Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Peregrinus · 26-07-2017 7:41am

Samaris wrote: »

Just to jump a sec to half-baked Republican presidential fruitcakes - what on earth was that speech about to the Boy Scouts? Does he actually have preprogrammed sentences that have to be forced into every speech? If he goes more than two new sentences, does he have to take a break with an old familiar or what?

Basically this. Trump is a sociopath who has no sense of the perspective of other people. Thus for him, when making a speech, it make no sense to think about what his audience wants to hear or is interested in hearing; what matters to him is what he wants to say, and that's only marginally related to who he happens to be speaking to at the time.

silverharp · 26-07-2017 8:41am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Basically this. Trump is a sociopath who has no sense of the perspective of other people. Thus for him, when making a speech, it make no sense to think about what his audience wants to hear or is interested in hearing; what matters to him is what he wants to say, and that's only marginally related to who he happens to be speaking to at the time.

I just looked it up, it was a 38 min speech and it seemed to down well with the scouts. also note Obama went to fundraiser and just sent a video clip :pac:

Peregrinus · 26-07-2017 8:47am

silverharp wrote: »

I just looked it up, it was a 38 min speech and it seemed to down well with the scouts.

Of course it went down well with the scouts. Teenage boys love seeing conventions flouted, and bad behaviour from adults who should know better. I haven't watched the tape, but I'm sure they cheered him to the echo.

The deal here is that the serving President of the United States is, ex officio, honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America. It says so in the BSA Charter. Every four years they hold a National Jamboree and the President is, by convention, invited to attend and address the Jamboree. Sometimes he declines (Reagan did); sometimes he sends a message (Obama did); sometimes he attends (both Bushes did). Regardless, the balancing convention is that the President's message or address should always be non-partisan. (Yay scouting! Yay ethic of service! Yay scout oath and law! You get the picture.) Where the President has an ex officio role in a public service organisation, it's regarded as an abuse of that role to use it to advance a partisan or politically controversial agenda. Trump either doesn't understand this, or doesn't care about it; hence the flak.

Fortunately for the Girl Scouts of America, their honorary president is the serving First Lady. So they'll be spared the kind of speech that Donald Trump might think appropriate for an audience of young women.

Professor Moriarty · 26-07-2017 9:30am

silverharp wrote: »

I just looked it up, it was a 38 min speech and it seemed to down well with the scouts. also note Obama went to fundraiser and just sent a video clip :pac:

Read this in the context of convention and the composition of the audience. Then tell me it was an appropriate speech.

PopePalpatine · 26-07-2017 3:20pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fortunately for the Girl Scouts of America, their honorary president is the serving First Lady. So they'll be spared the kind of speech that Donald Trump might think appropriate for an audience of young women.

I'm sure any Girl Scouts who were at the last National Jamboree and are planning to attend the next one will get a sense of deja vu when listening to Melania.

Samaris · 26-07-2017 6:51pm

silverharp wrote: »

I just looked it up, it was a 38 min speech and it seemed to down well with the scouts. also note Obama went to fundraiser and just sent a video clip :pac:

I'd prefer quality of content over quantity, and I highly doubt Obama would have sent such a ridiculous message as Trump blathered. Being as he is an articulate and intelligent man (regardless of whether one agrees with what he's saying).

Pherekydes · 26-07-2017 11:16pm

Samaris wrote: »

I'd prefer quality of content over quantity, and I highly doubt Obama would have sent such a ridiculous message as Trump blathered. Being as he is an articulate and intelligent man (regardless of whether one agrees with what he's saying).

Hehe, he probably waffled on for about 37 minutes about how good his speech was going to be.

robindch · 09-08-2017 10:47pm

Is it worth adding to the ongoing soap-opera trainwreck combo which is #45's presidency? It might have taken him six months to threaten violence and war, but at least god's on his side:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/08/god-has-given-trump-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un-evangelical-adviser-says/

WaPo wrote:

Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, one of President Trump’s evangelical advisers who preached the morning of his inauguration, has released a statement saying the president has the moral authority to “take out” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”

Jeffress said in a phone interview that he was prompted to make the statement after Trump said that if North Korea’s threats to the United States continue, Pyongyang will be “met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

[...]

