Monday, August 21, 2017

"Looking for an honest answer" - Part II

The NY Time has offered in their editorial that Trump should be censured. I would ask exactly what this censure would look like?
  • You cannot say he didn't admonish the White Supremacists. He made a very specific statement doing exactly that.
  • You cannot argue that his statement blaming both sides is outrageous, as a plurality of Americans agreed  (49%) agree that the Antifacists were at least partially responsible for the violence.  
I think by nature, a statement that only a minority logically takes issue with, cannot be a statement so outrageous that it would require censure. Even if it was reversed, and a small majority disagreed with what he said (or even found it outrageous)...  that would not demand some sort of rebuke.

Has any President (ever) been censured for making a statement that approximately half of Americans agreed with and half disagree?

So if you want a blatant example of the media being "out to get Trump" - look no further than the NY Times suggesting that the President be censured. It's not just slightly over the top, but wildly over the top.

To clarify: Donald Trump wasn't at the protest. He had nothing to do with the protests. He wasn't responsible for preparing for the protests. He wasn't responsible for protecting the people at the protest. He wasn't responsible for either side.

Yet, with one person dead, dozens injured... nobody actually responsible in Charlottesville or Virginia is being called to task. Only the President is being called to task, because some in the media didn't like what he said about the events three days later.

It defies common sense. 

96 comments:

commie said...

You cannot say he didn't admonish the White Supremacists. He made a very specific statement doing exactly that.

He also said there were good people on both sides, which included the nazi's and KKK... I guess if you feel that is being admonished, you really need to be more introspective.....


In Ga....for the eclipse....weather should be perfect. Lots of people crawling around Blairsville, where my little cabin is located. I'm sure someone will make an inane comment. Shocking.

KD said...

Driving 60 miles to st joseph mo. Eclipse party starts a 10 am, drinking adult drinks a bbq kc style with brisket and pork butt.

commie said...

Another interpretation of what CH thinks is admonishment....NOT!!!!!

The Nazi groups that marched in Charlottesville cannot be considered a “side.” When they carry torches, they imitate Nazi rituals. When they perform the call and response of “Trump! Hail” and “Victory! Hail!” they are translating Nazi performances that we know better in German: “Hitler! Heil!” and “Sieg! Heil!” In Charlottesville, American Nazis shouted “Sieg! Heil!” as they passed a synagogue.



When the supporters of the alt-right chant that “Jews will not replace us,” they recapitulate the Nazi idea of a world Jewry that stifles the master race and must therefore be removed from the planet. When they shout “Blood and soil,” they repeat a Nazi slogan signifying that races will murder races for land without mercy and forever.

These views do not define a “side,” but rather a worldview in which the United States of America, with its Constitution and laws, and with its hard-won daily understandings of rights and responsibilities, would no longer exist.

Locals here have roped off their yards and put up prices to park. God Bless America. Hope they make a few bucks will will help the local economy

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

1: His lack of specific references to the the racists, crypto-Nazi,and white Superiority group.

2: His statement that said "fine people" were on both sides.

Number 2 is the one that's the most objectionable. No one that participants is are "fine people". They stand for things that have no place in the United States. We have lost hundreds of thousands lives defeating fascism. They are pro-segregation. Chanting "The Jews won't replace us".

Anyone who holds those beliefs cannot be "fine people".

You cannot say he didn't admonish the White Supremacists. He made a very specific statement doing exactly that.


He got specific when he was forced to read a prepared speech speech. It was obvious that it what he did not want to say it, but he did it because he was directed to do so. And again he stuck to the claim that some of those people are fine people on both sides no they are not.

While some of the people on the opposition side had a motivation that means they have a chance of being fine people. They are opposed to crypto fascists anti-Semitic and white superiority jerks. That does not excuse their violence, but it does justify their existence and some of them may be identified as fine people because most of them did not participate in the violence.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

A majority of Americans think Donald Trump too long too long to respond with specific reference to the racist groups.

You wouldn't care either way because you don't really care. The president putting it off for three days didn't bother you. You believe he is always justified every time seriously, you find a way to justify it against commonsense and against the majority of regular Americans and Republicans and Democrats.

Senator Corker made it very clear and you have never addressed his comments he is not what you call a liberal by any stretch of the imagination . He was considered to be the vice presidential candidate for number 45 . He seriously questioned his mental stability and there are a lot of other people getting more and more uncomfortable about that too, but they don't say so in public, but it's starting to surface.

commie said...


2: His statement that said "fine people" were on both sides.

WHICH CH CONSIDERS AN ADMONISHMENT!!!! How our mighty intellectual host has been taken over by trump and his stupidity.....

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - this was Trump's statements regarding "fine people on both sides."

You had people and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. O.K.? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.


Did you even BOTHER to actually watch the press conference in question? I watched it. I understood exactly what he was saying and why he was saying it. He did not call any of those members of any of the White Supremacist groups were "fine people".

He said that there were fine people there (on both sides) that were just exercising their free speech and didn't want trouble.

He simply told the truth...

that there were protesters who were just there to protest the taking down of a historical piece of art - because they believe that they should stay up (a view held by nearly two thirds of Americans). and that there were counter-protesters who were just there to protest against the white supremacists.


Neither group was there looking for trouble.


Why would you take issue with the President trying to explain the FACTUALLY TRUE STATEMENT that not everyone there was a White Supremacist or an Anti-fascists...

So unless you are trying to argue that nearly two thirds of Americans cannot be deemed to be "fine people" because they are against removing historical monuments.

That would be a troubling line of thought.

C.H. Truth said...

A majority of Americans think Donald Trump too long too long to respond with specific reference to the racist groups.

Actually Roger - he condemned everyone involved in the aftermath of the situation the day it happened (Late Saturday). When almost nobody "actually" knew what specifically had happened.

Then he released a more detailed statement on Monday.


And guess what, Roger... he never once blamed a you tube video for the violence, now did he?

Suspicious, James said...



GIVE US THE LINK TO THIS NYT ARTICLE SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THE NYT WAS REALLY SAYING ABOUT "CENSORING" TRUMP

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I know where this is coming from now I just found it.

