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

[Correll]

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

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

And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

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

And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

 

[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.

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.

I did not bring it up. You (or faun) asked about a question/answer from the press conference. It was a reporter who wanted to assume the white supremacists were the sole cause of the violence when that was not true.

This is not "what about ism". I am not trying to distract from some point.

 

[Correll]

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

Says the man that was afraid to answer the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"

 

[Jitss617]

How old was obama when he saw a black man? Walking in on his mom? Or in high school?

 

[Correll]

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

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

And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.


YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political zealot.

 

[Grumblenuts]

For denial, see:

This is not "what about ism". I am not trying to distract from some point.

 

[Grumblenuts]

the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"

Not a question. Thus snarky response (also not a question):

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

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

And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.


YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political zealot.

You talking about flags or statues? Make up your mind.

 

[IM2]

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

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

And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

We as a nation didn't rebrand shit. They were put up long after the war was over to denote white supremacy, and that version of the flag was also reborn to stand for white supremacy. Because it is not the original confederate flag. We have not been fine with that. Corrells imagination is running wild. Another bout of psychosis.

 

[Correll]

For denial, see:

This is not "what about ism". I am not trying to distract from some point.

And I explained why. At length. THe point you claimed was "what about ism" was in response to a point one of you guys brought up. A on topic response, not a deflection.


You cut all of that, and now pretend that my response was not valid?


That was dishonest and cowardly of you.


Seriously, how can you take such a step and not realize that doing so, means that your position in the debate is completely wrong?

 

[Correll]

the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"

Not a question. Thus snarky response (also not a question):

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

Actually, the crux of this matter, is that you and faun are insisting on judging Trump's words, as though he shares your view of the protesters.


You are literally ignoring his explicitly stated words, about the people in question, and instead judging him as though he thinks the same as you.


So that you can completely reverse his meaning. And then attack him and his supporters on that basis.


In that context, asking you if you understand that other people can disagree with you, is not snark.



It is the crux of the matter.


And I know, that instead of addressing this, you will cut it down to nothing and dodge it, like the cuck that you are.

 

[Correll]

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

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

And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.


YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political zealot.

You talking about flags or statues? Make up your mind.

Symbols of regional pride. That is what they both are now, so the point is valid. As you know. So, why you pretending not to?

Oh, right. YOu know that your position is false, so games like that are your only hope of even pretending to "score a point".

 

[Correll]

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

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

And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?

We as a nation didn't rebrand shit. They were put up long after the war was over to denote white supremacy, and that version of the flag was also reborn to stand for white supremacy. Because it is not the original confederate flag. We have not been fine with that. Corrells imagination is running wild. Another bout of psychosis.

1. We rebranded it all, as I have repeatedly documented. YOur denial is delusional.

2. They were put up later in the lives of the children of the veterans. THat makes complete sense. Do you really need me to explain why? LOL!!!

3. That flag was the Battle Flag of the Main Confederate Army. imo, that demonstrates the rebranding, as they changed focus from the political flag of the Confederacy, to one that was more associated with the soldiers and not the actual policies.

4. We, as a nation, have been fine with it. And still are. It is just you lefties that are pretending to be upset, to give you something to cry "Evul Wacism" over.

 

[Grumblenuts]

^^^

We, as a nation, have been fine with it.

Said the one too uncomfortable in his own skin to speak for himself.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".[citation needed]

Other names for the fallacy include appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument by consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,{...}

 

[Correll]

Grumblenuts.

This is bob.

I've heard that Bob is a really nice guy. That he does all this very fine stuff. (INSERT VERY FINE STUFF HERE).

So, I make the comment some day, that Bob is a "very fine guy".

Are you following me?


Now, you heard different. YOU heard that Bob, is a MASS MURDERER.


So, do you,

a. Tell me I am mistaken about Bob, that he is not fine, he is a mass murderer.


or



b. attack me for supporting mass murder?




This is why I asked you, if you understand that other people can disagree with you. Because your behavior is demonstrating that you do not.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do you fail to understand that we leftists are a big part of "this nation" because you're dense, a determined asshole, or both?

 

[Correll]

^^^
Said the one too uncomfortable in his own skin to speak for himself.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".[citation needed]

Other names for the fallacy include appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument by consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,{...}

Yeah, I'm fine in my skin. Thanks for asking.


The point has been raised as to what the symbols represent. And you are judging people, based on their support of those symbols.


Discussing what the symbols mean to people, in that context, is not " argumentum ad populum"

Indeed, it is the crux of the matter.


You are interpreting any support of the symbols as proof of racism.


my point is that that is not true.


Would you like to address my point?


LOL!!! That was just a little joke. I know that is not how you roll.



Instead, you will cut away the part where I make the argument you cannot refute, and then address my point, or some made up strawman, and focus primarily on your use of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.

 

[Correll]

Do you fail to understand that we leftists are a big part of "this nation" because you're dense, a determined asshole, or both?

I totally understand that you lefties are part of this nation. Nothing I have said, suggests otherwise.


And as a whole, this country did the rebranded and moved on, until just recently, when you people decided to start fucking with the Southern Whites.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Russian bot. Gotta be. No one is this stupid.