Jeffress, who was an early supporter of Trump, has said that after sharing Wendy’s cheeseburgers in Iowa, he believed Trump would be the next president and that it would be because God placed him there. In July, his church choir and orchestra performed a song called “Make America Great Again” at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in D.C., where Trump was in attendance.

Christy42 · 10-08-2017 7:57am

robindch wrote: »

Is it worth adding to the ongoing soap-opera trainwreck combo which is #45's presidency? It might have taken him six months to threaten violence and war, but at least god's on his side:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/08/god-has-given-trump-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un-evangelical-adviser-says/

If you believe that logic then the obvious corollary is that it extends to all evil doers. Now while Kim is obviously evil there are some disagreements in other areas.

I am always impressed how followers of a man who, to be fair, did not encourage violence and then decide that this man wanted violence and realistically a death toll beyond serious belief if NK manage to respond against anyone.

recedite · 10-08-2017 10:54am

Its a couple of years too late to stop NK becoming a nuclear power.
The US does not attack nuclear powers, which is why NK was obliged to become one.

I think we will see the rhetoric tone down now. Both sides will continue to huff and puff, but there will be much less talk about the US "doing something about NK"; because nothing can be done. Eventually the American public will start to recognise this fact, and so the rhetoric of their leaders can reflect that.
The US has insufficient military assets located in the area for any major engagement, which is a good signal to send to Kim, and one which he will understand clearly.

Samaris · 10-08-2017 12:07pm

robindch wrote: »

Is it worth adding to the ongoing soap-opera trainwreck combo which is #45's presidency? It might have taken him six months to threaten violence and war, but at least god's on his side:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/08/god-has-given-trump-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un-evangelical-adviser-says/

That was gobsmacking. Funnily enough, I'd been having a debate with my fiance about current dangers to the world, and I was taking the view that Islamic fundamentalism is currently the greatest religious danger (although Christian fundamentalism is dangerous in the West and in parts of Africa).

Then that happened about an hour after and I had to concede the point

silverharp · 10-08-2017 3:57pm

somebody is smoking something, Pay to Pray?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/hillary-clinton-devotionals/535941/

Hillary Wants to Preach

Religion is playing a big role in Clinton’s post-election tour. What does she have to gain from sharing her faith now?

Hillary Clinton wants to preach. That’s what she told Bill Shillady, her longtime pastor, at a recent photo shoot for his new book about the daily devotionals he sent her during the 2016 campaign. Scattered bits of reporting suggest that ministry has always been a secret dream of the two-time presidential candidate: Last fall, the former Newsweek editor Kenneth Woodward revealed that Clinton told him in 1994 that she thought “all the time” about becoming an ordained Methodist minister. She asked him not to write about it, though: “It will make me seem much too pious.” The incident perfectly captures Clinton’s long campaign to modulate—and sometimes obscure—expressions of her faith.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-08-2017 9:25pm

[monty python fake woman's voice]Well I'm glad I didn't vote for her[/monty python fake woman's voice]

This is eerily prescient. Just needs the hair a bit more.. well you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj9M34DzAKo

robindch · 10-08-2017 11:37pm

Samaris wrote: »

That was gobsmacking.

Well, there's no doubt that #45 is the soap opera which continues to give. Yesterday, after #45 delivered his "fire and fury" comment yesterday, Tillerson tried to tone things down by claiming that #45 "was sending a strong message to North Korea in a language that Kim Jong Un would understand"; then a WH spokesman said that Tillerson shouldn't be talking about military matters; then #45 doubles down in prose which could have been written by a frightened, talentless eight year old:

#45 wrote:

I will tell you this, if North Korea does anything in terms of even thinking about attack of anybody that we love or we represent or our allies or us they can be very, very nervous. I'll tell you why… because things will happen to them like they never thought possible.