You said " He did not call any of those members of any of the White Supremacist groups were "fine people".




“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups,” he said. “Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”

There is the problem. I will never buy into that even one of them are FINE PEOPLE. Never.

C.H. Truth said...

Imagine if the Trump administration had sent a bunch of surrogates out to the Sunday Morning shows to demand that the violence in Charlottesville was all about a YouTube video...

Even as they were emailing each other back and forth blaming domestic terrorism...

Imagine if his administration was basically caught red handed attempting to pass off the blame on something that it could be proven that they themselves did not believe was true.

Imagine, how the media would have had a total melt down.


You want to know how it is that we can tell the Media is "out to get Trump".

The Obama administration openly lied about the cause of violence and the media for all practical purposes went along with it, covered it up, and apologized for it. Some even suggested it was true.

Trump tells the truth... and the media want's him censored or impeached.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I've had enough. I am put on the blocker. So to speak. I'm not a child. But I'm arguing with a child. Dilbert provide your philosophy. I'm into Peanuts and Charlie Brown and of course Snoopy.

C.H. Truth said...

Here you go James...

It thus seems beyond unlikely that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, or Paul Ryan, the weak-kneed speaker of the House, would entertain any thought of strong action, like censure. But it’s fair to ask: Purely as a matter of political self-preservation, wouldn’t a concerted effort to drag Mr. Trump away from the fringes make sense? His approval ratings are drifting south of 35 percent while he continues to romance the fewer than one-quarter of Americans who say they can’t think of anything he could do to shake their support. Heading into an election year, is that where Mr. McConnell and Mr. Ryan want to be?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/19/opinion/trump-nazism-republican-party-failing.html

C.H. Truth said...

I've had enough. I am put on the blocker. So to speak

You know Roger...

This is classic "cognitive dissonance". When someone inherently knows that their arguments have gone down to defeat, they simply shut down and go away rather than accept it.

A telling sign. In fact, it couldn't be more obvious.

Your original argument was that Trump didn't single out White Supremacist groups, until you saw the quote, then demanded it wasn't timely. You demand that he called White Supremacists "fine people" until you saw the quote where he specifically says otherwise...

then... there is no where else to go, other than to retreat back into your own little world of rage and hate!

_____



Which, btw... shutting down like this... is not the same thing as not wanting to hear your phone go off at 3:00 in the morning, because someone is obsessively messaging you about how much they hate Donald Trump, after promising like eight times that they would stop spamming you about politics.

wphamilton said...

"You had people and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. O.K.? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

Trump is expressing affinity for the supremacist protest, for the participants in the neo-nazi rally.

It's pretty weird that the same people who complained so much about Obama not condemning political groups after violent incidents think that it's perfectly reasonable for Trump to say there are "many fine people" at rallies of overt hate groups.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You are f****** hilarious. I hate to use this term but trumpism has to apply. I don't hate the man and you know me better than that are you at least think you should. I dislike him he scares the s*** out of me cuz what he could do my country that I love so damn much. But you love him more than the goddamn country because he's a f****** Republican and a conservative maybe but but anyhow it does make a difference because you just don't care. You justify everything is says and don't even think that maybe you have the slightest chance of being incorrect. It was like discussing things with my father who closed his mind so hard to anything outside his own little box that you do the same thing you got a box and that box shall not be broken.

C.H. Truth said...

Trump is expressing affinity for the supremacist protest, for the participants in the neo-nazi rally

Well that is not really what he said... but rather a dark interpretation of what some people "believed" he "meant".


Again, was what he said "untrue"?


Look - I was guilty of exactly this, WP... and you called me out on it.

I said that there were no good guys, only bad guys (which I meant as a general statement regarding the White Supremacists and the BLM/Antifascists).

But you took it literally and argued that there were likely innocent people at the rally who were not there looking for trouble. A statement that was entirely true.

I didn't believe you meant it as a means to condone the behavior of the groups who were causing issues. No more than Trump was pointing out that it is unfair to lump everyone at the rally (on either side) as being part of the groups that were there to cause trouble.


The only difference appears to be that either it's okay to point out that not all the counter-protesters were there to cause problems... but not okay to point out that not all the protesters were there to cause problems...

Or perhaps you truly believe that "all" of the protesters were White Supremacists... in which case you would be questioning Trump on his observations.


At the end of the day, we don't censor or impeach Presidents because their direct comments are interpreted differently by other people. We don't get to demand that certain seemingly innocent statements are "dog whistles" and take some form of legal action against them.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger

People would have more respect for you if you simply responded to the arguments being laid out.

But you don't. Whenever it appears that you have run out of ammunition, you retreat into the world of "why you hate Trump" (for about the 1000th time) and then demand that any and all disagreements are based on "me" being the one who is obsessive.

You shut down. Refuse to answer my questions. Then you simply insult me.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Oh my.
They ever thoughtful WP stepped in and basically we agreed. There were no fine people at the rallies because they were standing behind Nazi symbols shouting anti-semitic slogans and blood and soil and the Jews will not replace us. They are not fine people not a single one of them CH not one. The president told you how to think or at least how to close your mind to think that perhaps just perhaps he was wrong to phrase it like that. But you cannot say a damn thing against it you will not ever say anything that is critical of Donald J Trump. I haven't seen you object to anything for months. Look at the people like Marco Rubio and Corker and and how many others and Graham and and these are solid hard right some of her hard right Republicans Ted Cruz and Rubio you can't get any farther than either one of them Ted Cruz is a nutcase then you have John Kasich and run for president over Hillary Clinton and I haven't voted for a republican since Jimmy Carter beat George HW Bush. I thought Carter would be a disaster and I was correct. And I give George HW Bush High rating for the way he handled the collapse of the Soviet Union. Is outstanding and history will judge him very very well. And the fact that he would even raise taxes despite the fact he made a promise before that he wouldn't because he saw the facts in front of him made him change his mind. It cost him a lot but he was right. You might want to open your mind and think that perhaps just for the hell of it think that maybe Donald Trump made a f****** mistake. Try at once now of course. I'm full of hate no. I am emotional at times and no doubt about that that is part of my personality but hateful no not at all and I've known some really shity people over the years. And I've been a very good judgment of character. One of my nieces was dating a guy and 5 minutes into me after meeting him I said holy s*** this guy is a f****** criminal oars or worse. He was in the gold train gold Trading stuff that was going on and 20 years ago and he got caught in as a felon scamming people too good. I think you're a nice guy Scott but sometimes ???

