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

[Correll]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.


Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

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

It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

From your link


"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? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "


He explicitly stated that he was not talking about the neo-nazis or white nationalists.

Anyone that says otherwise, is a filthy liar.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Faun]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.


Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

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

It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

From your link


"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? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "


He explicitly stated that he was not talking about the neo-nazis or white nationalists.

Anyone that says otherwise, is a filthy liar.

Impeached Trump was correct, there were others there besides neonazis and white nationalists. There were also KKK, white supremacists, and other assorted racists; all gathering for a Unite the Right rally.

 

[Correll]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.


Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?

2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?

Because the right was comprised of racists.

Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?

Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?


It is that, isn't it?

Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.

So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?

LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.

 

[Correll]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.


Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

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

It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

From your link


"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? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "


He explicitly stated that he was not talking about the neo-nazis or white nationalists.

Anyone that says otherwise, is a filthy liar.

Impeached Trump was correct, there were others there besides neonazis and white nationalists. There were also KKK, white supremacists, and other assorted racists; all gathering for a Unite the Right rally.

He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?

 

[Faun]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.




Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?

2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?

Because the right was comprised of racists.

Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?

Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?


It is that, isn't it?

Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.

So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?

LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.

LOLOL

It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.

 

[Correll]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.




Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?

2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?

Because the right was comprised of racists.

Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?

Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?


It is that, isn't it?

Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.

So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?

LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.

LOLOL

It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.

From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?

 

[Faun]

He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?

LOL

It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."

 

[Grumblenuts]

He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. all very fine racists.

 

[Correll]

He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?

LOL

It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."

It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.

 

[Correll]

He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.

So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?

 

[Grumblenuts]

He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.

So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?

All of them.. "very fine" ones!

 

[Correll]

He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.

So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?

All of them.. "very fine" ones!

Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why else would they bother travelling to a place where the locals clearly wanted those racist symbols gone from their hood.

He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.

So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?

All of them.. "very fine" ones!

Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?

You seem to believe I should care. Why?

 

[Faun]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.




Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?

2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?

Because the right was comprised of racists.

Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?

Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?


It is that, isn't it?

Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.

So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?

LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.

LOLOL

It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.

From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?

Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?

Which of these were very fine people...?

 

[Faun]

He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?

LOL

It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."

It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.

No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.

 

[Correll]

Why else would they bother travelling to a place where the locals clearly wanted those racist symbols gone from their hood.

He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.

So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?

All of them.. "very fine" ones!

Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?

You seem to believe I should care. Why?

It seems a simple question. That you are afraid to answer. For obvious reasons.


Trump and I disagree with you. We believe there there were non racists at the rally but who support historical statues.


YOu disagree. Which would be a fine debate to have.


But instead you insist on pretending that what he said about the people he believes were there, you are pretending he said it about people he explicitly said he was NOT saying it about.


That is you, being a liar.


And that you can't answer a question like, "do you understand that other people might disagree with you".


is you knowing that you are full of shit.


You are full of shit, and you know it.

 

[Correll]

But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,

The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."

He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.




Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.

So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.

He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally. Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.

You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.

The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.

1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?

2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?

Because the right was comprised of racists.

Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?

Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?


It is that, isn't it?

Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.

So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?

LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.

LOLOL

It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.

From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?

Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?

Which of these were very fine people...?

That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?

TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why else would they bother travelling to a place where the locals clearly wanted those racist symbols gone from their hood.

He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.

So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?

All of them.. "very fine" ones!

Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?

You seem to believe I should care. Why?

It seems a simple question. That you are afraid to answer. For obvious reasons.


Trump and I disagree with you. We believe there there were non racists at the rally but who support historical statues.


YOu disagree. Which would be a fine debate to have.


But instead you insist on pretending that what he said about the people he believes were there, you are pretending he said it about people he explicitly said he was NOT saying it about.


That is you, being a liar.


And that you can't answer a question like, "do you understand that other people might disagree with you".


is you knowing that you are full of shit.


You are full of shit, and you know it.

^^^^^^^^

 

[Correll]

He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?

LOL

It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."

It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.

No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.

You are being evasive and conflating different groups so you can lie about what the President said.


The fact that you have to hold on to such a transparent lie, shows that on some level, you know that your entire world view and ideology is shit.

Because otherwise, you would let this one go, and focus on the much better arguments for your world view and positions.


BUt, you know, there are no better arguments.



All your points are bullshit.