who kept walking by our synagogue; apparently it’s the uniform of a white supremacist group. Even now, that gives me a chill.

When services ended, my heart broke as I advised congregants that it would be safer to leave the temple through the back entrance rather than through the front, and to please go in groups.

This is 2017 in the United States of America.

Later that day, I arrived on the scene shortly after the car plowed into peaceful protesters. It was a horrific and bloody scene.

Soon, we learned that Nazi websites had posted a call to burn our synagogue. I sat with one of our rabbis and wondered whether we should go back to the temple to protect the building. What could I do if I were there? Fortunately, it was just talk – but we had already deemed such an attack within the realm of possibilities, taking the precautionary step of removing our Torahs, including a Holocaust scroll, from the premises.

Again: This is in America in 2017.

---

The proper response to a Nazi rally comprised of hundreds of people is not to huddle under your table and hope they go away.  It is to publicly denounce them, as loudly as possible, as often as possible, wherever they may seek to spread their message.  Right-wingers in this country conspicuously arm themselves for nearly every political rally they attend, yet when leftists also arm themselves, it can only mean they are looking to start a fight?  Talk about a double standard.

If you think The Real Problem is that armed protesters are out in the streets opposing armed Nazis, you are part of the problem.

Not even close to what I have said Spider. Your stance has been to support meeting them in the street. That is what I have said should not be done. If there is so much concern about their building and their congregation why wasn't the call to simply have a "sleep in" (please don't over analyze this term and let's stay on topic) and stay on site to protect themselves and property. You do not meet legally armed people head on (especially under-armed) without the expectation of violence expediting. Just so you know, I'm glad their property and congregation appear to be safe from this last weekend's event and hope for their best in the future.

Believe me Spider, I am not a back down and cower guy. I'm one of the few liberal leaning posters on this forum who admit to sleeping with a gun inches from reach. I do understand though that if violence is perceived, standing up and confronting at that very moment is only for one reason and that is to encourage violence. A person does not have to strike a first blow in order to create a situation that can violently explode.

I am all for meeting force with force but until someone exerts that force upon me, marching in the streets and saying obnoxious things does not count, I am going to pick my time for retort.

I'm curious Spider, as this seems to be an particular area where you have very extremist views (Hoodie has even been on board with their freedom of speech), at what point do you say a demonstration from the left is too far? I'm a leftist gun owner. Should people similar to me have brought our legally obtained and free to carry guns to stand down against them? Are we OK to strike a first blow because of their speech? Can we use non-harmful antagonizing items, such as feathers to tickle their nose, and provoke them into a first blow?

You seem to want to fight them in the street but in many other conversations you have been against unprovoked violence so I really want to understand where you draw the line.

Taking this group on head on is not the way to handle the situation. You have already said they don't need to be at the table for discussion so I think I understand where you are but I really want you to go ahead and state the alternatives. I you don't want a debate, what do you want from meeting them face to face?

I have said it multiple times: I am in favor of armed resistance in the explicit case of Nazis.  Prior to the 45th president, everyone seemed to be in agreement that Nazis are a thing that is bad, to the point where if your opponent in a discussion brings up the Nazis, they aren't playing fair.  That line in the sand has been comically obliterated.

The kind of "free America" you describe is one where armed Nazis are marching in the street shouting "Sieg Heil" and "Blood and soil," and the proper course of action is... for us to silently stay indoors lest we provoke a confrontation.  Hell no.  I have no desire to relearn the lessons of 1930s Germany under the cover of protecting vigorous political debate.  The very fact that armed Nazis are comfortable marching in American streets (and that the people who opposed them are being attacked politically!) shows that the system has failed, and needs drastic action to fix it.

Armed Nazis merit an armed (not necessarily violent, but definitely armed) response.  The right has been insisting for years that arming themselves for political rallies isn't dangerous, right?  The participation of armed Nazis in this philosophy means the time has come to put theory into practice.

As for what I expect from these confrontations: I expect that the ultimate outcome of all Nazi uprisings will be violence.  They are Nazis, after all.  The question is whether that violence will consolidate their power or disperse it.  In any sane version of America, observers would see a violent conflict between Nazis and [almost literally anyone else] and determine that the problem is the Nazis.  If we devolve to the point where a majority of people can't figure out which side is in the wrong, and one of the sides is the Nazis, USA has outlived its usefulness as a world leader and WW3 is just a matter of time.

