Why is Trump Getting Attacked for Blaming Both Sides?

Nope, you are wrong----assuming &mis- interpreting to fit your narrative----

 

Your own words say otherwise.
People you do not like have the same rights as you do.
Why do you believe it is OK to use violence to suppress a point of view you disagree with?

 

They are agreeing with Trump. LOL

Trump said the exact same thing. He even condemned BOTH sides of the violence. Trump went above and beyond these tweets.

No kidding that you'd post from one of the most unreliable sources on the internet.

 

Well until you can have a Kristalnacht for KKK and Nazi's and ship them off to camps, you're stuck with them being in the country, although their numbers are quite small, so I'm not not sure what the worry is about a few thousand people in a nation of over 320 million.

 

No, Clinton was NOT a popular candidate to begin with, and after she screwed Sanders in the California primary, the piss poor candidate Trump-icana was a shoe in. And are you THAT absurd to pretend that the Shrub left Obama with a near Depression economy, and the GOP was dedicated to seeing Obama fail with obstruction, country be damned? Despite all that, Obama saved this country's butt, enough so that right wing wonks have time and money to waste spewing propaganda on the net.

 

To a certain extent, it could be. It would depend on how it's applied. I won't say that the way the US has utilized affirmative action has been 100% and completely ethical.

I think the difference one would argue is that affirmative action was put into place to correct past unethical behavior that left people behind, as in, LBJ's analogy about the foot race where one contestant had their legs tied together. Is it fair to simply untie their legs mid-race? No, fair is to start the race from equal footing.

So, again, affirmative action is a tricky thing. If one is ensuring it's being applied simply to equalize opportunity, then it's probably ethical. If it's being applied out of vengeance for past wrongs, it's probably ethical.

Sorry, I don't do black and white very well.

 

And yet you jump at the chance to address them. If it's so tedious, why don't you get on with the more important things you have to do in life?

Again, they killed a woman with a car. They as in not the antifa or the blm violence mongers, but the racists. They ran her over with a car. At that point, you don't try and obfuscate blame, you place blame where blame lies.

And the racists were well prepared for violence. They were armed. So don't act like they suddenly have a problem with violence for their cause.

The president failed to address that while there was violence on both sides, one of those sides was for racism and the other was opposing it. He said nothing about that. He also made equal the violence of two sides pushing and shoving versus murder.

You didn't address anything very well.

 

He. Not they. As far as I have read, the guy who ran the girl down was not directly associated with the groups in question.

As they knew they would face antifa terrorists, whose claim to fame is to "oppose" fascists "with deeds not words".
If you knew people with ball bats would show up to violently oppose your legitimate exercise of free speech, would you make preparations to defend yourself?

One side was for the suppression of free speech with violence. He didn't mention that either.

 

Neither was the guy who shot up the gay Orlando night club associated with any Islamic terrorists. As far as I have read.

That depends. When Martin Luther King marched, did he know he would be faced with violence? And did he encourage or discourage his supporters to bring weapons to defend themselves? I think your question says more about you than the fascists or the antifa.

The racists are by default against free speech by non-whites and Jews. So they already occupy that ethical low ground.

As for the suppression of free speech, let me learn you something. You have a right to speak, you do NOT have a right to be heard. That is, you can show up and chant what you like. But if someone shows up and distracts you or outshouts you, or does something to distract the media from you, that's not suppression of free speech. That's their exercise of free speech.

Using violence isn't a good choice and I don't condone that. But suppression of free speech is actually when the government throws you in jail for speaking your mind. Did that happen? Then no one's free speech was suppressed. You can speak all you want. No one is obliged to listen.

 

No, he called out violence on both sides, remember? That's your position. Are you altering it now in some worthless attempt to sound witty?

 

It's wrong because it's factually incorrect. There is no evidence or proof to support race as being a factor in superiority of any kind. Are you asking if it's acceptable to believe this? Sure, believe whatever you want. But it's not wrong when I tell you how stupid that belief is either.

 

I feel like you understand very little.

Have Muslims committed acts of terror? Yes they have. I have no problem blaming them.