Elsewhere, it's turned out that #45's out-of-the-blue tweet demanding that USG prevent transgender people from serving in the US military was served up very shortly after the FBI conducted an early-morning raid on the house of his former election campaign manager, Paul Manafort (a guy who was paid at least $17 million dollars by the Party of The Regions, the probably defunct pro-Kremlin Ukrainian party whose president, Victor Yankovich, fled the capital in February 2014 when his secret police abandoned him after the Maidan massacre, precipitating Putin's theft of Crimea and his ongoing invasion and war in the Donbass). Some suspicious people have suggested that the raid, then the arrival of the distracting tweet, were not unrelated.

Oh yes, and #45's took time out today to thank Putin for requiring the State Department to fire 755 staff at the US Embassy in Moscow.

I'm sure there's more.

Samaris · 11-08-2017 11:21am

I wish an adult would come into the room, smack Trump and Kim around the ears and send them to opposite corners without their toys for a bit. Honest to god, has anything this bloody childish happened in international relations since...well, probably since the phonecalls in January - oh, and there was Qatar...okay, this is about par for the course after all.

But seriously. International nuclear chicken between two puffed-up fools, neither of whom can back down or speak as leaders (or even adults) who just keep shoving each other closer to the brink. Maybe this will keep up until the end of Trump's presidency or maybe one or the other will go too far and the midden will hit the windmill. Who bloody knows? Not like there's not nearly 7billion other people on this planet who don't want to see nuclear war in their lifetimes thank you. Trump and Kim's explosive penis-waving contest is the most important thing.

Professor Moriarty · 11-08-2017 12:16pm

Samaris wrote: »

I wish an adult would come into the room, smack Trump and Kim around the ears and send them to opposite corners without their toys for a bit. Honest to god, has anything this bloody childish happened in international relations since...well, probably since the phonecalls in January - oh, and there was Qatar...okay, this is about par for the course after all.

But seriously. International nuclear chicken between two puffed-up fools, neither of whom can back down or speak as leaders (or even adults) who just keep shoving each other closer to the brink. Maybe this will keep up until the end of Trump's presidency or maybe one or the other will go too far and the midden will hit the windmill. Who bloody knows? Not like there's not nearly 7billion other people on this planet who don't want to see nuclear war in their lifetimes thank you. Trump and Kim's explosive penis-waving contest is the most important thing.

Even more good news. If a nuclear strike is planned as a strategic intervention, then the decision is filtered through several people. However, if Trump believes that an ICBM has been launched and is targeted at the US or an ally, he has approximately 15 minutes to decide if he will retaliate. And he has absolute authority in such circumstances.

Samaris · 11-08-2017 12:47pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Even more good news. If a nuclear strike is planned as a strategic intervention, then the decision is filtered through several people. However, if Trump believes that an ICBM has been launched and is targeted at the US or an ally, he has approximately 15 minutes to decide if he will retaliate. And he has absolute authority in such circumstances.

Is it even 15? I thought it was 5, and it's certainly pretty short if the US decide to go for the whole punching-missiles-out-of-the-sky approach (which they may not, because it will be very embarrassing if they miss). As well as the epeening, it only takes one mistake, one dodgy report, one dodgy leaked report that the Tweeter in Chief sees on Fox & Friends in a White House with a rubbish chain-of-communication and -command for a hasty decision to be made that could have way-too-imaginable consequences.

It's not even malevolence I fear, it is sheer bat**** stupidity.

Professor Moriarty · 11-08-2017 12:58pm

Samaris wrote: »

Is it even 15? I thought it was 5, and it's certainly pretty short if the US decide to go for the whole punching-missiles-out-of-the-sky approach (which they may not, because it will be very embarrassing if they miss). As well as the epeening, it only takes one mistake, one dodgy report, one dodgy leaked report that the Tweeter in Chief sees on Fox & Friends in a White House with a rubbish chain-of-communication and -command for a hasty decision to be made that could have way-too-imaginable consequences.