I'll start this by saying that I hope I am not being misunderstood in any way. I abhor what their demonstration stands for. The one issue I have with your response is this, being armed for a rally is not dangerous (and is limited where it can happen). The arming of a group for a face to face counter-rally is absolutely dangerous. I'd love to hear about how much violence started without that face to face. You posted an article about a synagogue that clearly showed fear. What it failed to mention was any actionable demonstration of violence against them.

Here is a parable (sorry the after work drinks got to me with that one) from when I was in West Virginia. I was working at a ski resort and we had just gotten fresh snow one evening. I worked the closing shift and came home between 11:30 and midnight. The first thing I noticed as I pulled up to the house was fresh tracks that went up to every window and door of my place. I gave the outside a look and everything was still locked and nothing broken. I was scared to death and was on point. What I didn't do was follow the tracks away from my house and confront whoever left them. I immediately went inside and locked up behind me (not something always done in WV, even when not home) and heard a knock within 20 seconds. At that point I went to the door (without opening) to see who it was with my gun in hand. The situation turned out to be nothing and was a just drunk freshman trying to find someone but I hope we can both let our imagination wonder to a point where I had taken the gun and followed the tracks looking for whoever "scared" me.

I understand your point about armed misunderstandings, and as you well know I am in favor of gun control.  But in a society where the following three things are true:

1) every non-criminal has a right to have as many guns as they want
2) political activists have the right to arm themselves
3) even the most heinous political ideologies are protected speech

... political violence is the expected result.  I don't really see how one could conclude otherwise.

So up until now, I would encourage disarmament and de-escalation.  But with actual armed Nazis in play, all bets are off.  I'm not going to buy a gun and start going to rallies, but I'm also not going to tell Anti-fa they should stay home.  If the choice is between:

a) armed Nazis attacking unarmed protesters (while the police may or may not intervene), or
b) armed Nazis violently clashing with armed protesters, forcing the police to violently crack down on both sides

I choose the latter, and it's an easy decision.

P.S. One more thing.  You mentioned that the synagogue story did not show any instance of actual violence, and that's true.  It showed something that I believe is worse: terrorizing the vulnerable with an implicit threat of violence.  It's opening your front door to find a noose on your porch or "GO HOME N------" spraypainted on your car.  This cannot be permitted to continue.

Actually, this country was built by wealthy, white, land-holding, slave-owning men, who proclaimed, "All men are created equal... unless you're illiterate, poor, female, or of any race other than white."

200+ years and not much seems to have changed for some folks.

But the rich white men gave up everything they had to liberate not only themselves but all the poor people from England. When they put their name on the Declaration of Independence they were giving up everything in the name of freedom.

Back for good?  This site needs a good troll.

What, exactly, were they giving up by doing that? The tyranny of the King? Taxation without representation?

Giving up everything? I believe there are a few native Americans who missed that memo as they were being killed and having their land taken. Let's not pretend for even a moment that our glorious founding fathers were not trading in one form of oppression for another; the only difference lies in who was being oppressed.

I can think of at least 3/5ths of a group of Americans that was not liberated.  That's not to say that the founding fathers should have been perfect, or to downplay their accomplishments (especially Washington, who set an extremely meaningful precedent with his transition out of power).  But we don't have to whitewash history.

--

And speaking of whitewashing history, turns out that the Confederates were actually not so bad after all!  Robert E. Lee, who took up arms against the government to overthrow the U.S. Constitution in the South all in the name of protecting slavery, was actually exactly the same as George Washington, who took up arms against a king in the name of representative democracy, and peacefully gave up power when he had no need to do so.  There literally is no difference between the two men. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/trump-lawyer-email-race-charlottesville.html)

I'd say, "In for a penny, in for a pound," but when your opening salvo is whitewashing Nazis, softselling the Confederacy is like a light, no-calorie dessert.  That's more like, "In for a thousand dollars, in for a sawbuck."

On Monday, Trump gave a presidential speech.  I didn't agree with everything he said, but that is not the point.  It was coherent, it was rational it was based on serious discussion with experts in the relevant discipline. 

Then on Tuesday he went back to being the narcissistic dillusional lying blow hard he always has been.