The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[katsteve2012]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?

1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.

1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?

1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example.

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.

4. Do you understand the example I gave?

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.

Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.

Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Do you support that interest or oppose it?

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?


*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

 

[Grumblenuts]

there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Yes, exposing Correl's nonsensical pleading here as nothing but wistful self-delusion, leading one wonder about the possible cause, putting it mildly.

The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.

Bullshit!

 

[Correll]

....

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

Agree completely.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?

His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them. He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.

*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

In a very different way, but yes. Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?

Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.

After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.


Just saying.

 

[Correll]

there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Yes, exposing Correl's nonsensical pleading here as nothing but wistful self-delusion, leading one wonder about the possible cause, putting it mildly.

The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.

Bullshit!

in my example of a minority interest, I had Indians wanting and getting a casino so they could make some money for their community.


In your example of a white interest, you had a white cop rape and murder a black woman.


You are the racist hater here, not me.

 

[katsteve2012]

....

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

Agree completely.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?

His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them. He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.

*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

In a very different way, but yes. Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?

Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.

After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.


Just saying.

You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.

As far as North Carolina goes, Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.

As far as "The Proud Boys" versus the unite the right rally, I'm not confused at all.

They both represent some form of "white interest"....and recognizing that has nothing to do with a "liberal or conservative tactic"

I am Apolitical, and have no faith in either side.

So, no need for semantics, it is what it is.

As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.

The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
.

 

[Correll]

....

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

Agree completely.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?

His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them. He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.

*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

In a very different way, but yes. Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?

Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.

After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.


Just saying.

You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.

As far as North Carolina goes, Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.

No need for semantics.

As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.

The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
.

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.


That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.


If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.


So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?

 

[katsteve2012]

....

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

Agree completely.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?

His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them. He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.

*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

In a very different way, but yes. Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?

Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.

After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.


Just saying.

You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.

As far as North Carolina goes, Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.

No need for semantics.

As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.

The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
.

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.


That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.


If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.


So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?

Nothing "shocks me" at all.

There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues they happen to be.

Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".

And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean.

That was his FIRST reaction.

So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.

I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY political allegiance.

In Context: Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks

On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr

www.politifact.com

One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.

 

[Correll]

....

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

Agree completely.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?

His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them. He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.

*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

In a very different way, but yes. Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?

Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.

After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.


Just saying.

You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.

As far as North Carolina goes, Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.

No need for semantics.

As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.

The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
.

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.


That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.


If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.


So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?

Nothing "shocks me" at all.

There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues they happen to be.

Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".

And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean.

That was his FIRST reaction.

So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.

I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY political allegiance.

In Context: Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks

On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr

www.politifact.com

One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.

From your link

"Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. "


"Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.... The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. "


"Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." "


"Trump: "... And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?"




It is clear that he condemned the neo-nazis,and was talking about other people, when he said "very fine people".

 

[katsteve2012]

....

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

Agree completely.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?

His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them. He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.

*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

In a very different way, but yes. Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?

Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.

After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.


Just saying.

You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.

As far as North Carolina goes, Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.

No need for semantics.

As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.

The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
.

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.


That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.


If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.


So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?

Nothing "shocks me" at all.

There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues they happen to be.

Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".

And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean.

That was his FIRST reaction.

So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.

I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY political allegiance.

In Context: Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks

On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr

www.politifact.com

One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.

From your link

"Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. "


"Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.... The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. "


"Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." "


"Trump: "... And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?"




It is clear that he condemned the neo-nazis,and was talking about other people, when he said "very fine people".

Sure he did. AFTER his INITIAL statement.

 

[Correll]

....

Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.

Agree completely.

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".

Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?

His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them. He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.

*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

In a very different way, but yes. Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?

Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.

After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.

Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.


Just saying.

You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.

As far as North Carolina goes, Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.

No need for semantics.

As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.

The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
.

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.


That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.


If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.


So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?

Nothing "shocks me" at all.

There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues they happen to be.

Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".

And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean.

That was his FIRST reaction.

So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.

I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY political allegiance.

In Context: Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks

On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr

www.politifact.com

One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.

From your link

"Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. "


"Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.... The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. "


"Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." "


"Trump: "... And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?"




It is clear that he condemned the neo-nazis,and was talking about other people, when he said "very fine people".

Sure he did. AFTER his INITIAL statement.

His very fine people statement came from his later statement.


ANd here is his first statement on the event.

Read: President Trump's remarks condemning violence "on many sides" in Charlottesville

Here’s a full transcript of Trump’s remarks.

www.vox.com

"But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. "


"I just got off the phone with the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, and we agree that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop right now. We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation and true affection-- really, I say this so strongly, true affection for each other. "


" so when I watch Charlottesville, to me it's very, very sad. "

"
Above all else, we must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our god.

