Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Trump's remarks
  Previous  1  2  3 10  11  12 19  20  21  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 8:15 am
sushilover wrote:
Antifa came for violence. They believe in violence as much as the white supremacists do. I condemn violence. I condemn movements which states explicitly that they will counter hate speech with violence. I condemn movements who counter MAGA hats with violence.
Antifa was not just there to protect synagogues. They were there to physically attack people whose ideology they opposed. If that's something you applaud, we are in a dangerous place.


I love the way you put that- ideology they oppose. Like it's just ideas we're talking about here. They were there to protest against and defend themselves against people whose ideology by its nature promotes violence against them- because they're black, gay, Jewish, or a race traitor.
Did you watch the documentary? Many of those Nazis were armed to the teeth. If they are allowed to march armed, yelling hateful rhetoric, why shouldn't the other side come prepared?
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 8:20 am
Fox wrote:

So what would it have taken? What response from the Trump administration would have made you say, "Huh. He handled that surprisingly well"?


Step 1: He misspoke immediately afterward.
Step 2: He issued a coherent statement everyone applauded. There's your answer.
Step 3: He went off the deep end at the later, originally unrelated, press conference. Hugh Hewitt, who was never an enthusiastic Trumper but not quite a reluctant Trumper, said in dissecting Step 3, can't remember at what point, that this was the point at which American politics broke, and that while he is convinced Trump isn't an anti-Semitic racist, he is a Lego short of a building. (His line. Or maybe he said, his building is missing a Lego. Point is, everyone, or at least everyone who calls him/herself a Republican, is having trouble processing the bread part of this sandwich.)

Now to go back to p. 8 or 9 and see the conversation there.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 8:36 am
Fox wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. The standards for Presidential behavior plummeted two decades ago. That horse has not only left the barn but has trotted down the road.

I'm not deflecting criticism. Criticize away. Just don't make things up.


There is a Doonesbury I just came across in a 2000 anthology and I cannot find a link for it. It starts off with Duke waking up with a blanket over his head, convinced he's dead, wondering what finally did him in, and ends with his groupie saying, "With a first lady, you'll be unstoppable." Had I found it, I'm not sure if I was going to share it because it is ingrained in me to have respect for the government. (We did it for the Czar, we can certainly do it for it DJT.)

Point is, yes, the horse has left the barn and is in another hemisphere by now. But there is something qualitatively different about this presidency and I'll share a conversation I had with an old British friend. (And I was thinking of sharing this too and was very hesitant, but I think it might not be inappropriate. If I'm wrong, someone can pm me and I'll delete this post.) This friend isn't so into the news and was amused at how animated I was over this...what's a step above kerfuffle? So I said this: "Look, 100 years ago or so, our ancestors were all in Lita and Poland. Yet we took national history. You grew up hearing stories of insane leaders due to inbreeding, Henry the VIII, etc. On this side of the pond, ok, we had some colorful presidents. And there've been a lot of presidents whose personal morality should preclude them from getting within a mile of the Boy Scouts Jamboree. But this is a first for us, at least in recent, remembered history." My friend conceded the point.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 8:45 am
fmt4 wrote:
Unfortunately the police weren't everywhere. A lot of people said that antifa defended them from violent Nazis.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp......html
Im not saying that some of them may not be violent. But in this case they were the ones protecting synagogues and churches when the police were not.
And they are not going around saying that certain races do not deserve to be a part of this country.

Hm.. forgive me if I take a slate article with a hunk of salt. Besides, if I shared stories of white nationalists protecting people from gang members, would you then condone their ideology?

a reporter asked Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas, "Do you believe they [the alt right] were the ones who instigated the fighting?
Thomas answered, "we did have mutually combatting individuals in the crowd."

Antifa are not your friends. They believe in countering hate speech with violence. They have threatened violence to any group they deem racist. Sometimes this includes actual racist (I still condemn that. Racist rhetoric should not be met with fists in this country.) and sometimes this includes anyone who supports Trump.


