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

[Grumblenuts]

Were you aware that on this date in history Correll was voted most apt to be fucked with permanently by his high school class mates?

Hell, I presumed he'd never made it that far!

 

[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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

 

[Correll]

Were you aware that on this date in history Correll was voted most apt to be fucked with permanently by his high school class mates?

Hell, I presumed he'd never made it that far!

Said the man that was too much of a ***** to answer the question" are you aware some people might disagree with you on that"?

 

[Grumblenuts]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Correll]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

YOu will never find me, afraid to answer a question like,


"are you aware some people might disagree with you?"


YOu were the one afraid to answer that. *****.


Because, you know, that your entire world view and ideology, is nothing but shit and lies and you are terrified of the truth.

 

[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...?

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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.

 

[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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.

It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues.

Anyone that would claim it is, is a liar.

YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest.


Because, you can't give up the lie. You have to fight against the Truth, all the time.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just as he meant when speaking of all the very fine immigrants from those "shithole countries."
Trump is all peaches and cream.. in Lalaland.

 

[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...?

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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.

It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues.

Anyone that would claim it is, is a liar.

YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest.


Because, you can't give up the lie. You have to fight against the Truth, all the time.

"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "

^^^ Another strawman offered and dismissed.

"YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest."

So which ones were the "fine" ones? Was it the skin heads or the proud boys or some other racist group?

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

The following is an excerpt from the transcript:

Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"

Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."

Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."

Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement."


I suppose that he deserves to be absolved of any criticism because he "eventually" circled back and issued his follow up statement.

 

[IM2]

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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.

He was talking about all the white nationalists who were there.

 

[IM2]

"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "

Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "

Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.

And that's what the statues stood for. If they didn't, no one would give a shit about them being moved to some place less objectionable to those who lived there.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.

He was talking about all the white nationalists who were there.

Yeah, "white nationalists" well covers the field in a sense. Otoh, the confederacy was clearly anti-nationalist, separationist, a bunch of traitors, because slavery.. so there's that. Racists √
Anyways, seems a great time to note that up there somewhere, Correll tellingly says:

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

Classic..

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3] It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9] As Garry Kasparov noted, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.[10] It has been adopted by other politicians and countries.

Russian propagandist is as Russian propagandist does.

 

[Correll]

Just as he meant when speaking of all the very fine immigrants from those "shithole countries."
Trump is all peaches and cream.. in Lalaland.

Correct. Being honest is a good thing.

 

[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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.

It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues.

Anyone that would claim it is, is a liar.

YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest.


Because, you can't give up the lie. You have to fight against the Truth, all the time.

"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "

^^^ Another strawman offered and dismissed.

"YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest."

So which ones were the "fine" ones? Was it the skin heads or the proud boys or some other racist group?

Dude. YOu are an ass.


The crux of the matter is that you are assuming and insisting not only that everyone there, on the pro-statue side, was some type of racist,

but that Trump and I believe that too, so that when we say "very fine people" we must be talking about YOUR VERSION of the "people".


That is you being an ass, and you pretending to not understand that, is you being a liar.

 

[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.

The following is an excerpt from the transcript:

Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"

Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."

Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."

Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement."


I suppose that he deserves to be absolved of any criticism because he "eventually" circled back and issued his follow up statement.

Thank you. That would be very reasonable.

 

[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?

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.

But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.

He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"

NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS, that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.

He was talking about all the white nationalists who were there.

He explicitly stated that he was not.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Trump: When the President Says It, That Means It’s True

The commander in chief embraces a peculiar worldview in which bogus claims are retroactively justified and evidence simply conjured into existence.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Correll]

"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "

Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.

And that's what the statues stood for. If they didn't, no one would give a shit about them being moved to some place less objectionable to those who lived there.

That is what you believe they stand for. THat is not what their supporters believe they stand for.


That is why you were afraid to answer the question, "do you understand that some people might disagree with you".


Because you know that it is not reasonable for you to call people racists, for supporting a statue they believe stands for regional pride.