We love our flag. We're proud of our country. We're proud of who we are, so we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we're doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen. "



"We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other. "





Or do you want to post the entire thing and go though it line by line and tell me what I am missing?


Cause, the bit you implied, that he said "neo-nazis" were very fine people? THAT NEVER HAPPENED.


YOU WERE LIED TO.


Are you going to take that?

 

[Correll]

ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.


And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,


has been refuted.


So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.


WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.


THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.


In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.


Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.

 

[katsteve2012]

ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.


And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,


has been refuted.


So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.


WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.


THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.


In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.


Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.

Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.

Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.

Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false

The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.

www.vox.com

 

[Correll]

ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.


And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,


has been refuted.


So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.


WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.


THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.


In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.


Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.

Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.

Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.

Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false

The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.

www.vox.com

1. I was referring to Grumble and Faun.

2. I looked at you last link and pointed out that it did not say what you thought it did.

3. YOur new link?

It makes the common next step when libs are called on the fact that Trump did not say what they say he did.

ie that Trump's statement about the protesters were indeed about neo-nazis, because the people behind the rally were neo-nazis.


THe problem with that line of argument is that it slyly but radically changes the topic from,

did the President say nazis were very fine people,


to,

is the President right about who was at the rally?



Once you reach this point, you are no longer arguing that Trump has good feelings for neo-nazis, but that Trump is bad at knowing who is in the park.


That is where you should stop using the line, "very fine people".

 

[Faun]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?

1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.

1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?

1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example.

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.

4. Do you understand the example I gave?

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.

Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.

Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Do you support that interest or oppose it?

Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.

You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....

Organizing is not a "white interest."

Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest.


Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?


Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.


Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.


What is your position on it?

"Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "

No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.

Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.

Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.


And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.


And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".


To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.


And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.


So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.

"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."

That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.

 

[katsteve2012]

ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.


And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,


has been refuted.


So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.


WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.


THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.


In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.


Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.

Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.

Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.

Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false

The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.

www.vox.com

1. I was referring to Grumble and Faun.

2. I looked at you last link and pointed out that it did not say what you thought it did.

3. YOur new link?

It makes the common next step when libs are called on the fact that Trump did not say what they say he did.

ie that Trump's statement about the protesters were indeed about neo-nazis, because the people behind the rally were neo-nazis.


THe problem with that line of argument is that it slyly but radically changes the topic from,

did the President say nazis were very fine people,


to,

is the President right about who was at the rally?



Once you reach this point, you are no longer arguing that Trump has good feelings for neo-nazis, but that Trump is bad at knowing who is in the park.


That is where you should stop using the line, "very fine people".

Trump said what he did initially. Nothing changes that fact, which was:

"There were fine people on both sides".

Carry on.

I'm out.

 

[Faun]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

 

[Grumblenuts]

From the beginning of Trump's original statement:

But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.

Whether "two sides" or "many, many" the clear message is to shift the blame from those primarily responsible. Those who planned the predictable resultant "hatred, bigotry and violence" to begin with. That was clearly the primary "interest" of those claiming to have "white interests." The people of Charlottesville wanted no part of it. They sure got stuck with cleaning up the mess though.

What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order

Bit late, but hey, every tragedy creates a new opportunity to promote fascism!

 

[Grumblenuts]

For whenever "white interests" get to feeling too threatened:

I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?

1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.

1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?

1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example.

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.

4. Do you understand the example I gave?

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.

Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.

Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Do you support that interest or oppose it?

Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.

You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....

Organizing is not a "white interest."

Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest.


Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?


Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.


Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.


What is your position on it?

"Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "

No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.

Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.

Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.


And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.


And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".


To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.


And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.


So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.

"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."

That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.

I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.


You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.


YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.

 

[Correll]

ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.


And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,


has been refuted.


So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.


WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.


THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.


In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.


Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.

Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.

Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.

Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false

The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.

www.vox.com

1. I was referring to Grumble and Faun.

2. I looked at you last link and pointed out that it did not say what you thought it did.

3. YOur new link?

It makes the common next step when libs are called on the fact that Trump did not say what they say he did.

ie that Trump's statement about the protesters were indeed about neo-nazis, because the people behind the rally were neo-nazis.


THe problem with that line of argument is that it slyly but radically changes the topic from,

did the President say nazis were very fine people,


to,

is the President right about who was at the rally?



Once you reach this point, you are no longer arguing that Trump has good feelings for neo-nazis, but that Trump is bad at knowing who is in the park.


That is where you should stop using the line, "very fine people".

Trump said what he did initially. Nothing changes that fact, which was:

"There were fine people on both sides".

Carry on.

I'm out.

And the claim that he was referring to neo-nazis, has been shown to be false.


The next time you try to imply he is sympathetic to neo-nazis with that line, you will be knowingly lying.