The crusades weren't just about "white Christians," the crusades were a series of religious wars that have informed the attitudes of many religious leaders and people to this day, hence their relevance.

Villains? Did you really use the word villain outside of a work of fiction? I remember when Nazi's were the villains? Remember that in world war 2? I suppose it wasn't all their fault, must have been partially the Jews fault, right? Are you ready to blame white, Germans for starting a world war that killed tens of millions? Or do you not want to upset your president's base...?

If that were true, then I guess all those posts where I said violence is wrong wouldn't matter. But I said them. So clearly, I'm not interested in people bashing each other over their silly beliefs. You, on the other hand, seem super vested in letting Nazi's have their sunny day in the park and claiming that's just part of the beautiful life that is the American way. Perhaps you should enlighten us all as to why this is? What is it about those fine people you admire so much?

The sum up, violence on both sides is wrong, but one side did murder someone and the other did not. So they are the guiltier party. Also, they are racists where as the other side by all appearances seems to be against racism. So there's the issue of moral equivalency. Let's settle it this way, you can keep thinking and believing that the Nazi's are the victims and I won't. How's that?

 

Cool. relevance?

And so, you may or may not take steps to defend yourself - as is your right.
How it is wrong for the white supremacists to do so?

Nice attempt at a sidestep.
Doesn't change the fact one side was for, and attempted to engage in, the suppression of free speech with violence.
Trump didn't specifically call these people out -- does it mean he supports them, too?

Let me learn YOU something: the use of violence to stop the expression of said speech, is, unarguably, the suppression of free speech.

As. So DO you oppose the antifa and their use of violence to suppress free speech. Good.
Nice to hear -someone- does.

Hogwash.
Individuals and groups with no connection to the state are perfectly capable of suppression free speech through a number of actions, including violence.

 

Ohh.. I thought you meant in the moral sense. Seemed like that was the context of your statement.

 

Morals are subjective. They are what you do to make yourself feel like a good person. Ethics are how you treat others. The law and my concern stops at where your actions impact others.

 

Mostly, anyway.

 

In the context that Obama referred to them, he was referring to white Christians. White Christians are the ones primarily complaining about Muslims and their terrorist attacks, so Obama essentially told them that they were no better than the people they were criticizing, since their own group was responsible for atrocities as well. This is a typical kind of moral equivalency offered by left-wingers like Obama and he was celebrated for it.

Tens of millions were killed in the Soviet Union by the Bolsheviks before WWII ever began. The result? We teamed up with those Bolsheviks to defeat Hitler, and the progressive movement continued on the Red's work here in the West.

The other side isn't against racism, they're simply against white racism because the left is afraid of whites advocating on their own behalf, like other races do. They have no problem at all with black racists, Hispanic racists, etc. Quite the contrary.

 

The relevance is people trying to actually change something who are in the right, take the hit because they know they are right. Ask King or Gandhi. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

And it's not wrong as much as it shows they wanted a fight. They get a lot more publicity if they do.

If using factual information and logical conclusions qualifies as a sidestep, then sure, thanks.

Did they walk up to the Nazi's and turn a hose on them? How did the violence start? If you can't say without a doubt one person went there with intent, anymore than I can, then what happened was two sides argued until they got into a fight. So that's not suppression of free speech by violence, that's two sides fighting. Big difference.

No, it means he's a terrible politician. He might support them, but probably not. He doesn't mind if they support him, though does he? Not sure that says about him.

Wow, thanks for that. You must have gotten your degree at Trump University. Again, suppression of free speech or the violation of one's constitutional right to free speech can't happen the way you are claiming. If so, where are the charges by the right wing, conservative, republican, anti left DOJ? Right, because what you claim happened didn't happen.

I'm opposed to violence in general, save when it's necessary. Again, no one suppressed either sides free speech as I saw plenty of Nazi's spewing their speech all over the place that day on the news.