I'm going to take this old man and put them in the shower. Then I get to get up eat a little bit and take 16 pills including three anti-rejection drugs. Various mineral minerals and vitamins and all the other Good Shit. Buenos dias adios amigos. Su Amigo rrb no se persano bien.

Not surprised, James said...

Here you go James...

Ah, Ch. Just as I thought.

Without reading the whole article, the small portion you provided makes it clear that the NYT was not suggesting that news sources should "censor" Trump, as you more than implied. The NYT editorial was suggesting that the GOP, out of concern for its own survival, might tr to restrain Trump from making comments so dreadfully hurtful and divisive and counter productive to both the party and the nation.

Obviously, you who cannot tell the difference between "affect" and "effect" also cannot tell the difference between "censure" and "censor."

To censure someone is to disapprove of them (or their statements) in some way. To censor someone is to delete or blot out or prevent them from saying something.

To expect the GOP to come out flat footed and censure Trump at this point (though some party members who still have a modicum of moral balance have done that) is too much to expect. And so the Times is suggesting that Republican leaders might at least try to find some way purely "as a matter of political self-preservation," to make "a concerted effort to drag Mr. Trump away from the fringes".

In other words, try to convince him to start behaving and speaking more like a President who is in touch decorum and simple decency.

Lauding the supposedly good people among KKKers, white supremacists, and Nazis does not fit that profile.
__________

Your hatreds have reached such a fever pitch, Ch, that you can no longer think clearly.

james said...

In other words, try to convince him to start behaving and speaking more like a President who is in touch with decorum and simple decency.

james said...


Your hatreds have reached such a fever pitch, Ch, that you can no longer think OR READ clearly.

Anonymous said...

Trump is expressing affinity for the supremacist protest, for the participants in the neo-nazi rally.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

there's no way a rational person arrives at this conclusion honestly.

trump called out the bad guys while acknowledging that there were people in attendance who simply wanted to prevent the removal of the statue. people who are not such emotional cripples that a statue of robert e lee would trigger them in the least.


James said...

Those people stood with people bearing KKK and Nazi and white supremacist flags and emblems and uniforms.

They did not cordon themselves off into a separate block.

commie said...

You shut down. Refuse to answer my questions.

your questions are normally biased and skewed to an answer you desire. Dayum funny CH, you are the master of obfuscation......LOLOLOL

C.H. Truth said...

Look at the people like Marco Rubio and Corker

So you want me to let others do my thinking for me, huh?

Jeepers! Thanks for proving my point!


No Roger... I watched several videos of the events. I read stories that linked to police reports showing who got arrested. I read local stories from Virginia with eye witness accounts.

I don't need to get my opinions from Politicians or journalists.

Amused, James said...

Figured out the difference between "censure" and "censor" yet, Ch?
:-)

Anonymous said...

Look at the people like Marco Rubio and Corker and and how many others and Graham and and these are solid hard right some of her hard right Republicans Ted Cruz and Rubio you can't get any farther than either one of them Ted Cruz is a nutcase then you have John Kasich and run for president over Hillary Clinton and I haven't voted for a republican since Jimmy Carter beat George HW Bush.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo...



.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I answered your f****** question you just didn't seem to understand it that's not my fault. I'm stating a fact that you've been lost in the Donald Trump trump isn't thing and there's no arguing with somebody that's mentally ill. Get some f****** help my friend Scott you need it

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

You stated that he didn't specifically rebuke the White Supremacist groups.

- That was simply untrue. He did.

You stated that he called White Supremacists "fine people".

- That was simply untrue. He specifically stated he was "not" referring to White Supremacists or anti-fascists... but rather he suggested that there "fine people' not part of any of those groups that were unfairly being lumped in.


______


What you did, Roger...

Is what you always do.

You quoted other people as if that should matter to me.

It doesn't.

____

You didn't go look at the transcripts of Trump's press conference, or Trump's statement to the public...

as you should.

You simply knee jerk... decided that you can quote other people (who are equally wrong) - as your answer.


Quoting other people's opinion is not answering anything, Roger.

It's simply proving the point we have all made about you, James, Opie, etc...

You are incapable of doing any research on your own, and you rely 99.99% on what others tell you.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

A simple request. Please post the "question" I supposedly didn't answer.

Please keep it less than three paragraphs of assumptions.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I watched them live. Both of them. In the first time, he didn't address them by name. You spent years bitching about Obama not using the phrase "Islamic Terrorism". You excuse Trump for not being specific. Hypocrisy be thy name.

He was forced to read from a script. At the first time, General Kelly was rolling his eyes.

I'm not going to respond to a loaded question. You should know what I mean.

wphamilton said...

The only difference appears to be that either it's okay to point out that not all the counter-protesters were there to cause problems... but not okay to point out that not all the protesters were there to cause problems...

Or perhaps you truly believe that "all" of the protesters were White Supremacists... in which case you would be questioning Trump on his observations.


I take your point, cautionary of jumping to judgment if nothing else. And obviously there are "bad guys" on either side.

But I look at it this way. Between a group of people who are there literally to spread hatred and foment action from that hatred, and a group who are there to oppose that hatred, it is more reasonable to expect that some of the latter group are fine people. It IS a reflection of my values that I'm skeptical of "fine people" among those rallying for hatred and bigotry. I will admit to that much, and I submit that it's also a reflection of Trump's values that he assumes there are many such among that group.