It's not even malevolence I fear, it is sheer bat**** stupidity.

Between 12 and 25 minutes depending on where it was launched during which time Trump must decide if it is a false alarm and whether to respond. All in Trump's tiny hands.

robindch · 12-08-2017 10:46am

Samaris wrote: »

Maybe this will keep up until the end of Trump's presidency or maybe one or the other will go too far and the midden will hit the windmill. Who bloody knows?

He's going to run out of countries very quickly at this rate - he's just threatened Venezuela with an unspecified "military option". The Pentagon rolled back immediately, and there's no word from Tillerson or the GOP. Perhaps they'll make some comment in time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-military-idUSKBN1AR2GR

#45 wrote:

The people are suffering and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary.

Samaris · 12-08-2017 11:36am

robindch wrote: »

He's going to run out of countries very quickly at this rate - he's just threatened Venezuela with an unspecified "military option". The Pentagon rolled back immediately, and there's no word from Tillerson or the GOP. Perhaps they'll make some comment in time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-military-idUSKBN1AR2GR

I saw that and my automatic reaction was an explosive "SERIOUSLY?!"

You know the way that Trump has a semi-miraculous way of having accused someone else of something that he inevitably ends up doing? He said this about Obama a couple of years ago;

http://heavy.com/news/2017/08/trump-twitter-obama-north-korea-war-poll-approval/

It's ironic and ridiculous, but he's done it plenty of times now. I think he does honestly just ascribe his own personality traits to others when he wants to do them down. I wish that tweet hadn't shown up again, because it's looking more and more likely.

recedite · 12-08-2017 12:10pm

The Venezuela thing is interesting in that the president there has violated the fundamental principles of a republic; the separation of powers. He has blatantly and proudly taken control of the judiciary, and then persuaded them to strip the national assembly (parliament) of its legislative powers. Then replaced that with an alternative parliament of his supporters which he calls the constitutional assembly.

Meanwhile the legitimate National Assembly has activated two provisions in their constitution

This Constitution shall not cease to be in effect if it ceases to be observed due to acts of force or because or repeal in any manner other than as provided for herein. In such eventuality, every citizen, whether or not vested with official authority, has a duty to assist in bringing it back into actual effect.
Article 350
The people of Venezuela, true to their republican tradition and their struggle for independence, peace and freedom, shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.

I would assume they have also appealed to Washington for military help in restoring their democracy/separation of powers.

As there are no nukes in the country, this should be a safe bet for Trump to assert some power. "Restoring freedom" abroad is always popular with the US voter, and this seems to be a fairly straightforward situation, unlike some previous ones, like Iraq and Syria. If Trump intervenes and succeeds, he will be lauded as a hero by the legitimate national assembly of Venezuela, and by most of the Venezuelan people. And Trump loves to be lauded.

Maduro and his crowd will of course try to label it as "US imperialism", but that label won't stick because any US ground troops would return home very quickly.

So unlike with the NK situation, I'd guess the likelihood of US military action quite high for Venezuela.

Samaris · 12-08-2017 12:12pm

The problem is that both Venezuela and NK are issues at the moment and ones that might need intervention. I just wish that it wasn't Trump in the position of organising any intervening. NK was always eventually going to be a problem, they've been working on these missiles for decades and their clear purpose is to be able to have some pointed at a large American city. Understandably, the Americans object strongly to this position, whether or not Kim feels it neccessary. So eventually these viewpoints were going to run headlong into each other.

recedite · 12-08-2017 12:21pm

Samaris wrote: »

they've been working on these missiles for decades and their clear purpose is to be able to have some pointed at a large American city. Understandably, the Americans object strongly to this position

Yes, but the Americans and the Russians have been pointing missiles at each other for a long time. They have both learned to live with it. Neither side attacks the other because they both fear the consequences.
NK wants to be in that (relatively) secure position too, and they have probably achieved it at this stage.