Last edited by sushilover on Thu, Aug 17 2017, 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 8:46 am
Amarante wrote:
Statement by the Rsbbinical Council of America. No moral equivalency

The largest body of Orthodox rabbis in the United States released a statement on Wednesday condemning President Trump’s continued comparisons between white supremacist marchers and counter-protestors in Charlottesville, Va.

“There is no moral comparison,” the president of the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi Elazar Muskin, said in a statement. “Failure to unequivocally reject hatred and bias is a failing of moral leadership and fans the flames of intolerance and chauvinism. While as a rabbinic organization we prefer to address issues and not personalities, this situation rises above partisan politics and therefore we are taking the unusual approach to directly comment on the words of the President.”

RCA executive vice president Rabbi Mark Dratch added that their group “call[s] on President Trump to understand the critical consequences of his words. We call on all the leaders of our country to denounce all groups who incite hate, bigotry and racism, while taking action and using language that will heal the terrible national wounds of Charlottesville.”


I repeat, HOW is my condemnation of 2 violent ideologies, both of whom were involved in a violent confrontation, misconstrued as a defense of white nationalists?
I don’t care how many Rabbis you quote, you cannot convince me that it is wrong to call out evil wherever I see it.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 8:51 am
Amarante wrote:
Statement by the Rsbbinical Council of America. No moral equivalency

The largest body of Orthodox rabbis in the United States released a statement on Wednesday condemning President Trump’s continued comparisons between white supremacist marchers and counter-protestors in Charlottesville, Va.

“There is no moral comparison,” the president of the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi Elazar Muskin, said in a statement. “Failure to unequivocally reject hatred and bias is a failing of moral leadership and fans the flames of intolerance and chauvinism. While as a rabbinic organization we prefer to address issues and not personalities, this situation rises above partisan politics and therefore we are taking the unusual approach to directly comment on the words of the President.”

RCA executive vice president Rabbi Mark Dratch added that their group “call[s] on President Trump to understand the critical consequences of his words. We call on all the leaders of our country to denounce all groups who incite hate, bigotry and racism, while taking action and using language that will heal the terrible national wounds of Charlottesville.”


Let’s unpack the term “moral equivalency” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/M.....lence

According to wiki, Moral equivalency seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other.

For you to argue that I am making a logical fallacy, you would have to prove that antifa is unrelated to white nationalism and the mayhem that ensued in Charlottesville. Well, antifa was very much related to the violence. They are a proudly violent movement and the fact that so many on this site and in the media continue to whitewash their evil is astounding. (a logical fallacy would be for me to bring up Hillary’s emails. Or BLM. But in no way was antifa an unrelated part of the Charlottesville violence)

Am I saying that the two groups are just as bad as each other? Their ideologies definitely are. Both groups believe in using violence to achieve their means and have no compunctions about threatening groups they oppose.

Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison.
Neither I, nor anyone on this site is claiming that white nationalists are not as bad as antifa by comparison.

So no one is making a false moral equivalence here.

You may argue (like Romney): “But white nationalists are racists while antifa are the anti racists here”

To that I say: You must condemn any movement which promotes violence as a means to achieve their goals. What is dangerous about white nationalism is not its racism. The thing with America is that you are free to feel as racist as you like. You’d be stupid. Because racism is stupid. But the moment you start intimidating another group, you are the scum of the earth. (not to get too off topic, but Nixon’s hateful beliefs about Jews bother me far less than Carter’s actions to legitimize Hamas, even though I don’t believe that Carter was an anti-semite)
Do you agree that violence and intimidation are the key issues here?

You may argue: “But white nationalists are a larger force than antifa”

I would respond: first of all, THAT would be a moral equivalency fallacy. Just because one group is larger, doesn’t mean the other violent group isn’t as bad by comparison. (for example: Communism killed more people, that of course doesn’t make Nazism better by comparison!)
Second of all, I don’t have a problem condemning evil ideologies even if their movement is smaller than other groups. Like Fox said, your condemnation is not a pie which must be given to only one movement. Condemning antifa does not diminish your condemnation of the violent alt right.

