The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

As you all are likely aware, there was a "Unite The Right" rally this weekend, in part to protest the removal of a statue of a Confederate general.  This rally featured actual Nazis, flying literal swastika flags (https://i.yomyomf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/12112032/DHCruy3UAAE1bei-1024x768.jpg), marching alongside people proudly flying the Confederate flag (among others).

Setting aside the obvious implications on what preserving Southern heritage really means, this was a rally with honest-to-goodness torch-wielding Nazis (and people who are happy to march next to Nazis).  While I am a supporter of free speech and the First Amendment, I think it is fair and reasonable to say that Nazis are an exception.  Much like the proverbial yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, we cannot have a reasoned political contest of ideologies where if you win the political debate, you get to kill me and my family.  That is a bridge too far.

I don't make this exception for the KKK or Westboro Baptist.  (I think an argument could be made to apply it to the Confederates.)  But when you consider that the Nazis were responsible for the deadliest war in the history of human civilization along with a terrible genocide, I am frankly unwilling to extend them the courtesy of joining the debate table.

Disagree.  They have the right to free expression and making an exception for one group is a dangerous prescident.  What is egregious is when the Nazis have that tacit support of the POTUS.  I don't agree with every SC decision but they got Skockie right.

I agree with you.  Free expression for all, even if you are a racist that believes in genocide.  It's a slippery slope if you make exceptions.

Freedom of speech is good...getting outed for your free speech being nazi racist napalm...even better.

I am happy to jump on the slippery slope of every group that was simultaneously responsible for a worldwide war and targeted genocide.

I originally thought of this because of some of the speech limitations Germany has about Nazism, and I can't say those laws are unjust.  Nazis have already done enough damage to the world that I think we can comfortably say, "You don't get another turn to sit at the table."  There is a reasonable case to be made that they are the single worst political faction in the history of humanity.

And again, we don't have any problem with the slippery slope of yelling "Fire!", nor with the slippery slope of people encouraging others to, say, assassinate the President.  We all recognize that free speech has some necessary limits to protect the real, immediate safety of others.  I'd say a political group that advocates for the extermination of other races falls into the same category.

I agree wiht your sentiment but I do not agree they have POTUS support nor have they ever. I put many groups into the hate group category but disagree with violence towards them or censoring their ability to speak.

I am a conservative who does not agree with removing history but I do condemn the KKK, White Supremacists, Communists, the Black Panthers, Black Lives Matters, Nazis (National Socialists), CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and ANTIFA.  While each one may some sort of a legitimate cause they are all separatist organizations who are set up only to destroy people who are not like them.

This is false equivalence, and what the right is so guilty of. 

To include a bunch of hate groups and then BLM.  ...I mean, I get the criticism of BLM, but to include them in the conversation with literal Neo-Nazis is ludicrous.

You can compare Trump to Nazis but not white supremacists to Black Lives Matter? Not sure I get that one. They are clearly both hate groups with separatist ideas. 

When limiting constitutional rights you need brightline non ambiguous rules, not rules that are subjective.  You may not falsely create an alarm.  Is a clear rule that prohibits yelling fire in a theater or making a false 911 call.  Nor may you make a direct an immediate threat. 

No such brightline rule could exist that would ban honoring Hitler that could not also apply banning honoring Robert E. Lee or Andrew Jackson.

An organization that calls for police to stop killing unarmed black people is a "hate group"?

Your false equivalence is amazing.  The Nazis killed millions of Jews in concentration camps and invaded most of Europe.  The KKK lynched thousands and terrorized millions more.  BLM... caused some traffic jams while protesting.  Many sides were in the wrong!

I'm just waiting for people to start "both sides"-ing David Duke and Colin Kaepernick.  Both are avatars of racial hatred!

So when Nazis talk about exterminating Jews, doesn't that count as a direct threat?

The United States didn't go to war against a country Andrew Jackson was leading.  And if you wanted to argue that we should not be honoring traitors that we DID go to war against, I can't really say you're wrong.

Man.... If only we had an actual President. That would be nice. Not someone who tolerates hate as much as this. Of course, anyone who saw the actual evidence (i.e., any of his rallies or speeches), could have seen this coming.

You can't take one small portion of their cause and pretend it's their only goal. That's the problem with every one of these hate groups. The white supremacists say they are only looking out for the white history that is being destroyed. It's a legitimate issue but it isn't their real agenda and everyone knows it.

If your other reasoning is to point fingers and say the other group is worse .... it's still a losing argument. Two different degrees of wrong is still wrong.  Whether I'm 10 miles over the speed limit or 20 .... I'm still speeding.

What, exactly, do you think the goal of BLM is?  To eradicate the white man?  To kill all the police?  Because that's what it would need to be for them to be equivalent to Nazis.

Subjugating and killing "inferior races" is not some sort of hidden subtext of Nazi ideology.  Again, WW2 made their belief system pretty clear.  The fact that you compare a political group who publicly advocates for non-violent civil disobedience to one who invaded most of Europe's countries to enforce racial supremacy while killing millions of Jewish civilians in the process is sad.  When you have to argue that there's no meaningful difference in degrees of wrong in the process of defending literal Nazis... you may want to step back and consider where your political leaders have led you.

In the party of Trump, Republicans can no longer simply say, "Nazis are terrible and we should reject them."  The most aggressive anti-Nazi position that is acceptable to Republicans in 2017 is, "Sure, Nazis are bad, but liberal protesters are also bad, so..."

I never said they were equal. I said

-Two different degrees of wrong is still wrong.

- While each one may some sort of a legitimate cause they are all separatist organizations who are set up only to destroy people who are not like them.

- They are clearly both hate groups with separatist ideas.

If you agree that they are not equal, then why are you representing this position of "We can't criticize Nazis unless we also criticize liberal protesters"?

You can criticize Nazis as a standalone statement, because Nazis are worse than protesters.  If you feel the need to point out the deficiencies in other political groups when comparing them to actual effing Nazis then you should reconsider what you stand for.

The ultimate irony in all this is that conservatives have complained for decades about liberals comparing them to Nazis.  And yet when literal Nazis show up, you guys are trying to minimize their significance and play the what-about game while comparing them to protesters.

Protesters didn't kill millions of Jews.  Nazis did.

I never said that. Also ... no one is out there "fighting" Nazis because they murdered a bunch of Jews. Lastly you might want to look up the word "literal". There is a huge difference between the white trash American movement want to bes and the National Socialists that killed millions of Jews.

Seriously  ... is there really anyone defending them? No there isn't.

Bottom line is that if Trump is to blame for the Nazi's of Charlottesville then Obama is to blame for the BLM rioting and destruction of numerous cities and all of the Muslims terrorist who attack Americans because he reused to call them terrorists or Muslim extremists. Sounds stupid when you take the biasness out of it doesn't it? Each individual is responsible for their own actions.

