Why Does Trump Refuse to Call Out Nazis in Charlottesville?

[Revoltingest]

Nope. I didn't say that all Trump supporters were racist.

Why deny something I didn't claim.
But you did say "most".

I would say that about 30% of his supporters feel as if white people are discriminated against. And, of course they don't admit that they support white privilege (except for Spencer who has made that very clear). But, the cause of their view that whites are being discriminated against is the collapse of white privilege.

Where do you see such extensive support for this view?

And, I said that if a white supremacist is spewing racial slurs directly at a specific black person (right in their face), the black person has every right to feel physically threatened. That is true because of the countless times when white supremacists followed racist words with unprovoked violence.

You support separate but unequal law with respect to race, with encouragement of violence.
This is terribly terriblly wrong.

 

[Notanumber]

I only found out about these two because YouTube are trying to silence them.

Would YouTube be trying to censor them if they were liberals or democrats?

They are genuinely enthusiastic about the POTUS and talk a lot of sense about the state of USA in an entertaining way.

I hope they successfully sue YouTube.

 

[leibowde84]

Why deny something I didn't claim.
But you did say "most".

Where do you see such extensive support for this view?

You support separate but unequal law with respect to race, with encouragement of violence.
This is terribly terriblly wrong.

No. I think that when someone uses racial slurs directed at an individual and gets in their face, that person is reasonable to feel physically threatened. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

If members of a white supremacist group get in your face, use racial slurs, then punch you in the face unprovoked and does this time and time again, after several times of this happening, the victim is reasonable if they feel physically threatened.

 

[leibowde84]

I only found out about these two because YouTube are trying to silence them.

Would YouTube be trying to censor them if they were liberals or democrats?

They are genuinely enthusiastic about the POTUS and talk a lot of sense about the state of USA in an entertaining way.

I hope they successfully sue YouTube.

The first amendment has nothing to do with youtube. They can remove whatever they want. They are a private company, not the government.

 

[leibowde84]

I only found out about these two because YouTube are trying to silence them.

Would YouTube be trying to censor them if they were liberals or democrats?

They are genuinely enthusiastic about the POTUS and talk a lot of sense about the state of USA in an entertaining way.

I hope they successfully sue YouTube.

They were on Hannity a few nights ago. Very silly ideas put forth in an extremely silly way ... not funny or entertaining ... and certainly not well-informed.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. I think that when someone uses racial slurs directed at an individual and gets in their face, that person is reasonable to feel physically threatened. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

We've covered this.
Each knows where the other stands.

If members of a white supremacist group get in your face, use racial slurs, then punch you in the face unprovoked and does this time and time again, after several times of this happening, the victim is reasonable if they feel physically threatened.

But you've advocated this self-defense only for black folk.
I dislike identity politics.
Your idea is no better than those of the white supremacists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the only fiction I hear is when a Trump hater opens his/her mouth.

Agreed. Just ask the millions of illegal voters who refused to look for Obama’s birth certificate during Trump's record breaking inauguration, or those that refused to condemn Ted Cruz’ father for killing JFK - all recorded on the Obama wire taps. They'll all tell you that Trump is a stickler for accuracy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You do realize that this is a written forum. No way to know that you were being sarcastic. There are actually racists on this site.

I would think the rolling eyes smiley makes it rather obvious I'm being sarcastic.

 

[Notanumber]

The first amendment has nothing to do with youtube. They can remove whatever they want. They are a private company, not the government.

This man is also under threat of being removed from YouTube.

Is there a pattern forming here?

Looks like Common Purpose.

 

[leibowde84]

We've covered this.
Each knows where the other stands.

But you've advocated this self-defense only for black folk.
I dislike identity politics.
Your idea is no better than those of the white supremacists.

That's the thing. White supremacists have done this repeatedly throughout American history. Black people don't have a continued history of using racial slurs and attacking white people unprovoked. If they did, it would surely go the other way. Sure, it has probably happened from time to time, but with white supremacists, it has happened thousands upon thousands of times.