In conclusion, it seems clear to me that there is only one side of the debate which white washes evil ideologies, as long as that movement is fighting the same enemies they are. There is only one side in this debate which calls people apologists or worse for the sin of condemning both violent movements in Charlottesville. And there is only one side in this debate which refuses to condemn the violence coming from their own.
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:04 am
The main difference between the two ideologies is that nazism/ fascism glorifies and promotes violence as an end, not just as a means.
Antifa sees violence as a means to stop fascism, as a form of self defense against an ideology that seeks to do violence against its members and others.
It's very clear that one is evil and one isn't. Violence doesn't equal evil.
Would you consider the resistance/underground during WW2 as equivalent to the nazis? They were certainly extremely violent, often instigating conflicts, even at times hurting "innocent" Germans.
I'm not saying that I agree with violent tactics. I'm saying that just because both sides use violence , that doesn't mean that they are morally equivalent. There is a lot of nuance and context that you are glossing over.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:20 am
you can feel free to bury your head in the sand and pretend that antifa's violence is justified because it is simply self defense. I can promise you that there are hundreds of white nationalists/ supremacists who also consider their movement simply self defense.

I would dread to think of what you would call me if I were to defend them, list some of the good they have done, compare them to war heros, and ignore any evidence to their evil.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:29 am
Antifa claims to be anti fascists. But it’s fascist in its own right. It’s a communist and anarchist movement dedicated to the use of violence against anyone they deem worthy – up to and including normal Trump voters and conservative Republicans. By allying with Antifa, the Left lends credence to the alt-right’s claim that they are victims of violence rather than perpetrators of it.
Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/380.....ille/
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:31 am
sushilover wrote:
you can feel free to bury your head in the sand and pretend that antifa's violence is justified because it is simply self defense. I can promise you that there are hundreds of white nationalists/ supremacists who also consider their movement simply self defense.

I would dread to think of what you would call me if I were to defend them, list some of the good they have done, compare them to war heros, and ignore any evidence to their evil.


If that's what you would rather do then addrsss any of my points, then Please, go right ahead. It won't be the first time I've heard Jews defending Nazis in the past week.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:39 am
fmt4 wrote:
If that's what you would rather do then addrsss any of my points, then Please, go right ahead. It won't be the first time I've heard Jews defending Nazis in the past week.


I've given up. Some people have an issue with condemning Nazis full stop, without switching the subject and trying to talk about something else. Really if it's not in an adult to be able to do that on their own, I'm humble enough to recognize I won't be able to teach them to.

As a reminder, this whole thread started because the president said there were fine people marching with the Nazis.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:45 am
fmt4 wrote:
If that's what you would rather do then addrsss any of my points, then Please, go right ahead. It won't be the first time I've heard Jews defending Nazis in the past week.


There we go again. I'm a nazi defender. Is this the third or fourth time I've been called that in this conversation? It's hard to keep track...

I condemn the white nationalists with the strongest terms possible, I condemn antifa as being against freedom and democracy. I condemn evil wherever I see it. And that, ladies makes me a nazi defender. Rolling Eyes
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:51 am
Please explain how I didn't respond to your points.
You defended antifa because you see their violence as a means, not an end. I explained that many white supremacists would say the same about their movement.

You compared antifa to ww2 heroes. I explained how disgusted you would be if someone were to do the same to white supremacists.
You are taking a group of violent thugs who live in country where racism and hate can be addressed through democratic means, and you actually defend them and compare them to heroes.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 10:55 am
sushilover wrote:
I repeat, HOW is my condemnation of 2 violent ideologies, both of whom were involved in a violent confrontation, misconstrued as a defense of white nationalists?
I don’t care how many Rabbis you quote, you cannot convince me that it is wrong to call out evil wherever I see it.


Because timing is everything. The white supremacists were the instigators in this scenario and came in with hate speech, weapons and ultimately violence that lead to the death of a young woman and injured many more. Therefore the time now is to make a clear disavowal of their policies and actions, especially if you are president of the United States.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 11:08 am
dancingqueen wrote:
Because timing is everything. The white supremacists were the instigators in this scenario and came in with hate speech, weapons and ultimately violence that lead to the death of a young woman and injured many more. Therefore the time now is to make a clear disavowal of their policies and actions, especially if you are president of the United States.