And there you have it.

"If we attack the Nazis then we are blaming Trump, and we can't blame Trump unless we also blame Obama."  Literally party over country.

Russia or Democrats?  Russia.
Nazis or Democrats?  Nazis.
The important thing is beating the Democrats.

The problem you are running into is that you are unwilling to own your own position.  Let me explain:

You criticized Obama for not denouncing BLM, and for not saying the magic spell "radical Islamic terrorism."  But I agree with his actions in those scenarios, and I am willing to own those positions.  So you and I disagree on whether those actions are bad the first place.

Do we disagree on whether Nazis are bad?  Do we disagree on whether Nazis should be denounced?  If the answer to those questions is no, then why aren't Republicans simply denouncing Nazis, as something all reasonable Americans can agree on?  We can still disagree on BLM, and Obamacare, and tax cuts, and many other things... but we can agree that Nazis should be roundly denounced.

Instead, you are treating the condemnation of Nazis as some sort of partisan event.  You are insisting that liberal groups must ALSO be condemned if we are going to criticize Nazis.  Do you understand the implications of that position?

edit: I reconsidered the first half of my post as not productive to the discussion, but I didn't want to simply delete it.

This just isn't true and I think you know it. Plenty of Republicans have called out Trump and white supremacists. The RNC chairwoman has been very clear about their position, "We don't want your vote, we don't support you, we'll speak out against you,"

We disagree on whether the majority of rank-and-file Republicans consider that an "acceptable" position.  It seems to me that that's an outlier position, and that the "But what about the liberals?" point CF has made here is the one that has broader acceptance within the GOP.

For example, when Trump said that the federal judge from Indiana was unfit to preside over his case because of his Mexican ancestry, and Paul Ryan said that was the textbook definition of a racist statement, the majority of GOP voters either disagreed with Ryan's assessment or didn't care.  So in that case, I would say the "acceptable position" within the GOP was that it wasn't a racist statement.

Seems to me that most republicans actually agreed that Trumps statement was blantently racist.  But they were willing to overlook Trumps racism.

I think this Twitter (https://twitter.com/drvox/status/897560716462497793) thread mostly sums up my feelings about Trump.  I don't think he's actually a white nationalist, because that would involve a stable world view and real belief system.  I think Trump sees everything solely through the spectrum of Winning and Losing.

What going on is, he vaguely understands that His People clashed with Their People and His People are taking all the blame. To accept blame is weakness. So he instinctively avoids it, displacing or spreading blame.

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20800173_10159283719510360_5327604438775501054_n.jpg?oh=b654b9d10f3123efa7c218c9f7b536d1&oe=5A3536EB)

Can't the opposite be said as well? The same people supporting Kaep for protesting disagree with protesters that have a view different from theirs. Neo Nazis are low life as far as I'm concerned but as long a they aren't breaking the law there is not much anyone can do. They had their permits to protest.

Dude...they are NAZIS. They aren't lowlifes...they are no-lifes.

I grant them as much right to assemble as I do for a pedophile organization...none whatsoever. There is no room in this country for that sort of evil.

Yes.  I fall in the camp of people not the least bit offended by someone protesting the fact that when the police murder unarmed citizens there is rarely any punishment for said cops, while simultaneously being outraged by others protesting the end of slavery, the civil rights act, and the final solution not being completed.

There are actually several things people can do.

One is to unequivocally condemn Nazis and everything they stand for.
Another is not to downplay Nazis by likening them to people protesting over (perceived) civil rights violations.

While you may not like them or what they stand for, nor do I. In this country they have the right to live their life as they choose. If they break the law and it can be proven that they are guilty, then throw the book at them. Otherwise, you condemning them isn't going to do anything. Evil people, racists, and Nazis aren't going anywhere, they'll be here long after your children's children are long dead and gone. People are who they are and rarely ever change once they reach a certain point. This whole discussion is silly to the extreme.

I have no intent nor desire to try to change the heart of a Nazi.
What I do intend to do is to loudly oppose them in every way I am legally able.  I didn't call for the Nazis (at least, the ones that didn't drive a car into a crowd of protesters) to be arrested, so platitudes on our sacred freedom of speech are inapplicable.  They should be free to speak, and others should be equally free to shout them down.  And if they want to exercise their freedom to bring weapons to political rallies, their opponents should be able to do the same.

The ACLU has announced that they will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms.

http://news.morningstar.com/all/market-watch/TDJNMW20170817800/aclu-wont-back-hate-groups-marching-with-guns.aspx

(There's a longer article at the Wall Street Journal, but it's behind a paywall.)

Like I said: armed Nazis marching through the streets are the point where we should be less concerned with free speech and more concerned with armed Nazis marching through the streets.

Is it illegal? If not, then there is nothing to do. You're complaining about someone exercising their rights. All you're doing is creating a violent confrontation and giving them the attention they want. But by all means, please proceed. I'll sit back and watch you idiots on TV beating and shooting each other. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Good luck.

Well, outside of outlawing it, you mean.  If we can outlaw guns in courtrooms and at polling places, we can also outlaw them at political rallies.

Of course, there's no way the NRA crowd would just allow politicians to outlaw guns at political rallies.  There will need to be a substantial body count - necessarily including several members of law enforcement - before politicians in this country will gain the courage to pass such a law.  So unfortunately, a lot of people are going to have to die before we can prevent armed Nazis from terrorizing people.

It would be great if we could just skip those unnecessary deaths and just implement a new law preventing them before they happen, but (as I imagine the replies to this post will make clear) there is a certain political contingent that believe arming people at political rallies is central to liberty.  So the only other way to avoid this senseless violence is... for the armed Nazis to be given free rein to terrorize and intimidate everyone else, which is an even worse "solution."

I mean, you guys have been saying for decades that armed people at political rallies is a perfectly safe practice and guns don't cause violence, they prevent it, right?  So as I said before, the time has come to put theory into practice.  If armed protesters can't have a vigorous political disagreement with armed Nazis without a massive bloodbath on both sides, maybe we should re-evaluate the underlying assumption that More Guns is the solution to a violence problem.

i thought the only way to stop bad guys with guns was for there to be good guys with guns around .. guns for everyone !

My problem is that I don't "really" feel secure at a political rally unless I'm carrying a grenade launcher...and maybe a samurai sword.

The real brain teaser is: when the Nazis show up with guns and the leftists show up with guns, who are the good guys?  I mean, on one side you have a hateful band of morally bankrupt traitors who wake up every day thinking of new ways to destroy America and everything it stands for.  And on the other side, you have the Nazis, some of whom are "good people."