PopePalpatine · 12-08-2017 1:34pm

That reminds me, Venezuela has the most oil reserves of any country...and guess what was Trump's biggest complaint about the Iraq War while on the campaign trail?

Samaris · 12-08-2017 3:13pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the Americans and the Russians have been pointing missiles at each other for a long time. They have both learned to live with it. Neither side attacks the other because they both fear the consequences.
NK wants to be in that (relatively) secure position too, and they have probably achieved it at this stage.

NK is also bonkers though and god knows what they'll do. Also, Russia and the US was a weapons-pointed-at-each-other deal. It's understandable that the US doesn't want to be needing to point weapons at both Russia and NK (who Russia keep helping out, possibly while giggling). The Cold War wasn't exactly fun times for anyone, come to that, and it took that before things settled down to the status quo.

Also..now what for nuclear proliferation. It has been a thing for a while of no more nuclear spread...unless your country is bat****, belligerent and determined and can bully it through for reasons involving pointing them at other countries (or, this being Kim, possibly attempting to execute people with them). I don't think this is the message that anyone wants!

However, it's happened now so...I don't know now what either. I'm just afraid of what Trump will decide is a good idea. This is a man that actually could declare war over Twitter.

Peregrinus · 12-08-2017 3:54pm

recedite wrote: »

The Venezuela thing is interesting in that the president there has violated the fundamental principles of a republic; the separation of powers. He has blatantly and proudly taken control of the judiciary, and then persuaded them to strip the national assembly (parliament) of its legislative powers. Then replaced that with an alternative parliament of his supporters which he calls the constitutional assembly.

Meanwhile the legitimate National Assembly has activated two provisions in their constitution . . .

None of which is any business of the United States'.

recedite wrote: »

I would assume they have also appealed to Washington for military help in restoring their democracy/separation of powers.

I wouldn't assume that at all. In the first place, if they had done anything of the kind we would certainly have heard about it. In the second place, such a call would undoubtedly alienate the Venezeulan people, who would regard it as treasonous or humiliating or both, and why would the Parliament want to alienate popular support?

As there are no nukes in the country, this should be a safe bet for Trump to assert some power. "Restoring freedom" abroad is always popular with the US voter, and this seems to be a fairly straightforward situation, unlike some previous ones, like Iraq and Syria. If Trump intervenes and succeeds, he will be lauded as a hero by the legitimate national assembly of Venezuela, and by most of the Venezuelan people. And Trump loves to be lauded.

recedite wrote: »

Maduro and his crowd will of course try to label it as "US imperialism", but that label won't stick because any US ground troops would return home very quickly.

I kind of doubt that! It hasn't been the usual pattern.

robindch · 13-08-2017 1:50am

recedite wrote: »

The Venezuela thing is interesting in that the president there has violated the fundamental principles of a republic; the separation of powers. He has blatantly and proudly taken control of the judiciary, and then persuaded them to strip the national assembly (parliament) of its legislative powers.

It's a little unusual that you seem to disapprove of some political shenagians when they happen in Venezuela, but seem broadly cheerful when similar things happen in Russia - where Putin has full control over the judiciary, and where there's a legislature which has reasonable legislative power in theory, but in practice, would prefer to remain in one piece rather than many, spread over a wide area :rolleyes:

recedite · 13-08-2017 9:55am

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of which is any business of the United States'.

True, but if there was ever a case for foreign intervention, this is it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't assume that at all. In the first place, if they had done anything of the kind we would certainly have heard about it.

Peaceful protest has got them nowhere, and a large number of people have been killed by the security forces. So their only option is to call in outside help. I would not expect any contacts with Washington to be made public. If there is going to be a US military intervention, it would most likely happen very suddenly and decisively, without prior warning or public notification.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the second place, such a call would undoubtedly alienate the Venezeulan people, who would regard it as treasonous or humiliating or both..