The President should not be seeming to endorse that agenda. And if he truly did not intend to tacitly endorse it, his statements were extremely foolish. Either way, it's a serious problem and one for Trump is deservedly chastised.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I don't agree that anyone who participated in the KKK, neo-Nazi, and white Superiority group can be considered as "fine people'. Not one.

wphamilton said...

I don't agree that anyone who participated in the KKK, neo-Nazi, and white Superiority group can be considered as "fine people'. Not one.

Only if someone were misinformed or misguided to the point that he truly did not understand what the rally was, and didn't know the participants. Hanlon's razor might apply, especially given the general ignorance of that crowd. However, once beyond that tiny end of the Bell Curve, it is hard to imagine anyone there supporting those people who did not also support their agenda.

It is NOT wrong to denounce evil and those who relish in spreading evil. It is not anti-American, nor opposed to the Constitution, to declare there is a limit and to try to deny the voice of those who are beyond that limit. Right-thinking people should not be afraid of declaring this basic truth, and should not remain silent in the face of it. The only real question here is do those Nazi and Klan groups cross that line? I think, a lot of times they do.

Commonsense said...

Constitution, to declare there is a limit and to try to deny the voice of those who are beyond that limit

The Constitution mentions no limits to political speech. You don't beat these people by suppressing their free speech rights. You just drive them underground and force them to resort to a more violent form of expression.

You beat these people by speaking out against them and showing them how immoral and un-American their ideas are.

And you beat the Antifa by doing the same. Not celebrating them for the violent suppression of people you hate.

C.H. Truth said...

Look WP...

There were people at that rally that were protesting the tearing down of the statues, that certainly did not appear to be White Supremacists.

Keep in mind that nearly two thirds of Americans oppose the tearing down of historical monuments, even if they offend people. I am guessing that number is probably higher in places like Charlottesville.

Quite obviously the rally was not promoted as a White Supremacist rally, but rather a "unite the right" rally (sounds tepid enough). While those of us who follow this more closely, along with the added advantage of hindsight, may have been better informed... it's not unreasonable to believe that certain people (who held the view that the tearing down of the statue in question was wrong) would have attended the rally, without being White Supremacist. Given the pure volume of people protesting and counter-protesting... it would be very reasonable to assume that not all of them were part of the groups "looking for trouble".

C.H. Truth said...

All that being said...

The issue here is that the President denounced the White Supremacists, and he denounced the antifascists, and he suggested that there were people there that were protesting and counter-protesting that were not there looking for trouble and were "fine people".

Many people have made the suggestion (that appears illogical to the point of almost being outlandish) that he meant that the White Supremacists were "fine people".

I watched the Press Conference (prior to hearing the criticism about "fine people")... heard what he said, and never took it that he meant that either the White Supremacists or the Antifascists were "fine people"...

the fact that he suggested that the "fine people" (from both sides) got "lumped in" with those who caused trouble and that it was unfair to them. This should make this point logically obvious. You cannot get "lumped in" with yourself.


Now I am not sure if people "honestly" took it wrong, or if they are simply looking to twist his words for political purposes to make him look bad. Or perhaps it's simply the case that very few people actually watched the press conference, and simply take what others tell them as the absolute truth (and don't bother to check for themselves).

Call it the cynic in me... but I almost "never" take what a journalist says at face value, when the substance seems as outrageous as some of these claims are.

Commonsense said...

Call it the cynic in me... but I almost "never" take what a journalist says at face value

When you see the phase "according to anonymous sources" you can be sure that the preceding paragraph was an outright lie.

Anonymous said...

I'm stating a fact that you've been lost in the Donald Trump trump isn't thing and there's no arguing with somebody that's mentally ill. Get some f****** help my friend Scott you need it
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


and this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we refer to as "psychological projection."


Anonymous said...

Now I am not sure if people "honestly" took it wrong, or if they are simply looking to twist his words for political purposes to make him look bad. Or perhaps it's simply the case that very few people actually watched the press conference, and simply take what others tell them as the absolute truth (and don't bother to check for themselves).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

there are two kind of liberals in on this thing -

the first to twist his words to make him look bad, and the rest too fucking lazy to look up his actual words, and content to take the word of kevin drum or ralph maddow for their "information."

i'm not sure where the alky fits into this scheme. he's been so incoherent and schizophrenic lately he's impossible to classify.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Chris Christie said today, exactly what I have been saying.

Senator Flake got brutal, and they all might have been reading my posts. :-)

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"Now I am not sure if people "honestly" took it wrong, or if they are simply looking to twist his words for political purposes to make him look bad. Or perhaps it's simply the case that very few people actually watched the press conference, and simply take what others tell them as the absolute truth (and don't bother to check for themselves).

Call it the cynic in me... but I almost "never" take what a journalist says at face value, when the substance seems as outrageous as some of these claims are."

My take on the President, is mine and mine alone.

Again, the first comments specifically didn't name the three bigoted groups. My take on this, is that he didn't want to lose the support from his base. Cynical? I think not. He's an intelligent man. And very emotional on top.

Right now I am watching Representative Lee Zeldin (R) New York, and member of the house foreign affairs committee. He is echoing everything I have been saying.

No one makes my mind up, CH. Your accusations are rather insignificant. The accusations of mental instability is much more relevant to the President.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Another false accusation.
"the word of kevin drum or ralph maddow for their "information."

I rarely read Drum anymore. I never read Rachel Maddox, and almost never watch her.

She's the smartest political personality on television. It's Doctor Maddow, PhD.

wphamilton said...

CS to argue "The Constitution mentions no limits to political speech" is ridiculous, because the Supreme Court explicitly recognizes a number of exceptions, and in other cases diminished protections. Free speech is a right, but a limited one. I trust I won't have to list the exceptions, but I will point out perhaps the best known exception is "fighting words and offensive speech" which, if you need specifics, "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction"

Whether or not it may be effective to ignore hateful groups, it is the obligation of the citizens of a democracy to oppose them.

C.H. Truth said...

Again, the first comments specifically didn't name the three bigoted groups. My take on this, is that he didn't want to lose the support from his base. Cynical? I think not. He's an intelligent man. And very emotional on top

Roger - most every estimates on White Supremacist groups suggests that there are between 20,000 and 30,000 White Supremacists living in the country.