It's like an unsolvable riddle.

That was a good one.

As I said, let all the idiots exterminate each other. Maybe it's just me, but the last place I want go is a protest where there are people with guns whom I dislike and disagree with. Unless of course I wanted a violent confrontation. Anyone with any common sense doesn't put themselves into these situations.

Yeah, let's protest people exercising their right to lawfully protest. That sounds like something a child would do. Anyhow, like I said, have fun. I'll watch the show from a very very safe distance ;)

Therein lies the proverbial rub...I don't think Nazis should have the right to exist, much less gather publicly to protest. And, lest the Nazis feel like I am discriminating solely against them, I really do hold the same beliefs for other forms of evil. For example:

If an organization of pedophiles wants to have a rally & preach about how bad-tickling kiddies is their God-given right... No dice.
If a social club of animal abusers wants to march down Main Street with signs that read "Punch a Pooch for Jesus"... Nope!
If a congregation of toxic waste dumpers want to pull up a soapbox on some local college campus and rail about how their right to poison the Earth is protected by the 17th-and-a-half ammendment... Sorry, I'm not having any of it.

Evil is evil and should be stopped. In an exceedingly gray world, this is one of the true black and white anchors.

Unfortunatly for you, all those people have the right to do those things. You may want to consider a career in politics if you want to change those that.

Oh, yes you are. You're having all of it, because there is nothing you can do to stop it. No offense, but you're a nobody. Just like me and everyone else posting on this board. Racists, kkk, toxic waste dumpers, pedophiles, animal abusers, and evil in general will always be here. Those things will be here until humans cease to exist. There is nothing anyone can do about it and it will never stop. You may want to focus on things in your life that you can control. Your other choice is to go load your guns and take them to rallies of the people you think "shouldn't exist". Either way good luck to you fine sir, you'll need it.

I'm joining this guy's group. I Hate Hate Groups.

https://youtu.be/FLfswwNlXGc


https://www.facebook.com/Catfishcooley/videos/1929580870613409/


LOL I'm pretty sure I related to him.

Unfortunately for the country, and the human species, they have the right to do those things...for now.


Until you reverse course and become part of the solution, rather than the problem (or the enabler of the problem), you may want to avoid advising others on what to do...just to limit the negative effect you're having on society.

I would have loved to hear this innovative perspective on how protesting at political rallies is A Useless Waste Of Time sometime around 2009-10.

And will long after your grandchildren's children are dead, so it's a moot point.

So now I'm the problem, because I choose to distance myself from two groups of retards that want to kill each other. That's a pretty unique and laughable perspective you have. I myself feel that people like you, who feel they have to pick a side according to partisan politics are the real problem. But I think we all know that. You just like to feel like you have control of something in life, when in reality you have very little control over anything. Anyhow, go fix the world and let us all know how it turns out for you, LMFAO...

Great, you're back from arguing with your refrigerator? Who won?

Sick burn, dude.  You really put me in my place.

I find it intriguing that you are using such a passive voice when it comes to the issue of weapons at political rallies.  Aren't you, like, wildly in favor of that particular action freedom?  Or just not when leftists are doing it too?

Ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun.

You should let other folks borrow that infallible crystal ball you're caressing...though since there is zero chance of me having great grandchildren, perhaps your view of the future isn't quite as locked in as you think.


You're part of the problem because:

1) You don't recognize that evil is evil
2) You only seem to be distancing yourself from one of the groups

and a bonus one...

3) With your sample size being well over 1,000 posts on this board, I recognized you as part of the problem long-long before this thread ever got started. 

If we posted a poll asking the members of this site "Which TDMMC member is most likely to be a closet white supremacist?" You would be the prohibitive favorite.  If you don't recognize that, then your mirror is nowhere near as clear as that crystal ball you're using.

Honest question here, given your list: how do you view Executive Order 9066? As a hypothetical (and I would argue not particularly far-fetched, given some of Trump's extreme ideas), what if similar legislation was enacted today? Would you be as vocal in denouncing our government?

Sure, I'm in favor of firearms in general. After all, it is our right. Everyone legally eligible at least. What I'm not in favor of is armed people starting violent physical confrontations. Twist that how you will.

Obviously, I don't know if you even have children because I don't know you personally. However, since you're being purposefully obtuse in order to "have a comeback". I'll rephrase my point. You'll never see the day where these groups don't exist.

I've already called all involved idiots and retards. I support neither of them.


See previous answer.

What else would a majority of self identified liberals call me. Like I said earlier. You're nobody. An annonomous internet person spouting your opinions, just like everyone else here. So now tell me, why should I care what you or any other "nobody" thinks of me?

To save everyone else the trouble of googling, Executive Order 9066 was the order given to send Japanese citizens to internment camps in WW2.  And I can't speak for Sunstroke, but there is a world of difference between sanctioning people for their terrible beliefs, and sanctioning them because of their bloodline.  The latter is an example of racism; the former is an example of fighting racism.

So then:

- people have the right to march in protest, no matter how hateful their opinions are
- people have the right to be armed while protesting

So what's the problem?  Although I don't see why you are apparently on board with the concept of a permit to exercise your 1st Amendment rights of assembly and free speech, both sides had permits (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-charlottesville-counter-protest/).  So why you are criticizing many sides and not just the side that drove a car into a crowd of pedestrians?

I don't really understand what your problem with antifa is at all (other than the fact that they are leftists).  As a 2nd Amendment supporter, you should be celebrating their choice to arm themselves at rallies.  So for you to call "all involved idiots and retards" (especially for future rallies)  because one armed side are Nazis and the other armed side... are liberals, that makes it seem like you think Nazis and Democrats are equally worthy of criticism.

I'm not sure what kind of puzzle your trying to weave. However, you seemed to avoid the most important part that said:

Like I predicted, you are trying to twist and deflect like usual.

To revisit your earlier statement:

Why does it matter (to you) if the people there have guns?  Either the presence of guns escalates the likelihood of violence, or it doesn't.

If it does, guns should not be allowed at political rallies.
If it doesn't, how does it mean you "want a violent confrontation" by attending?

The normal pro-gun talking points - i.e. adding more guns to the situation makes everyone safer -  are in direct conflict with what you are describing here as common sense: adding more guns greatly increases the potential for violence.

I personally agree with the latter, but from your perspective as a person who supports exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment at the same time, I don't understand what your problem is.  I believe the logically consistent argument from your position should be that if there weren't as many guns at Charlottesville, everything would have been much worse.

My argument has nothing to do with firearms specifically. It has to do with violence. In normal average everyday life people don't follow other people around confronting them. But that's what Antifa does, they physically confront people. But I guess you know nothing about that, huh?