Its a tricky call alright.
On the one hand, half the country is out protesting and would love a bit of outside help.
On the other hand, nobody likes to be invaded. And people in Latin America, and particularly in left-wing Venezuela, have been conditioned to think of the US as an aggressive imperialist power, prone to interfering in their affairs (with some justification)

robindch wrote: »

It's a little unusual that you seem to disapprove of some political shenagians when they happen in Venezuela, but seem broadly cheerful when similar things happen in Russia

Its the direction they are moving in that counts. In Venezuela, things are going rapidly downhill.
In Russia, things are much better now than they were under communism, or subsequently under Yeltzin when the oligarchs conspired with western banksters to seize the nations wealth and hide it in offshore accounts, including Ireland. So while Putin may have his own oil interests in Russia, at least he keeps a lid on the other former oligarchs and keeps his own private assets in the country.

Samaris · 13-08-2017 12:29pm

I think things are coming towards a brink. Domestically, Trump is under investigation, there is rioting going on between white supremacists and counter-protesters, he is being condemned for his mealy-mouthed wibbling about it (and being cheered by the goddam KKK) and he keeps making threats of military intervention - isn't North Korea OR Venezuela enough to be dealing with? And his polling numbers have risen while he tough-talks NK.

There is nothing about this that bodes well at all.

PopePalpatine · 13-08-2017 12:41pm

Someone will be along shortly to tell us those aren't white supremacists mowing down people and marching in pseudo-military formation in Charlottesville, just "free speech activists".

Turtwig · 13-08-2017 1:42pm

Samaris wrote: »

I think things are coming towards a brink. Domestically, Trump is under investigation, there is rioting going on between white supremacists and counter-protesters, he is being condemned for his mealy-mouthed wibbling about it (and being cheered by the goddam KKK) and he keeps making threats of military intervention - isn't North Korea OR Venezuela enough to be dealing with? And his polling numbers have risen while he tough-talks NK.

There is nothing about this that bodes well at all.

Nope, but even if you subtract Trump the United States is a very dangerously polarised nation at the moment. Trump, assuming he goes, will just be a symbol for a much more deep rooted problem.

Samaris · 13-08-2017 2:18pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Someone will be along shortly to tell us those aren't white supremacists mowing down people and marching in pseudo-military formation in Charlottesville, just "free speech activists".

Yeah, they're already out in force. Haven't you heard it's all the leftists faults? Sure, the poor little demonised white supremacists only want to subjugate the lesser races and anyone that doesn't agree with them, and don't they have the right to their opinions, marches and mowing people over with cars?

Turtwig wrote: »

Nope, but even if you subtract Trump the United States is a very dangerously polarised nation at the moment. Trump, assuming he goes, will just be a symbol for a much more deep rooted problem.

I really don't know what's going to happen in the US now. It is horrifying and tragic. And even if Trump was removed, his successors aren't exactly great shakes either. Even the Democrats don't seem to be able to raise anyone above the parapet who has a chance of leading the country out of this morass. And it is awful that so many countries are, to a greater or lesser extent, buying into the same claptrap as an excuse to unleash their worse demons.

It will pass, as it always has before. But I don't know how many people will die in the meantime.

Edit: I've been angry, frustrated, horrified and saddened by some of the stuff going on over the past year. Oddly enough, it's only in the last few days that I've actually felt afraid.

oscarBravo · 13-08-2017 4:10pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Someone will be along shortly to tell us those aren't white supremacists mowing down people and marching in pseudo-military formation in Charlottesville, just "free speech activists".

...and the people protesting against actual self-identified Nazis aren't ordinary decent people but "antifa" and just as bad as the Nazis themselves.

Don't worry, the right-wing spin merchants are in full swing over on Politics.

silverharp · 13-08-2017 4:11pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Someone will be along shortly to tell us those aren't white supremacists mowing down people and marching in pseudo-military formation in Charlottesville, just "free speech activists".

leaving aside the first part of your statement which is dumb, are you second guessing the ACLU?