You are right, they CAN, but the burden of proof is where you fail miserably. You see, violations of one's rights, outside of the criminal charges that can be derived from the constitution, require a burden of proof. That is, you have to show that the Nazi's showed up with no intent to engage in violence but rather simply to express an opinion. You have to show they did nothing to antagonize or provoke violence. You then have to show that the other side showed up with the intent to stop their free speech using violence. Oh, and they HAVE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. You see, in order to have your rights violated, you have to NOT BE ABLE TO PROTEST. Tell me, at what point did we not hear, or see the successful protest of the Nazi's despite the violence, to use your president's words, from both sides? Whoops. Don't go into law.

Hey remember how I asked why MLK didn't arm his marchers in defense? Hmm...let's think about the relevance...could it have been to show that he was there PURELY to exercise his right to free speech and NOT provoke the police or counter protestors in any way? Duh...

So you see, your claims of violence to suppress free speech are as silly as Illinois Nazi's.

 

Well, technically, Christians regardless of color are supposed to be humble. They are not to think of themselves as superior to other religions. And indeed, even criminals are offered a measure of mercy or pity under the Christian religion. Jesus offered comfort to the criminals he was hung on the cross next to. Terrorists are criminals, murderers, if you translate it correctly. So what's your point? That Obama reminded Christians, of which he is one don't conveniently forget, to follow their own ideals when it comes to judging and entire religion that a handful of terrorists claims to represent?

So your making my point, there are no villains, just interests.

I don't have any problem with anyone advocating for themselves. I do have a problem when someone advocates for themselves at the expense of others. And while some in all races have done that, the Nazi's at this protest were doing exactly that. They blame Jews and blacks for things that aren't their fault, and thus want them removed or granted lessor status in society. Whatever you want to call that, racism or stupidity, it doesn't matter to me, but let's call it a virtue. I'm really tired of pretending I have to entertain the opinions and beliefs of the incredibly dumb, such as those protestors. They can think and say what they want, but I'm going to call it a festering turd sack and that's just fine.

 

Not wanting to be harmed or driven off while exercising their right to free speech is "wanting a fight".
Laughable

When that factual information and logical conclusions do not address the point they were posed in response to, then regardless of how factual or logical they are, it is a sidestep.
You're welcome.

The antifa terrorists arrived to "oppose" the fascists with "deeds, not words".
Thus, the intent and the actions to suppress free speech.

Wait.. he's terrible politician because, when blaming all sides for the violence, he doesn't name manes?
Pardon me -- I have to laugh. I can think of a number of ways Trump is a terrible politician, but blaming -everyone- while not singling out anyone isn't one of them.

Hogwash. Individuals and groups not associated with the state are perfectly capable of violating ANY of the civil rights of someone else, including the suppression of free speech. Your notion that this can only happen when the state does it is utterly and completely unsupportable.

Was it necessary for the antifa terrorists to oppose the free speech of the supremacists with violence?

I know -- but thank you for specifically agreeing. Glad we could clear that up.

 

• When Japan declared war on U.S. would you have blamed both sides?

 

Why would he have to remind them of this? The Crusades happened a long time ago and Christians have nothing to do with these terrorist attacks. Obama is just covering for a left-wing voting bloc, just like he and his fellow progressives travelers always do.

Uhh, sure.

Those protestors were advocating on behalf of themselves by opposing the assault from your side against their heritage. Like it or not, many people in this country are sympathetic with the Confederacy. Many of them can trace their family lineage back to the Confederates. Even the Patron saint Bill Clinton knew this when he made these while running for President:



You guys really think you can wage war against their history, their family tree, their culture, and expect them to go along with it? What you guys are doing is no better than what ISIS is doing in the Middle East - destroying monuments that existed before the establishment of Islam.

But you know what? I hope you guys continue your current course of action. Keep alienating as many white people as possible. All you have to do is lose about 10% more of the white vote and you won't have a chance at winning a National election for decades. It's a good thing for your side that whites aren't as monolithic in their voting as your cherished blacks and Hispanics, but maybe someday, they will be.

 

Heh, so "to treat someone differently under the law based solely on race is unethical by the very definition of it" does not mean affirmative action.

 

Except that racists having a march is not equivalent to declaring wars.

 

They're in support of institutionalized discrimination based on race as long as their groups are benefitting.