Are you saying that Antifa is simply roaming around assaulting people out of the blue?  Obviously, that should be denounced, and the perpetrators should be found and prosecuted.

But the entire premise behind legally arming oneself is self-defense, and you've repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of free speech for even the most hateful ideas.  So if Antifa is following white nationalists around and shouting mean things at them, that sounds exactly like they are simply exercising their constitutional right to free speech.  And if they do so while armed, that sounds even more constitutional.

If Antifa ends up needing to defend themselves with arms they are bearing after freely speaking their opinion to political opponents, seems to me that from your perspective, we are Letting Freedom Ring.  This should be your idea of the system working as intended.

P.S. For the record, Boston banned weapons (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/boston-permit-free-speech-rally-sets-restrictions-49276327) when issuing permits for the right-wing rally today.  So I may be wrong: regardless of the objections of the NRA crowd, common sense may prevail.

I'll deal with this part of your post. There are several video examples of Antifa assaulting people. As there are several video examples of the opposite side doing the same. In light of that, members of both sides should be denounced, and the perpetrators should be found and prosecuted. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when these two groups are in close proximity that there will be violence. The members of both groups certainly know this. Therefore, when one group chooses to follow the other group around to the same location knowing that there will be a violent confrontation beforehand. Then yes, they bear a greater extent of the blame. Just because you don't like the KKK, Nazis, or whatever, doesn't give you the right to create violence. And vice versa.


Off topic incoherent rambling attempt to spin, twist, and deflect the thread. Shit man, you started this thread. You of all people should know this thread is about Nazis and the upper limit of free speech. Not, Antifa and the upper limit of arming themselves. If you want to discuss the 2nd amendment instead of the 1st amendment please start a new thread. Those are two entirely different things.

And yet you still argue in favor of them both being armed.

The question of whether or not people may assemble and speak hateful things while being armed is as relevant to the 1st Amendment as it is to the 2nd.  I have no interest in discussing whether Nazis, KKK, Antifa, or any other political groups arm themselves at their homes (and neither do you), which means a strictly-2nd-Amendment discussion of those groups would be pointless as there is nothing to discuss.

Again, you're cherry picking my post to further your agenda. The problem is not people exercising their 2nd amendment right. The problem is that there is one group following another group with the goal of causing a violent conflict. If you cannot see that then you are blind.

pondwater, would you say the Neo-Nazis are evil? Would you say those protesting against Neo-Nazis are evil? Which group would you call idiots/retards (per your earlier posts)?

I don't agree with the KKK, Nazis, or any other racist group. Yes, they are bad. However, they have the right to believe what they choose to believe. If someone is within their legal rights and not breaking any laws, they should be left alone. If they want to be a racist, that's their decision, not mine. Likewise, if they break the law, throw the book at them.

Furthermore, I also don't agree with groups (Antifa, BLM, and the like) purposely creating violent confrontations just because they don't like what someone else is legally doing. They don't have the right to assault people or get physical with another group of people because they have a different belief system, yes that includes racists and Nazis too. That is against the law. And since they know that there will be a violent confrontation, they are also to blame.

And for the people that can't read or refuse to comprehend what I'm saying. They are both idiots and fucktards. I don't endorse any of them. I don't like any of them and it would be better if none of them existed. But unfortunately they do exist and they will all be here for a long long time and that's not going to change anytime soon. So therefore, if they aren't smart enough to steer clear of each other, then fuck them all. Let them bash each other's brains out and make the world a better place. But let's be clear on one thing. You can't go to start a fight and then complain when someone gets hurt. And that's exactly what happened, hypocrisy at its finest.

To be clear, the actions that those groups are undertaking to purposely create violent confrontations are:

1) using their 1st Amendment rights by making adversarial free speech (something that is "within their legal rights and not breaking any laws"), while
2) using their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms in self-defense

So in other words, when armed Nazis march down the street shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "One people, one nation, end immigration," they are not purposely creating violent confrontations (especially not from Jews or immigrants).  But when armed Antifa shouts back at the Nazis, well, Antifa is just looking to start a fight.  So the Nazis are just "exercising their protected right of free speech," while Antifa is "intentionally provoking violence."  OK.

If you want to know why many on the right are being accused of being soft on Nazis, it's this kind of "I don't agree with what they say, but I defend their right to say it... except for what these liberals want to say, whose rights I will NOT defend" rhetoric that is the cause.

Yeah, fighting with police and dragging an old lady with an American flag down the street is a bit more than free speech. Also, I'd like to know what shouting at Nazis and KKK members is supposed to do? Antifa has the right to say what they want, but why do they follow their opponents around saying it? Antifa is not going to change their opponents views. So what else is there?  The real fact is that they are there basically to fight.

So is driving a car into a crowd of pedestrians, but apparently #notallNazis are responsible for that.  It seems that only Antifa is responsible (as a group) for every action of any individual associated with them.

Why do you not apply the same standard to shouts of "Jews will not replace us"?
What is saying that supposed to do?  Whose view is that going to change?

You have plenty of this why do they want to say this in the first place criticism for the leftists, but none for the Nazis.  When it comes to armed Nazis intimidating people at a synagogue, we are just supposed to accept it as Constitutional Free Speech, but when it comes to armed leftists challenging those same Nazis, suddenly your sense of what speech is proper and acceptable is alerted.

When you attack leftists for doing the same thing that you excuse Nazis for, that is indistinguishable from Nazi apologism.

I've already condemned both sides for the actions that have taken place. Your logic is sad and at the same time hilarious. If I condemn the Nazis and also condemn Antifa, that somehow you think that I'm covering for the Nazis. I think we can all agree that Nazis are bad, Communism is bad, and violence against peaceful protesters is bad. We are talking about behavior, not belief systems. The Nazis have a bad belief system, however that is their right. Antifa's behavior of initiating physical violence because they don't agree with that belief system is not their right. Likewise, if the Nazis were to initiate physical violence they would be just as wrong as Antifa. If you can't understand the difference between shouting "I hate you" and someone assaulting other people in retaliation for shouting "I hate you", then this conversation is moot. Agree to disagree. Feel free to go join the social justice group of your choice and I'll sit here and watch all the idiots and retards beat the shit out of each other on TV.

I'm not sure exactly how this works and it is only minimally criminal but the counter-protesters did not have a permit for their organization so they were breaking the law to some extent.

You have presumed that Antifa is initiating violence (and not just defending themselves), and your rationale for this presumption is that Antifa is intentionally antagonizing those they disagree with.  However, not once have you criticized the Nazis for intentionally antagonizing... well, everyone else.  So Nazis can march up to a synagogue chanting "Jews go home!" and that's just constitutional free speech, but Antifa marching up to Nazis chanting "Nazis go home!" is looking for a fight.