Atomic Pineapple · 14-08-2017 9:24am

It's pretty astonishing that it's only been 70 years since World War II ended, yet we have Americans using the swastika as a symbol of their "patriotism", emboldened by their very own president to do so. It really makes you question whether humanity actually has a chance of making it past our primitive self destructive nature in time.

jooksavage · 14-08-2017 9:31am

Some of those sieg-heiling apes' grandfathers risked life and limb against Nazi Germany. Too bad they can't come back to knock some sense into their progeny.

frostyjacks · 14-08-2017 2:28pm

Though you may disagree with the protesters the other day, they were merely exercising their constitutional rights. It was the counter-protesters who instigated the violence, and it's they who are mainly responsible for the death of that woman. If people don't like what white America has to say, don't listen to them. It's that simple.

Delirium · 14-08-2017 2:36pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Though you may disagree with the protesters the other day, they were merely exercising their constitutional rights. It was the counter-protesters who instigated the violence, and it's they who are mainly responsible for the death of that woman. If people don't like what white America has to say, don't listen to them. It's that simple.

How so? were they driving the car?

MrPudding · 14-08-2017 2:59pm

Delirium wrote: »

How so? were they driving the car?

No, but they made the really nice far right people really, really, cross, therefore it was their own fault that they got run down.

Really Delirium, this is very basic victim blaming, not sure how you can't get it.

MrP

PopePalpatine · 14-08-2017 3:09pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Though you may disagree with the protesters the other day, they were merely exercising their constitutional rights. It was the counter-protesters who instigated the violence, and it's they who are mainly responsible for the death of that woman. If people don't like what white America has to say, don't listen to them. It's that simple.

Did you regurgitate this from the Daily Stormer? :rolleyes:

Those walking examples disproving the idea there's a white "master race" are not "white America" any more than "Alive!" is "Catholic Ireland".

Atomic Pineapple · 14-08-2017 3:17pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Though you may disagree with the protesters the other day, they were merely exercising their constitutional rights. It was the counter-protesters who instigated the violence, and it's they who are mainly responsible for the death of that woman. If people don't like what white America has to say, don't listen to them. It's that simple.

Far right protesters turned up with riot shields and home made weapons as well as with with a private militia. But I'm sure they were completely innocent in any occurrences of violence.

The only person responsible for the death of Heather Heyer was the person driving the car, a complete and utter scumbag equivalent to an Islamic terrorist.

Suggesting counter protesters were responsible for his actions is the equivalent to suggesting those who stand against Islamic terrorism are responsible for its atrocities and I seriously hope you are not suggesting that.

PopePalpatine · 14-08-2017 3:30pm

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Far right protesters turned up with riot shields and home made weapons as well as with with a private militia. But I'm sure they were completely innocent in any occurrences of violence.

The only person responsible for the death of Heather Heyer was the person driving the car, a complete and utter scumbag equivalent to an Islamic terrorist.

Suggesting counter protesters were responsible for his actions is the equivalent to suggesting those who stand against Islamic terrorism are responsible for it atrocities and I seriously hope you are not suggesting that.

He and Daesh probably hold women in similar esteem, it's the alt-right way.

frostyjacks · 14-08-2017 4:12pm

Delirium wrote: »

How so? were they driving the car?

Had they stayed away and respected the rights of assembly and free speech, then nobody would have got hurt. They poured fuel on the flames.

Christy42 · 14-08-2017 4:18pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Had they stayed away and respected the rights of assembly and free speech, then nobody would have got hurt. They poured fuel on the flames.

Are you really attempting to justify driving a car into someone?!? A serious terrorist was attack and it is somehow the fault of those being driven into?

Having a counter protest does not restrict anyone's rights. Driving a car into people does. There is no justification for it but some are looking to condemn everyone but the white nationalist driving the car into people.