 

[leibowde84]

I would think the rolling eyes smiley makes it rather obvious I'm being sarcastic.

Didn't see that. Whoops. My bad.

 

[leibowde84]

This man is also under threat of being removed from YouTube.

Is there a pattern forming here?

Looks like Common Purpose.

Well, it is against the law to suggest or threaten the President with death or assassination. But, that aside, YouTube can do whatever they want. It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Maybe other laws/rights are relevant, but not the 1st Amendment.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's the thing. White supremacists have done this repeatedly throughout American history. Black people don't have a continued history of using racial slurs and attacking white people unprovoked. If they did, it would surely go the other way. Sure, it has probably happened from time to time, but with white supremacists, it has happened thousands upon thousands of times.

American blacks have the same relationship to the white racists around them that atheists have with the Christian church, which has persecuted atheists wherever it can: Both are the victims of unprovoked bigotry and structural violence (you probably already know that this term does not mean literal violence, although there has been enough of that as well .. it refers to institutionalized oppression).

This justifies backlashes such as BLM and antitheism, and makes such reactions ethically distinct in the same way that if A shoots at B and B shoots back, the two are not morally equivalent. "On all sides ... on all sides" is false equivalence.

The law recognizes that they are not legally equivalent, either. If A kills B, it's murder. If A misses and B subsequently returns fire and kills A, it's self-defense and not considered a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's the thing. White supremacists have done this repeatedly throughout American history. Black people don't have a continued history of using racial slurs and attacking white people unprovoked. If they did, it would surely go the other way. Sure, it has probably happened from time to time, but with white supremacists, it has happened thousands upon thousands of times.

I know quite a few who have endured violent attacks from black racists.
And I would oppose their using violence in response to a slur.
Sometimes ya just gotta buck up, & take it like a man (which women can do too).

 

[Sha'irullah]

I would not condemn them either considering their cause for protesting is just and just like in England they came prepared in case of hate groups like Antifa and BLM showed up. I would not have gone as far they did but still it is sad that is happened the way it did.

On top of this is that these are patterns of leftist violence and with it being difficult to call these groups peaceful and not blame both sides would be blatantly dishonest.


. . . Plus I like Nazis

 

[gnomon]

Right back at ya. Your response here is incredibly idiotic. You don't even have the mental capacity to challenge my point. Sad!

Sorry. I do lack the mental capacity.

I'm the forum drunk recognizing bull**** when it presents.

Can't wait for your excuse.

 

[Mister Silver]

Sorry. I do lack the mental capacity.

I'm the forum drunk recognizing bull**** when it presents.

Can't wait for your excuse.

You should change your username to Drunky Cat.

 

[gnomon]

You should change your username to Drunky Cat.

Might as well.

**** me.

I'm screwed.

Don't know what that means for the rest of you.

We all are in a sense. Because we logged on to this ****.

Unless you learned something! Then by God..........go **** yourself.

It's well deserved! Not in this thread........

But overall......

Nevermind it's time for bed.

Just screw that in your head.

All I know is some dumbass slag of garbage is going to post more garbage that serves up nothing educational.......

But I'll leave you with this......utter strangers don't let strangers post while drinking whiskey.

Remember that!

It will do you no good.

Just remember to brush your teeth.

Zaijian......there should be some accents there.......

So much for cleverness.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....................................

 

[UpperLimits]

The law recognizes that they are not legally equivalent, either. If A kills B, it's murder. If A misses and B subsequently returns fire and kills A, it's self-defense and not considered a crime.

Except in Canada. Where the defendant will do 10 to life, for defending themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Common sense can still be found, if you know where to look for it.

That man is a disgrace.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...cials-deny-role-newborns-jail-death/99600326/
Federal lawsuit filed after newborn baby died at Milwaukee County Jail; 1 of 4 deaths in 6 months
Milwaukee jail death shines spotlight on divisive sheriff