By a broader definition (which would include fringe groups not generally associated with White Supremacy) some suggest more like 100,000 to 150,000 people (or about 0.05% of the population).

On average, that would between 400-3000 people per state. How many would actually vote? Who knows.

________

So your argument is that Trump was worried that if he said the wrong thing, that those White Supremacists are going to switch sides and vote for a Democrat next time?

Really?

wphamilton said...

Regarding your own peculiar point of view CS, and applicable to a lesser extent CH's arguments I direct you to In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). While the Supreme Court did reverse the conviction of advocating violence because there was no proven immanent threat to do violence in that situation, the same cannot be said of the extant rally. The main point is that merely advocating violence is insufficient for a conviction, but incitement itself may be.

Any hate group inciting violence, and especially those intending to result in crimes, should be shut down, period.

wphamilton said...

CH in addition to those "100,000 to 150,000 people" who belong to groups, how many American voters have sympathy with some or all of the aims of those groups? Perhaps voters who would never dream of publicly or overtly associating with them? Do you know?

Of course you don't, and neither do I but there is a strong possibility that those folks make up a large part of the core of Trump's supporters, the supporters who say they won't change their minds regardless of what Trump does. Obviously that's a lie or exaggerated, because if Trump abandons them they will drop their support in a heartbeat. The point being that no one is talking about .05% of the population here.

C.H. Truth said...

The main point is that merely advocating violence is insufficient for a conviction, but incitement itself may be.

The main point, WP... was that being offensive, even to the point of advocating hypothetical (or abstract) violence was not enough to warrant arrest. Even threatening future violence (Hess vs Indiana) did not warrant it.

And when the courts use the term incitement, the idea is that you are inciting your followers to commit violence.

There is nothing anywhere in the law that states that your speech can be shut down and you can be arrested.... because what you say "triggers" violence "against" you. That would betray the basic tenet of free speech.


So bottom line: If the White Supremacists put together a rally where their speech incited their followers to commit violence. They would be committing the crime.

If the White Supremacists put together a rally where their speech "triggered" others to commit violence against them (because their speech offended them). Those committing the violence would be committing the crime.

C.H. Truth said...

Do you know?

You know what WP...

You and Roger live in an entirely different world than I do. I know nobody who has any personal sympathy for White Supremacists and I don't know a single Donald Trump voter who harbors any of those sorts of beliefs.

I wonder, very seriously... how many you know.

But if you want to be judgmental. If you want to assume the worst. If you want to continue to label Trump supporters as bigots. If that is how you justify his Presidency...

Then you are simply denying reality.

I understand why Trump won. The real reasons. Not the made up, the country is suddenly made up of bigots and racists reasons that you so desperately want to believe (for whatever reasons).

wphamilton said...

CH I live in Georgia. I see people carrying around Klan literature, and I hear people talking in the supermarket about Trump and their bigoted opinions. Of course I've encountered Trump voters having sympathy with Supremacists.

Pretending that there is no connection is the real denial of reality.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"
Roger - most every estimates on White Supremacist groups suggests that there are between 20,000 and 30,000 White Supremacists living in the country."

Did you miss what I meant? They represent probably millions of Americans. Or at least, enough to change the vote in critical districts.

wp and I think differently than you. Your expectations is that I couldn't understand the deeper meaning of the numbers. Or more likely, you didn't understand that they represent many others.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Even in Southern California, I heard more than I expected, comments about n·····s in regards to Obama.

Anonymous said...

You and Roger live in an entirely different world than I do.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


TDS will do that to a person. wp and roger need to insist that white supremacists exist in numbers on an order of magnitude (or several) greater than reality. that's the thing about the left. they always need a bogeyman and they always need a victim.



and the irony in this gem is really too much:

"Did you miss what I meant? They represent probably millions of Americans. Or at least, enough to change the vote in critical districts."

so voter fraud, which we know exists across the country in numbers large enough to actually influence the outcome of an election is a myth, but there are millions upon millions of nazi/klanners out there poised to fuck things up for everyone.

this requires what hillary (who will NEVER be our president btw) called 'a willing suspension of disbelief.'

Commonsense said...

CH I live in Georgia. I see people carrying around Klan literature, and I hear people talking in the supermarket about Trump and their bigoted opinions.

Well WP I live Florida and have never heard people talking like that and I lived in Georgia and never heard people talked like that.

Must be the liberal circles you and Rog run around in.

Commonsense said...

I direct you to In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). While the Supreme Court did reverse the conviction of advocating violence because there was no proven immanent threat to do violence in that situation, the same cannot be said of the extant rally.

Yeah WP you're on real thin ice here. Marching around chanting hateful, racist slogans is not an incitement to do imminent violence even If you were carrying a rifle or sidearm while you were doing it.

No one in Charlottesville is going to be charged with incitement to riot.

However, if you were trying to make a case for incitement, it wouldn't be against the White Supremacist groups there. They were the ones who had a legal right and permit to be there.

It would be against the Antifa who stated time and again they were there to violently confront the White Supremacist and said they would do so again.

Anonymous said...

I rarely read Drum anymore. I never read Rachel Maddox, and almost never watch her.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

oh, that's right. this time it was marco rubio and bob corker who told you what and how to think.

btw alky, corker's up for reelection in 2018.

C.H. Truth said...

Of course I've encountered Trump voters having sympathy with Supremacists.

If you say so.

C.H. Truth said...

It would be against the Antifa who stated time and again they were there to violently confront the White Supremacist and said they would do so again.

Good point.

If WP was being honest, he would point out that this is "exactly" the line that the USSC ruling tossed out there.

When the organization of the rally includes "inciting" your members to cause physical violence (and there is a reasonable chance that said violence will occur imminently) - then you have crossed that line (which is different advocating abstract violence that is not imminent).

Certainly Antifa's history of breaking up rallies, preventing speakers from speaking, and going after "fascism" with threats and the actual execution of physical violence, coupled with their promises to show up at said rally with the known intention to cause physical violence...

would cross that line.