Atomic Pineapple · 14-08-2017 4:21pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Had they stayed away and respected the rights of assembly and free speech, then nobody would have got hurt. They poured fuel on the flames.

Rights of assembly and free speech are not exclusive to one group or the other, they had every right to be there under the same grounds you claim they disrespected.

I would suggest a group bearing Nazi symbolism, chanting Nazi slogans and with Nazi ideals in a country where only 70 years previous it's people made a great sacrifice to rid the world of such thinking could be slightly more culpable of pouring fuel on flames. As such even if anyone fueled flames it is no excuse for anyone executing a terrorist attack and killing an innocent person.

Delirium · 14-08-2017 4:26pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Had they stayed away and respected the rights of assembly and free speech, then nobody would have got hurt. They poured fuel on the flames.

hold on. You're contradicting yourself. The nazis get free assembly and free speech but those opposed to the nazis don't?

add to that your implicit condoning of murdering of one group (in violation of the their rights of assembly and free speech) gives a hollow ring to your post advocating right of assembly/ free speech.

jooksavage · 14-08-2017 4:34pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Had they stayed away and respected the rights of assembly and free speech, then nobody would have got hurt. They poured fuel on the flames.

This is how far we've come as a society: stay away and respect the Nazis.

As Kumail Nanjiani puts it:

70 years ago: Nazis bad
20 years ago: Nazis bad
5 years ago: Nazis bad
Now: well... you know...uh... first amendment...uh

PopePalpatine · 14-08-2017 5:03pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Are you really attempting to justify driving a car into someone?!? A serious terrorist was attack and it is somehow the fault of those being driven into?

Having a counter protest does not restrict anyone's rights. Driving a car into people does. There is no justification for it but some are looking to condemn everyone but the white nationalist driving the car into people.

Maybe Breivik & Roof should have used that excuse when they had their day in court. "Those blacks/race traitors were infringing on my rights as a white man, REEEEEEEEEE!"

Samaris · 14-08-2017 7:41pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Though you may disagree with the protesters the other day, they were merely exercising their constitutional rights. It was the counter-protesters who instigated the violence, and it's they who are mainly responsible for the death of that woman. If people don't like what white America has to say, don't listen to them. It's that simple.

Rubbish. Have you conceded yet that the man who did it did it deliberately and viciously under no threat to himself yet, or are you still trying to argue that the poor wee man was being viciously attacked by a rampant mob and floored it to protect himself as you previously insisted in the face of all available evidence?

Also, you have no proof that the counter-protesters instigated the violence, you are categorically wrong going by video evidence that it was happening at the march where the car was driven into the crowd, and no, the counter-protesters are not responsible for the woman's death and nor was she. To indicate that she was, merely for being there, is the worst sort of victim-blaming.

There is a difference between "free speech" and "consequence-free speech". That gang of Nazis demand the latter and call it the former. As, right now, are you.

frostyjacks · 15-08-2017 7:54am

Samaris wrote: »

Rubbish. Have you conceded yet that the man who did it did it deliberately and viciously under no threat to himself yet, or are you still trying to argue that the poor wee man was being viciously attacked by a rampant mob and floored it to protect himself as you previously insisted in the face of all available evidence?

Also, you have no proof that the counter-protesters instigated the violence, you are categorically wrong going by video evidence that it was happening at the march where the car was driven into the crowd, and no, the counter-protesters are not responsible for the woman's death and nor was she. To indicate that she was, merely for being there, is the worst sort of victim-blaming.

There is a difference between "free speech" and "consequence-free speech". That gang of Nazis demand the latter and call it the former. As, right now, are you.

The attack was regrettable, as were all the othet attacks from both sides, but you have to put it in a wider context. American history is being rewritten before their eyes. Statues of great men torn down and spat on, schools and parks renamed. It's a concerted attack on their heritage. I really don't care if some bleeding hearts have an issue with some of the Confederate leaders being slave owners. Thousands of Americans died in that war and now descendants of non-Americans are dancing on their graves.

Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Comments