1) we don't have proof that the supremacists were the instigators. Antifa came with weapons and violence as well.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I will not defend people who believe that hateful words should be met with violence. Why are you?
2) Trumps comments were egregious. Especially when he said there were some good people at the white supremacist rally. shock I've said this before.
3) But that still begs the question, why am I being called the worst names for calling out both evil ideologies involved in the melee?

Clearly you don't see antifa as evil. Perhaps because you share an enemy. Perhaps because you are making a false moral equivalence and saying that since white nationalists are even worse in your opinion, that makes antifa OK.
Back to top

chaiz




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 11:32 am
WhatFor wrote:


As a reminder, this whole thread started because the president said there were fine people marching with the Nazis.


I think this really is a big issue, if not THE issue here. At least for me. What I find extremely troubling here is how the Women's March/resistance movement was condemned due to Linda Sarsour being one of the vocal leaders. I think that is legitimate criticism. Yet here it is totally acceptable for Trump to make those comments. Mere disagreement with Trump is just not enough. To think it is okay, I just disagree with it means that there is some acceptance of it on a certain level. That is not okay.
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 11:40 am
sushilover wrote:
There we go again. I'm a nazi defender. Is this the third or fourth time I've been called that in this conversation? It's hard to keep track...

I condemn the white nationalists with the strongest terms possible, I condemn antifa as being against freedom and democracy. I condemn evil wherever I see it. And that, ladies makes me a nazi defender. Rolling Eyes


Huh? You're the one that said that you could defend them and talk about the good that they do etc. look back at your post.
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 11:46 am
sushilover wrote:
Please explain how I didn't respond to your points.
You defended antifa because you see their violence as a means, not an end. I explained that many white supremacists would say the same about their movement.

You compared antifa to ww2 heroes. I explained how disgusted you would be if someone were to do the same to white supremacists.
You are taking a group of violent thugs who live in country where racism and hate can be addressed through democratic means, and you actually defend them and compare them to heroes.


They feel, perhaps legitimately, that when we have a president like trump, who won't fully condemn white supremacism, that there is a question whether racism and hate can be addressed through democratic means.
I'm not agreeing with them, I'm just saying that I wouldn't call that evil.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 11:52 am
sushilover wrote:
1) we don't have proof that the supremacists were the instigators. Antifa came with weapons and violence as well.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I will not defend people who believe that hateful words should be met with violence. Why are you?
2) Trumps comments were egregious. Especially when he said there were some good people at the white supremacist rally. shock I've said this before.
3) But that still begs the question, why am I being called the worst names for calling out both evil ideologies involved in the melee?

Clearly you don't see antifa as evil. Perhaps because you share an enemy. Perhaps because you are making a false moral equivalence and saying that since white nationalists are even worse in your opinion, that makes antifa OK.


What are you talking about? How is it clear that I don't oppose antifa because I said I think it was appropriate to condemn the nazis in this case both for being instigators and actually murdering someone. Is it clear that you don't care that someone was murdered because you are more eager to condemn antifa?

For the record, if you'll read a few pages back I already posted that I abhor violent protestors on both sides. I hate violence in general. But I still maintain timing is everything.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Aug 17 2017, 11:56 am
sushilover wrote:
How did I twist your words? You don't condemn them and you think they can prevent WW2. In what way did I misrepresent you?


You claimed I saw them as heros. Those were the words you used. I hope that they can stop another holocaust at the hands of the nazi's in America, cause if we're depending on the Jews in America doing anything about it we're screwed.
Back to top
Page 11 of 21   Previous  1  2  3 10  11  12 19  20  21  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Trump Item
by amother
1 Sun, Feb 18 2024, 11:09 pm View last post
Censorship: Refusal to Air Trump Iowa Victory Speech
by Cheiny
0 Tue, Jan 16 2024, 2:50 pm View last post