Again, if WP was intellectually honest here, he would admit this.


But WP would "like" to argue that it's the White Supremacists (many of which are apparently close personal acquaintances of WP - and/or supermarket shopping buddies) who are 'inciting' the other group with their view points...

You know, through the use of "triggers" and those other dastardly methods of forcing the left to lose total control of their own actions. As apparently they often do these days.

Anonymous said...

Certainly Antifa's history of breaking up rallies, preventing speakers from speaking, and going after "fascism" with threats and the actual execution of physical violence, coupled with their promises to show up at said rally with the known intention to cause physical violence...

would cross that line.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and it's not like the evidence of this is lacking.

MSDNC's chuck clodd hosted a dartmouth prof who states explicitly that antifa reacts violently in self defense. the asshat actually believes that self defense justifies antifa INITIATING violence against those they disagree with.

add to that the ACLU refusing to protect ALL free speech, and the soros funded pro publica trying to get right leaning sites they disagree with either banned entirely from the web, or crippled by having their funding mechanisms drop them. this just happened to robert spencer's jihad watch.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/

pro publica got pay pal to drop jihadwatch. it was only after a flurry of outrage did pay pal reinstate them.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/08/leftist-assault-on-free-speech-continues-paypal-bans-afdi

Commonsense said...

Did you miss what I meant? They represent probably millions of Americans.

It's not hard to see what you are trying to do here.

You want to paint everyone to the right of Lenin with the brush of white supremacy.

That backfired on Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it will backfire on Democrats in 2018.

wphamilton said...

Speaking of intellectually honest, perhaps CH simply doesn't notice the racial prejudice in his Trump supporting friends.

CH would your friends say that African Americans are worse off financially because they don't have the motivation or will power? How about because they don't work as hard? 55% and 45% of White Republicans respond yes to these questions respectively. 26% of them rate African Americans as less intelligent. As for you, do you consider these responses to indicate racial prejudice?

wphamilton said...

Again, if WP was intellectually honest here, he would admit this.

Before casting aspersions about honest, you should make an objective review to make sure you're on solid ground. In this case:

"Certainly Antifa's history of breaking up rallies, preventing speakers from speaking, and going after "fascism" with threats and the actual execution of physical violence, coupled with their promises to show up at said rally with the known intention to cause physical violence... "

You would have realized that I never said otherwise. In fact, you would have understood in several places where I referenced BOTH groups in condemning certain actions.

The distinction I draw is that one group is explicit in spreading racial hatred and bigotry, while the other group opposes it. Regardless of other aims and methods, that is a fundamental difference.




wphamilton said...

who are 'inciting' the other group with their view points...

You mean the racist taunts and profanity they were screaming out? Those viewpoints, that you don't think are incitement or fighting words? That even Trump called out as disgusting displays of hatred and bigotry?

In our country we are permissive about people advocating for whatever they want, and we bend over backwards even for hateful nutjobs like Unite the Right folks. But the flip side of that is, you reap what you sow. Don't whine about it, don't try to shift blame - you own it.

C.H. Truth said...

The distinction I draw is that one group is explicit in spreading racial hatred and bigotry, while the other group opposes it. Regardless of other aims and methods, that is a fundamental difference.

Under the law there is no fundamental difference. All speech is protected free speech, and the White Supremacists won a court case just that week (with the help of the ACLU) that allowed them to hold their "protest".

So they have the right to explicitly spread all the bigotry they want... as silly as that sounds. Because, you know what? At the end of the day, the slippery slope of allowing hundreds of district court Judges the power to make determinations regarding which speech is acceptable and which is not (based on their personal judicial opinion) would pretty much undermine the entire concept of the first amendment.

So the line - like it or not - is legally drawn at whether or not that speech is inciting people to commit violent acts in the name of their cause....

not if what they say is offensive enough to "trigger" a violent response from those who oppose it... as much as you seem to want to change the legal precedents to say differently.

C.H. Truth said...

CH would your friends say that African Americans are worse off financially because they don't have the motivation or will power?

I guess I will have to go down to Cub foods and strike up some conversations.

C.H. Truth said...

WP


In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words.

So to the degree that this appears to be your argument, it has already been shut down by the courts.

If the "fighting words" argument was valid in this case... it would have already been used to shut down White Supremacist groups, and many other types of "offensive" speech. But generically insensitive and stupid arguments are not considered (by the law) to be "fighting words".

And to the degree that you argue that what might happen "during" the protest/counter-protest - in terms of what the groups are yelling and screaming at each other, that cannot be legally "assumed".

You cannot form a counter-protest with the express concept of committing violence...

because you make an assumption that your presence at the event will trigger a reaction from that group to express something that you could then determine to be "fighting words" with then triggers you to counter-react.

That simply makes no sense.

wphamilton said...

Under the law there is no fundamental difference. All speech is protected free speech,
Under the law, there is still a fundamental difference because "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction" is the stock in trade for these groups.

And we have already established that not all speech is protected.

But these mistakes aside, when I pointed out the fundamental truth that you reap what you sow, I certainly wasn't talking about repercussions in civil court. If you yell racial insults in someone's face, you don't get to whine about "free speech" when you get a reaction. That's what allows us to protect speech - the fact that there are repercussions regardless. And that's how it should be.

wphamilton said...

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

You are confused about this ruling.

The court recognized that this cross-burning on someone's yard might still be prohibited expression, but struck down the ordinance because it referred to specific content.

But furthermore, you again miss the point. If you burn a cross in someone's yard, don't complain about "free speech" if he gets in your face.

C.H. Truth said...

struck down the ordinance because it referred to specific content.

Exactly... and the ordinance in question argued basically the same thing you are trying to argue. That hate speech against minorities is akin to fighting words and therefore should not be protected speech.

But.... The law is the law is the law...

And if you were correct and I was mistaken... then White Supremacy rallies could (and routinely would) be shut down by the courts for exactly the reasons you state.

But they are not shut down, and in fact they have always been protected. This includes the Courts telling Charlottesville that they could not even "move" the rally to a different location (much less shut it down).