This is a double standard that defends the free speech of the Nazis, but not their opponents.


Incorrect.  I already mentioned that both sides had permits (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-charlottesville-counter-protest/).

They both had permits.

My mistake.

Yes, defending themselves from an elderly old lady holding an American flag. You sir are delusional, please stay away from mainstream media and seek counseling. I wish you the best of luck in your recovery...

I just figured out that you are talking about something specific, so I looked it up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1tsbWvqDdE).  Naturally, this incident was from Boston, A WEEK AFTER Charlottesville, so from the start your "both sides" card was referencing events that hadn't even happened yet.  But yeah, a lady was pushing her flag in the face of some Antifa people walking by (which I'm sure would be categorized as "looking for a fight" from anyone that's a leftist) and one of them grabbed it and tried to run off.  She held on to it, ran with him, and eventually fell down (but was not "dragged").

So on the one hand, a Nazi drove a car into a crowd of pedestrians, killing one person and sending several others to the hospital.  And a bunch of other Nazis jumped a guy and beat him with metal poles (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlottesville-deandre-harris-black-protester-white-supremacists-beat-metal-poles-neo-nazis-a7894916.html), giving him a concussion and a fractured forearm.
But on the other hand, a week later someone tried to grab a woman's flag and caused her to fall down in the grass.
Bad people on many sides!

I have been referring to what Antifa does on a consistent basis. I can pull up plenty of videos of Antifa rioting, destroying property, and assaulting people. But it doesn't matter, to you a few thousand pretend Nazis and KKK members in a country of 350 million, is the same as the Third Reich taking over the country. Yeah, they're a real threat. They coming to get you Spider 

Also FYI, the old lady was simply holding a a flag, not pushing it in anyone's face. LMFAO, at you thinking an old lady is looking for a fight. After all these years on this site I've finally come to the conclusion that you have some kind of mental, emotional, or stability issues. You simply don't live in reality. Anyhow, your "everyone that doesn't agree with me is a Nazi sympathizer" thread has been fun. Have a great day  ;)


**NEWSFLASH** And in other crazy, twisted, breaking news from the liberals. Left leaning ESPN has removed an Asian American football announcer from a game because his name is "Robert Lee". This is so ridiculous it's almost funny. The twist and spin on this one should be entertaining, lmao.

A few thousand? Hell, there are estimated to be between 5,000-8,000 active members in 130 outposts of the KKK alone. Additionally, there are estimated to be 99 neo-Nazi groups, 43 neo-Confederate groups, 78 racist skinhead groups and 100 white nationalist groups in this country*.

Let's just say that your estimate of "a few thousand" is probably coming in on the low side...


* This breakdown of hate groups is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and doesn't even start to factor in all of the people who have the same prejudices, predispositions...hates, as the groups listed, but just aren't registered members, preferring to push that shared white nationalist agenda more quietly, through donations, support of targeted legislation, etc...

So what you're saying is that these fringe groups in question are a threat to forcefully take over our country of 350 million people?

No, that's what you said. Do you normally have that much difficulty determining the source of your own comments?

Sad

Maybe not take over, but now that they have very close to a proponent in the White House, they'll only get more vocal and more violent.

So then what was the point of you updating my estimate of an approximation of how many Nazis/KKK member there are in the country? Let's try this a different way since you are playing word games. Do you think that these fringe groups in question at the levels that you cited are a threat to forcefully take over our country of 350 million people? A simple yes or no will do. No need to twist and spin things.

Charles Barkley should run for office.

----  he wouldn’t waste energy on people who would never like him, and he asked of counterprotesters, “What did they think was gonna happen?” He said counterprotesters “whipped up” the energy that quickly became deadly, and he was disappointed that counter-protesters even showed up. “If you go up to meet idiots, idiotic things are going to happen.”

---- said that Black people need to stop protesting and killing police officers. He said that there was enough blame “to go around.” He often says that Black people need to worry more about making their communities better.

----That's wasted energy," the NBA legend said.

"I'm not going to waste my time screaming at a neo-Nazi who is going to hate me no matter what. And I'm not going to waste my time worrying about these statues," Barkley said.

"I've always ignored them," Barkley said of the Confederate statues. "I'm 54 years old. I've never thought about those statues a day in my life. I think if you ask most black people, to be honest, they ain’t thought a day in their life about those stupid statues."

"What we as black people need to do is we need to worry about our education. We need to stop killing each other. We need to try to find a way to have more economic opportunity in things like that," he said.

Yet those things are dismissed and instead lets worry about a statue of a guy that died hundreds of years ago. Some people have fucked up priorities in their lives. 

Agree with some of what he says...and some of it kind of misses the point. Charles Barkley usually occupies a high ranking on my "stupidest celebrities of all-time" list, so the fact that he got a couple of things right there makes me want to rethink his ranking.


Was he advising the protesters here...or the President?  ;)

hahaha  ... actually good advice for all sides.

More things he has said:
---- I can't screw up Alabama... We are number 48 in everything and Arkansas and Mississippi aren't going anywhere.
About running for governor of Alabama, on Campbell Brown, CNN, October 27, 2008.

---- Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years... and they are still poor

Then they'll be poor for the next 150 years. Because according to LBJ, they'll be voting dem for 200 years, LMFAO.

Guys, Nazis and the KKK are tiny fringe groups that don't have any real power and can't take over this country.
What we really need to be worried about is ISIS landing on the shores of Maryland, occupying the Capital, and instituting Sharia law across the republic.

wait I think I mixed up which fringe terrorists we are supposed to care about

If you ever need a black person to tell you why black people are terrible and useless, Chuck is your man.

Yes because a few thousand pretend Nazis and KKK members shouting mean words is the same as people who currently behead people, crash airplanes, and blow up shit. The lefts silly rhetoric about the current crop of wannabe Nazis is nothing more than a scare tactic. These so called Nazis aren't a threat to take over anything. In fact, the liberals are more of a threat to this country than this small fringe group. 

Why? Decause he doesn't care about a statue of a guy that died 200 years ago. Because he doesn't cry about people that don't like him. Because he doesn't worry about people that say mean things about him.

Sounds to me like he has something called self esteem. Sounds to me like he has something called priorities. Sounds to me like he has a life. I didn't see him call anyone terrible or useless.

I get it. He's an Uncle Tom marching to the beat of white people because Chuck is all about appeasing people. HAHAAHA In fact ... all black people who sees anything closely to white people is a sell out Uncle Tom ... just like George Foreman who supports Trump and is absolutely against kneeling during the National Anthem.   Funny how that is. 

Charles Barkley is an industrial-strength asshole, and has been since long before anyone started talking about statues. He's on TV now that his playing career is over for one reason...He's obnoxious and gets people riled up.