It's also why people who come to counter-protest and then commit acts of violence are often times arrested (at least when it can be positively determined who did it) and charged with those crimes. They are not allowed the "fighting words" defense because they were offended by the content of protest/rally/march, or whatever.

wphamilton said...

"they are not shut down, and in fact they have always been protected" - no not really:

A white supremacist rally planned for noon on Saturday, and billed as the largest in decades, was declared an “unlawful assembly” and was cleared by law enforcement.The gathering turned violent before noon ...

Texas A&M University abruptly cancelled a White Lives Matter rally planned by an outside organizer days after deadly violence

I could probably find a lot more examples if I go back a whole week ;)

wphamilton said...

It's also why people who come to counter-protest and then commit acts of violence ... They are not allowed the "fighting words" defense

Are you getting carried away with this train of false equivalences?

They are not allowed a "fighting words defense" because it is NOT a legal defense. That is an offense, one example of the unprotected speech, but not a defense to assault and battery.

That one group commits a crime is no defense to a crime committed by someone else. That fact has zero relevance to limitations of free speech.

Commonsense said...


I think I'll wait for the inevitable lawsuit against Texas A&M.

I predict the same outcome.

wphamilton said...

And for some good news: the racist "America First" rallies across the country have been canceled, all 37 of them.

This is a victory for decent Americans, and was achieved not through specious debate over "free speech" nor by a landmark court ruling, but because Americans stood up to these thugs by exercising their own rights, and they were steadfast in the face of intimidation and threats. This may be messy, you may not like it (Trump) depending on where one's sympathy lies, but this is how democracy works. The flip side of these alt-right assemblies who transact in violence, hatred and intimidation, comes when they cannot face the storm that they themselves stir up.

When we say shut them down, that's what we're talking about.

C.H. Truth said...

WP -

I am not talking about Universities shutting anything down. They cancel speeches and rallies all the time. I am sure you can find countless examples where speakers who were deemed "conservative" were not allowed to speak because of pressure from liberal faculty and liberal students. They don't have to be white supremacists, they just have to be gay conservatives like Milo or blonde conservatives like Coulter.

They will even cancel Condi Rice's commencement speech because she was part of the Bush administration and it caused consternation among campus liberals.


But last time I checked, that isn't exactly the same thing as the courts shutting down White Supremacist rallies because their very existence triggers the "fighting words" clause.

wphamilton said...

Why would you expect a court to enforce restrictions on free speech, before any speech is uttered? All of those legal concerns, that you are talking about, are after the fact.

As near as I can tell, you have argued that all of the Supremacist rhetoric is necessarily protected because the courts don't shut them down beforehand. That's a nonsensical argument CH.

C.H. Truth said...

As near as I can tell, you have argued that all of the Supremacist rhetoric is necessarily protected because the courts don't shut them down beforehand.

Actually WP... it has NOTHING to do with the specifics of the rhetoric.

And I am not making an argument. I am stating a fact.

The courts do protect the Supremacists and everyone else as it pertains to their rights to assemble and exercise their free speech.

The courts do not protect the rights of anyone to go to these events with baseball bats, tire irons, and chains, and try to break them up because they disagree with them... no matter how offensive they may see the speech.

The difference here, is that I am looking "beyond" what happened in Charlottesville. I am looking at what happened the VERY NEXT DAY in Seattle where a group of anti-fascists fought with police because they were trying to violently put an end to a peaceful assembly by a right wing conservative Christian group that they labeled to be "fascists".

I am looking at the anti-fascists burning places down, attacking private security, or even the police as they try to shut down speech that has nothing to do with White Supremacy. That is just something "they" disagree with.


If this was "just" about White Supremacist, then I couldn't care less who puts a baseball bat to the heads of the Skinhead or the Neo-Nazi.

But free speech is not about the specifics of the "rhetoric" - it's about the principle and the fact that neither you or I get to judge who's speech should be allowed and who's shouldn't.

Certainly the anti-fascists don't get to judge it, and then be the executioner with their baseball bats, tire irons, and chains.

Commonsense said...

And for some good news: the racist "America First" rallies across the country have been canceled, all 37 of them.

This is a victory for decent Americans, and was achieved not through specious debate over "free speech" nor by a landmark court ruling, but because Americans stood up to these thugs by exercising their own rights, and they were steadfast in the face of intimidation and threats.


That's a statement worthy of Orwellian extremes. Rallies canceled because of threats, intimidation, and the heckler's veto are celebrated as a victory against threats and intimidation and the heckler's veto.

You just made them martyrs.

The real victory would have to let the rallies go on and nobody shows up to listen.

But liberals never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Commonsense said...

When free speech becomes a political weapon

It's suppose to be a political weapon you tenor moron.

Anonymous said...

Certainly the anti-fascists don't get to judge it, and then be the executioner with their baseball bats, tire irons, and chains.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

fwiw, this is indicative of the brick wall you're running into with wp. he's on the side of antifa, sees their cause as good and just, and is quite willing to say that antifa rhetoric, no matter how violent on its own, will always trump nazi/klanner rhetoric.

antifa and all it's surrogates - black lies matter, cpusa, etc. are right and everyone who opposes them is wrong because shut up.

wphamilton said...

CS, you didn't take the brietbart.com excuses seriously did you? They were canceled because counter-protests would be vastly larger, and because the alt-right violent tactics aren't playing well.

wphamilton said...

The courts do protect the Supremacists and everyone else as it pertains to their rights to assemble and exercise their free speech.

A true statement.

The courts do not protect the rights of anyone to go to these events with baseball bats, tire irons, and chains, and try to break them up because they disagree with them... no matter how offensive they may see the speech.

A false statement. Courts do protect the rights to be armed at these events, and you have the right to try and break them up as well. As long as you do not use physical violence, nor violate some disorderly conduct ordinance.