I didn't really want to wade into this topic,I've known for a loooong time that I'm surrounded by hate groups (Just living here it's obvious,5 minutes in a local walmart store,but through work,and being a general redneck,they aren't hard find.) This was to Strokes point about the hate groups,was tweeted by a Local newspaper journalist from the K.C star.

@KCStar: Missouri has more hate groups than Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Nebraska combined https://t.co/D9Vjk8I8LQ
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article168937367.html (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article168937367.html)

The old man that shot up the Jewish center near K.C., was from a small town just south of town.

IMO The Neo nazi,hate groups are similar to in the Muslim community that say they aren't extremist,but turn a blind eye when extremest with similar views do bad things.

While I'm sure some areas are worst than others ... I honestly haven't found that to be my experience. I work with lots of good ole boys who would just assume smack a skin head as they would ISIS. It's become normal to see guys who live in Winter Garden (a town that that used to have a sign that said "Don't let the sun set on your black ass" as the 70s) calling people out. I think the biggest issue now is that you have new hate groups coming out and it brings out the vocal minority of the opposite. There's a lot of great people in between those two extremes and where the majority of society falls. Obama could never have been easily elected, twice even, if the country were as racist as the news would have you believe. 

It's kind of funny to me ... in the 90s I knew a few "rednecks"  whose goal it was to sleep with a black girl and I now know a couple who are married to black women including family members. 

With all due respect, it seems counter-intuitive to infer that your highly localized group of friends is the silent majority, while referring to the rest as the vocal minority. Perhaps the people in your social circle actually constitute the silent minority, while the majority is being emboldened by this administration to be as vocal as possible.



I've never needed the news to tell me about people...I've got two eyes, two ears, 53 years and residency at some point in 17 different states in America. I've seen more than enough to make my own decision on racism in this country.

That has to be the most White person living in their their little subdivision answer I hear CONSTANTLY,from white people (and most of the area I live) It's not in my backyard,I don't see it, it's not a problem,or it's not that big of a deal.....and it's complete and udder fucking Bullshit....Sorry but that just doesn't fly....

I get it from both sides on a regular basis,the Black guy's around me,and the skin heads,redneck guy's with stars and bars tattoos,flags,and stickers.Luckily, I don't have to deal with both sides at work anymore, just the rich white people at work, that keep spouting,what is the fuss? This isn't that big of a deal....

Yeah, just like all the other black people that speak truths about the hypocrisy of the black community and shine a spotlight on the real issues that face black people. These days if you say anything derogatory about a black person you are labeled a racist. And if it is a black person saying it. Well then they have to be an Uncle Tom or and industrial strength asshole. Keep living in your little bubble. It's everyone else's fault, black people are perfect and bear no responsibility for their own outcomes in life.

I don't think you should worry about being labelled a racist. I think you should worry about actually being a racist. Fuck the labels...it's your belief system that has passed its expiration date.

I was referring to other famous black people that say the same type things that Barkley said, then get attacked by their own people for not having the same mob mentality.

And If you're talking about me personally. A racist is a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. I can assure you that I don't think that I am superior to any group of people. In fact there are millions upon millions of black people that are very much superior to me in many ways. Kind of blows your silly theory out of the water. Anyhow, I could care less what you think of me. Like I said before, you're a nobody.

^   *couldn't care less

...back to your regularly scheduled programming.

That's BS Lil B and quite honestly not sue what you are talking about. You are attributing a whole nation to a few people who get news coverage or to your little world (by your own admission you never go anywhere). The fact remains ... black, white, brown and red have a minority of people that are asshats but most people never come across very many.  I spent years in therapy and many more through experience learning that lesson as I didn't trust a single f'ing person in this world... but that's another story. I grew up basically in the projects and I now have multimillionaire friends that have never met a poor person.  In the end I find that most people are generally good and that those that aren't are few and of no need to be bothered.

You said...responding to my opinion....

So then You went into knowing people,to justify your experience...



Then spit it out this Completely Bullshit Fox news type quote. ::)

My response is you're saying EXACTLY What I hear from white people CONSTANTLY,Minimizing Racism,Neo Nazi groups as fringe issues,because you don't see it....It's a completely udder bullshit answer...


I just explained what I was talking about above,Sorry you can't see it.NOPE not attributing it to a few people,I've stated here for years that this area is ripe with racism,and Neo Nazi hate groups are prolific here.(the link to the article was no surprise to me)


You're missing the point,and completely negating racism is a problem,Neo Nazi hate groups, hate ALL BLACK people, just because the color of their skin.Not the few "asshats",Most of these hate groups believe Blacks are 2nd class citizens, lesser human beings (or animals),should be sent back to Africa,or Killed...

While I'm sorry to hear about your therapy,and not sure what it has to do with this...

Again not sure what knowing Multi millionaires that haven't met a poor person,has to do with racism,and then you trivialize the racism is a problem...

I see racist almost daily,as I mentioned, flying the stars and bars,and making N---r comments.Since the Colossal asshat,got elected, I've heard at least once a week.Someone in public comment...(along the lines of,but always including the N word) "Well at least we got that "N" out of the white house..." That's coming from someone ..Yeah that doesn't get out much.I'm a homebody...

I'm done,saying the shit I see...Most of what I said will fall on deaf ears,and I'm a nobody living in plowed ground...

The only black celebrity you are endorsing to run for office is one who prominently likes to criticize other black people.  But maybe that's a coincidence; maybe you like Barkley's stated positions on taxation, or foreign policy, or environmental regulation... something other than the fact that he's willing to bash other blacks.  You tell me.

There are lots of people who believe that "racists" hate LITERALLY EVERY person of color.  This is why “some of my best friends are black” is such a common defense: if I have a black friend, then I can’t be racist because racists hate ALL black people!

So it’s OK for me to insist that ICE just needs to go door-to-door in the Hispanic part of town and start rounding people up, because my cousin is married to an Asian dude and he’s a good guy.  Also, I think Zoe Saldana is hot!  Therefore, I can’t be a racist, and I’m just speaking common sense that’s politically incorrect, but Everyone Knows it’s true.

One of the main reasons behind this kind of all-or-nothing stance is that the last 40 years have thoroughly ingrained in American society that racists are Bad People. Even the racists accept it! So guys like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCAXE_78chM) think, “I’m not a bad person, therefore I’m not a racist.” For god’s sake, even Richard Spencer doesn’t think of himself as a “racist.”

Racism is not a binary condition where either you believe that The White Man should rule over all other races in global apartheid, or you live a life free of bias.  It is entirely possible to have compartmentalized racist positions... for example, the belief that black people are genetically predispositioned to be less intelligent than white people.

Yeah, this myth about November 4, 2008 "proving" that racism is dead in America was pretty conclusively refuted by the results of November 8, 2016.

I think we are getting closer to something now. Racists and being a neo-nazi aren't necessarily the same but they are kissing cousins (does that reference play across the country?). I can't tell you how often I hear the N word from people in casual conversation. Those same people can then come back and talk about how they have a black friend. In a crowd I expect they would be joining those protesters but when called out in smaller groups they make some excuse about being raised by "old timers" or having done time in prison (which I know a few who have). Ultimately they acknowledge they should not think that way (but often make the same comment again only to admit the mistake when called out again). Repetition is the only way to alter this way of thinking and behavior.

A small amount of racism can almost be intrinsic (and this cuts both ways) because we have not gotten over the wounds of our past. I'm a strange bird I guess, a self-described pacifist that sleeps with a gun beside his head. I just don't see aggression benefiting either side though. The only thing that is going to accomplish is to empower the vigilant on the other side. Intelligent conversation is the only way to overcome ignorance. That doesn't mean anyone should cower and it doesn't mean things should be ignored. Confrontation has to happen but if the confronter does not act intelligently, they are just fueling a fire and are ignorant themselves.

It is not a fast process and usually takes multiple efforts but ultimately it is the only path to enlightenment. Don't back down and call out the wrongs but whoever shows aggressive behavior first will not be considered the winner of a disagreement (and their hate speech is not enough to be considered the aggressor).

I don't even know what you just said. I suspect that it's another attempt to deflect. Hell, most people don't try to argue the definition of a word.

adjective
1.
showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.


How was it refuted? Because your candidate didn't win? Somehow I feel that if any other Republican candidate would have won that we would be having the exact same conversation.

^^^I agree with this. My philosophy is that you don't put your hands on someone in a threatening manner regardless of what they say. Basically, you can say anything you want to me, but don't put your hands on me or everyone is going to have a bad day. It's usually from the emotional type people rather than the logical type people, but I've seen it from both types and from both sides.

I can't even wrap my brain around the concept of this being 2017 and society still even has race issues.  I guess nothing should surprise me in a world where some places in the middle east still legally execute people for adultery, homosexuality, etc.  I just can't get how a world that is so advanced in technology, etc. is still filled with archaic thinking. 

Bullshit.  No other Republican candidate ran on a platform of building a wall with Mexico.  No other Republican candidate claimed being of Mexican descent disqualifies a judge, no other Republican candidate called for a ban on Muslim immigration, no other Republican candidate was sued by the justices department by refusing to rent to minorities.  While in general party is more likely to support racist and anti minority policies than the dems.  Trump is a blatant racist that is more inline with David Duke than John McCain or Paul Ryan.

Democrats got destroyed in 2010 and 2014, yet I didn't point at those two elections.  And Obama wasn't even on the ballot in 2016.

It was refuted because a candidate that regularly took racist positions - one of which was described by the Speaker of the House of his own party as "the textbook definition of a racist statement" - won the presidency.  Trump encouraged white supremacists and continues to do so to this day.

Romney is a soulless corporate plutocrat who would happily take the last dollar away from poor people just to make sure that the 0.001% has the biggest tax cut possible.  McCain is a preening media vampire who never saw a war he didn't like and picked the most unfit VP candidate in recent memory because he thought that would put him over the top.  Either of them are practically George Washington compared to Trump.

Bush didn't respond to Katrina fast enough and it was because he "hated black people". Then you have the  conspiracy theories about Reagan inventing crack and AIDS to wipe out the black population. If you're a Republican president, you will be labeled a racist no matter what you do.

Even when Obama was in office, people couldn't genuinely been opposed to his policies. The left either implied or directly said that people on the right who opposed Obama was because, "they hate black people". It's the same tired old game the liberals always play. Everyone who disagrees with them is a racist.

Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the House, said that Trump's statement was “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Is Paul Ryan a liberal?  Is he part of the left?

Isn't it amazing what people will say when the mob mentality kicks in? So Paul Ryan labeled someone a racist and then voted for them? Says more about Ryan that it does about Trump.

Just because media says its racist doesn't mean it is. The Kaepernick situation is a perfect example. Finally some black leaders are calling it what it is. People like Jim Brown, the Bills' LeSean McCoy and others are starting to speak out. The list of Uncle Toms is growing by the day. 

I don't disagree with that part of your statement.  But I didn't refer to the media anywhere in my post and I wasn't talking about the media. I was talking about racism and general prejudice in society.  And that includes "reverse racism" or whatever the trendy term du jour is today.  The media definitely race baits, but that doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist.  Sorry if I'm getting away from the original intent of the subject of the thread. 

It says that racism is not particularly high on Paul Ryan's list of voting issues.  I imagine he shares that attribute with many Trump voters.

However, what this really boils down to is that when an elected leader of the same party says "That's a textbook racist comment," you are still unwilling to accept it as racism.  So I doubt it would ever be possible to convince you of Trump's racism; when leaders of your own party don't meet your standard for burden of proof, that standard isn't going to be met by anything short of Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue while wearing a white hood and a swastika armband.

My own party? Not sure what that means. I didn't vote for trump and I don't claim the Republicans as "my party". I align mostly with Libertarian views. And come to think of it, I didn't hear Obama denouncing the Black Panthers or calling terrorists members of radical Islam. I guess going by your logic, Obama was a radical Islamic loving Black Panther terrorist. Thanks for showing me how that works.

Announced today,Colossal Asshat,Donnie Dumbfuck's,next campaign style speech, will be here in town Wednesday.

Yeah, you only vote for them.   ;)   Or are you saying that you're a third-party voter down the ballot?

Guess what?  I'm technically not a Democrat, either; I am registered as an independent.  So I guess we can both play this pointless game.

Well, when you have Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi saying that something Obama said was the "textbook definition of a racist comment," then we can talk about apples to apples.

See, you reject any criticism from the opposing party, because of course they are going to call him racist.  But Paul Ryan isn't criticism from the opposing party; it's criticism from the SAME party. And it's not criticism from some liberal New Jersey Republican; it's criticism from one of the top two Republicans in Congress.  So why are you still rejecting it... outside of the fact that you just don't want to accept it?

Who is them? You presume to know who I vote for. I've already told you on more than one occasion that I didn't vote for Trump. I agree with Republicans on certain issues, I agree with Democrats on certain issues, and on some issues I don't agree with either. In this case, I didn't support either candidate with my vote. Simply because neither candidate earned or deserved my vote. I am glad that Clinton didn't win. However, that in no way says that I endorsed Trump.
 
Accept what? I accept that Paul Ryan made some statements about your President. I didn't agree with those statements at the time, but the statements were made. So I'm not rejecting anything.