But free speech is not about the specifics of the "rhetoric" - it's about the principle and the fact that neither you or I get to judge who's speech should be allowed

Actually it IS about the specifics of the rhetoric, in several well defined and established categories. I guess I need to list the categories of unprotected speech after all. Briefly,

"obscenity, fighting words, fraudulent misrepresentation, advocacy of imminent lawless behavior, and defamation. Threats are also treated as unprotected speech because they constitute intimidation."

And in fact, in the most relevant sense you and I DO get to judge whether speech is in some of these categories. Fighting words by definition are those intended to elicit certain responses, and it is the normal reasonable person whose responses define that category. We are normal and reasonable people in the context of the American culture, are we not?

wphamilton said...

quite willing to say that antifa rhetoric, no matter how violent on its own, will always trump nazi/klanner rhetoric.

Now you didn't see that here. Are you sure you're not just projecting an opinion that seems easier to argue with?

Commonsense said...

You mean the counter-protesters that would be there to beat them, threaten them, and intimidate them.

Right?

I don't think the rallies would have been canceled if the counter-protesters just showed up and sang Kumbaya.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

I wonder sometimes if you are purposely daft for some reason, or if you truly believe that the anti-fascists carry baseball bats to these events just in case the two sides decide to settle it over 9 innings?

Furthermore, you apparently miss the entire point (again, I believe on purpose)... which is that what Ann Coulter or Milo says when they are invited to speak somewhere cannot be (by any reasonable standards) defined as "fighting words" - but the same tactics are used by the anti-fascists to shut these events down.

By their very nature, the anti-fascists state that their goal is to shut down "fascist speech" by any means, and they have a history of doing just that in some case, and in many other cases being physically held off by the police (as they were last Sunday in Seattle).

Tell me how a history of violence to shut down speech, a history of attempted violence to shut down speech, along with the repeated threats of violence to shut down "future" speech...

does not qualify that as "advocacy of imminent violence" as you "JUST" defined it a few minutes ago?

Anonymous said...



not at all, wp. i'm just distilling the debate. from your perspective antifa: good, white nationalists: bad.

antifa has the moral authority to squelch debate, run roughshod over the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree.

commie said...

You mean the counter-protesters that would be there to beat them,

Yep there is a group of anti's that are there to threaten the nazi's in kind. I guess all those idiots in camo, helmets and carrying weapons have peaceful intentions on their minds.......right menstral, or are they trolling for trouble like you??????? But all you see is the left is causing trouble.....remember who drove that car...Idiot

wphamilton said...

You wonder if I'm "purposely daft for some reason" because I purposely ignore your persistent efforts to change the subject from dealing with the Supremacist rallies. I don't feel any need to argue about the anti-fascist behavior because I simply have never supported them, nor tried to justify them.

As far as I'm concerned they and the antifa's are made for each other. Those who love violence and revel in hatred, and find it coming back to them, I have no sympathy for. But you know as well as I that fear of the anti-fascists is not why the 37 nationwide racist rallies were cancelled. What they really fear is the public reaction to the violence that they know will arise when enough of those idiots get together and start working themselves up by screaming their "constitutionally protected opinions" at people.

wphamilton said...

antifa has the moral authority to squelch debate, run roughshod over the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree.

I'll rephrase more accurately from my perspective.

Americans have the moral authority to squelch hate speech, run roughshod over exhortations against American freedoms, of those with whom decent Americans disagree.

Yes, in my opinion it is not only your moral authority, but your obligation as a free American citizen to oppose them wherever you may.

Anonymous said...

As far as I'm concerned they and the antifa's are made for each other.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

and this is the first chord of equivalence you've struck for the both of them on this thread.

C.H. Truth said...

I don't feel any need to argue about the anti-fascist behavior because I simply have never supported them, nor tried to justify them.

Actually trying to justify them and their behavior is "exactly" and pretty much the "only" thing you are trying to do here.

This was (and I assume still is) a discussion regarding what sort of rallies, protests, and counter-protests are considered protected free speech, and what sort of rallies, protests, and counter protests might be outside of those boundaries.

and ultimately whether or not the President (and a plurality of the country) is right to call out the anti-fascists as well as the white supremacists.



You seem to believe (and continue to argue) that speech you do not agree with should be shut down. Not just disagreed with, or ignored (which is what Americans have done with the White Supremacists over the past 20 years or so)... but literally shut down. You more than imply that if that takes violence, then so be it.

But you sort of miss the slippery slope... or perhaps you should reverse the argument being made to criticize the President... which was by not calling out the White Supremacists "harshly enough" he provides them with some legitimacy and actually emboldens them to do more. (I would argue that they will do more, as long as they continue to garner attention by doing so. They did less, when everyone just ignored them).

So by not condemning the behavior of the anti-fascists for the violence they have committed over the past couple of years (in the name of fighting fascism) that you are emboldening them to continue to expand their range of influence. They already shut down rallies, paid speeches, and committed violence at Trump campaign rallies.

at what point are you willing to say that it crosses the line? That people are entitled to listen to a conservative speaker, or attend a political rally without having to deal with the threat of violence. Because we all know how this one ends. Eventually people will say enough is enough, and it will make Charlottesville look like a pre-school girls soccer match. And it will be average Americans (not White Supremacists) fighting the anti-fascists.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

As Charles Cook argue at NRO, it's a capital idea the liberals are arguing making exceptions for hateful and offensive speech.

We can let president Trump and vice-president Pence decide what's appropriate speech deserving of protection.

Morons.

wphamilton said...

at what point are you willing to say that it crosses the line?

Come on CH I've been over that, several times from several directions.

My agreeing or disagreeing with their opinions has zip to do with it. I could make a MUCH better case, from this thread, that you are defending the Unite the Right group so adamantly because you DO agree with them - but I won't stoop that level CH?

wphamilton said...

CH, they are "doing more" because the President encouraged them.

Do not remain silent in the face of evil.

C.H. Truth said...

Actually WP...

If you had been really paying attention my overriding issue is with what the anti-fascists have been doing in shutting down conservative speakers, Religious rallies, and other speech that they deem to be fascist.

My point is exactly the same argument that people are using to criticize the President... that by so many of you defending their violence specifically that it encourages it in general.