The part you're missing is that Trump isn't really a Republican. He only ran as a Republican because we basically have a two party system and you won't win unless you have a "D" or an "R" next to your name. He is an outsider and everyone was attacking him prior to the election so it really doesn't matter who called him what. You don't have to worry, the Waffen SS isn't coming for you Spider. The 3rd Reich isn't taking over the USA.

All of this is a moot point anyhow. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, he is your president and will be until his term is up, he is impeached, or he somehow dies. And in the case of the last two scenarios, you will then get Pence. And if that happens you will then focus your "he's a racist" chant towards him.

That is because many of them were racist. I personally know three people, all over the age of 60, who had never registered to vote in their lives. All three openly used the N word and told me they did not want a black president. I'd wager good money that these are not the only three people in the country.

Many people only voted for him because he was black. This goes for black people and then white people who feel guilty. Isn't this racism support?

Samuel-L-Jackson: 'I voted for Barack because he was black. 'Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them,' Mr Jackson told the magazine, according to the New York Post.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100210/Samuel-L-Jackson-I-Voted-Obama-hes-black.html#ixzz4qsxJj0qy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I'm sure there were people that didn't like Obama because he was black. However, not anywhere near as many as the left made it out to be. I would wager to bet that a very large majority of people against Obama was because of his policies. Why? Because his administration and policies were shit.

It is difficult to accept your protests of false claims of racism when, as stated above, Trump says a judge isn't fit to preside over his trial due solely to his race and you guys still insist that isn't racism.

You say the left claims all (?) opposition is racist, but you won't call it racism even when the opposition is CLEARLY RACIST.  So where does that leave us?

I think Trump says very stupid things but his actions throughout his life support the theory he isn't a racist. I think all people have some sort of racist view on certain things but they don't know that makes them racist. If so we are all racists.  Actions speak louder than words ... and that can go either way.

It leaves us at the same place we started at when you posted this thread. Two sides that disagree.

You're right. Most of us have some kind of racist bone in ourselves but we don't act out on them. Usually it's just laughing at jokes or something like that. Kinda harmless. But when you do something like pardon a law enforcement officer who racially profiles individuals, you kind of show who you support.

You mean like refusing to rent to minorities as a landlord and having very few minorities in senior management positions either in his buisness or administration.  You mean those actions refute the idea he is racist.

Or is it the fact that Trump has only pardoned one person since taking office....someone whose crime was racial profiling?  Is that the conduct that leads you to believe he is not racist?  Really trying to understand that statement. 

It does bear repeating that Trump signed a consent decree with the DOJ due to his racial profiling and exclusion of minorities from property he owned.

But if you can excuse Trump overtly saying a federal judge should be disqualified from performing his job based solely on his race, excusing Trump's history of racism just gets easier from that point on.

1239 Days - 6 Hours - 58 Minutes to go. Suck it up cupcake!

This is the problem. There is clear evidence that this man is not fit for office, and should be removed immediately. Yet, people are in denial and will just block that evidence because they can't see that they made a mistake.

Just admit it. It's the first step in the healing process.  ;D

It is a lot easier to understand the motivation of (continuing) Trump supporters if you view everything through the lens of winning and losing... ironically (or perhaps not), just as Trump does.  Many "conservatives" care more about defeating liberals than they do about any individual policy position.  Or, as I have mentioned previously:

Today's conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today: updated daily.

This is why "Hillary lost, get over it" is such a frequent rejoinder from Trump supporters.  Trump's policies don't matter; Trump's actions are unimportant. What matters is that They Won and You Lost.

I think this is also why we are seeing this kind of reaction from the right to armed Nazis.  10 years ago, the idea of supporters of the Confederate Flag who were "just protecting Southern heritage" actually walking next to people flying literal Nazi swastika flags would have been unbelievable.  But now, the supporters of the Confederacy realize that those Nazis also back their guy.  Therefore, they are better than the people who do not back their guy.  Winning vs. losing.

Seems to me that when Obama won we heard a lot of "Obama won, get over it" and "Elections have consequences". I'm sure that we could go through the archives here and find the same type posts.

I'm pretty sure that 10 years ago we wouldn't have believed that a gang of thugs with masks would be shouting "No constitution, no USA at all" while assaulting people in broad daylight. Again, enjoy the next 1238 days.

I'm not saying you can't be pleased with your victory.  I'm saying that "We won" is not a substitute for defense of your candidate's terrible policy.

I'm happy to defend (most of) Obama's policy positions and achievements on the merits... and the ones I am least comfortable defending are instances where I thought he wasn't liberal enough (an opinion you would assuredly disagree with).  In contrast, when asked to defend Trump's positions, you want to brag about his victory instead.

That's the difference.

You're right Spider. It really is just a game of who won and who lost. Instead of actually caring that the country is in a downward spiral because of their guy, they put party above everything. Sad!

Are you mentally challenged? I've stated several times that he's not my candidate and I didn't vote for him. In my opinion he's better than Hillary. If I had my choice I would have voted for Ron or Rand Paul.

So I'm not bragging about his victory. I'm simply pointing out the fact that he is the POTUS for the next 1238 days. Complaining about it everyday isn't going to change that fact. Short of that you will get Pence, who you will subsequently also call a racist and complain about him until the term is up. It really is a no win situation with you people.

You claim he's "not your candidate" but you continually defend him, so I am judging by your actions.

As I said before: I'm technically not a Democrat, but I don't use that as some sort of semantic shield to dodge claims that I'm defending "my party."  Such objections are a waste of everyone's time; no one cares if I'm technically registered as a Democrat or if you technically voted for Trump.  We make our positions clear by the policy arguments that we offer and defend.

It's not as much defending Trump as it is disagreeing with the left for its continuous non stop silly bullshit. We would be having the same conversation if Pence was POTUS. It's funny, when Obama was president all the liberals were screaming that it's all Bush's fault and Obama inherited all the problems. But according to you guys it doesn't work the same way for Trump. He didn't inherit any problems, he caused them all.

So no, don't try to pile Trump on me. He's not my candidate, I didn't vote for him, and I don't agree with Republicans on everything, so I don't defend them on everything. I just happen to agree with them MORE than I do the Democrats. And the more of this shit that goes on, the more I want nothing to do with democrats. Keep it up and maybe you can alienate the entire country...

Otherwise known as the "anti-anti-Trump" position.

The real world result of your position is that when you are forced to choose sides between a) agreeing with Democratic attacks on Trump and b) defending Trump, you invariably choose the latter because at least he's not a Democrat.  I have no idea why you think anyone should consider the distinction between that and a "Trump supporter" to be meaningful.

OK. We are locked down. We have definitely strayed away from Free Speech, Nazis, and the like and have fallen into our traditional "You support Trump, no I don't" back and forth.