Escalation

[Aeson]

So the media showed footage of a neo-Nazi rally from May alongside Trump's comment about a protest in favor of a statue in August. That doesn't help their case.

You're doing what the media did, you're quoting the neo-Nazi chant from May to smear people protesting the statue's removal in August.

The chant and tiki torches occured at both rallies. Both were smaller events that happened at night before the official Unite the Right rally.

The chant was also taken up during the daytime march in the Unite the Right rally. As were many other anti-semetic signs, chants, and other racially charged chants/slogans.

Why do you assume everyone supporting the statue attended because they liked neo-Nazis?

I'm not saying they like Neo Nazis. I'm saying they willingly chose to march with Neo Nazis and White Supremacists without any imperative that they do so. Why they did so is irrelevent and the reasons will vary from individual to individual. But in any case, a "fine person" would not do such a thing. A fine person would not associate themselves willfully with such a rally. The statue is STILL there, and will likely be there for decades to come. There was and is no time critical aspect to such a rally that would necessitate associating with those you despise. (

There is strength in numbers, if you want to protest doing it by yourself wont be heard as loud as joining a thousand people.

Marching with the KKK, White Nationalists, or Neo Nazis only weakens your argument. Because what you are asying is "whatever my argument is" plus ... "I want to associate my cause with horrible racism"

The one man march cant compare to the million man march - and speaking of the latter, Louis Farrakhan organized that. Do you condemn all the people who showed up?

If the Million Man March had had 2 obviously hateful precursors, and had been a bunch of people chanting "Jews will not replace us" ... or some other hateful thing ... and had groups planning to show up to do horribly racist things that everyone knew they were going to do ... then yes. But the Million Man March had had no precursor which had devolved into horrible racism, and no reason to suspect that it would devolve into horrible racism ... and didn't devolve into horrible racism.

The analog you are looking for is the one I've already mentioned as the analog. Anyone who marched with Black Lives Matter while they were chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" was not a "fine person".

If you supported the statue and heard a protest was this weekend you'd attend without knowing or caring who else was coming. That doesn't make you a neo-Nazi anymore than attending a free speech rally makes you a communist because commies showed up. But it would in Joe McCarthy's mind.

I myself do not think the statues should be taken down. But I'm not going to show up and march alongside the KKK to voice my opinion, because I'M MUCH MORE FIRMLY AGAINST THE NEO NAZIS AND WHITE NATIONALISM THAN TAKING DOWN A STATUE. If somehow I had unwittingly showed up to such an event I would have crossed sides and counterdemonstrated the Neo Nazis and White Nationalists. Sadly the non Neo Nazis and non White Supremacist people at the Unite the Right rally couldn't say the same. That is why in my book they were not "fine people", though I do hope they have learned to be better people in the interim.

You can't march alongside a swastika with racist chants going on and pretend your hands aren't dirty.

McCarthyism employed a guilt by association you are using to smear the 'fine people' there to protest the removal of a statue, neo-Nazis were a minority of the protesters. It doesn't matter if the government was involved, the smear is the same.

Of course it matters.

If government is attacking people for their associations it is INFRINGING on their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. If I say attending a rally organized by a White Supremacist, knowing White Supremacists and KKK will be there, marching alongside them as they chant antisemetic chants and wave swastikas ... it makes you not a "fine person" ... That's EXERCISING my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

The difference between EXERCISING a right and INFRINGING on that right is immense.

And I'll say it again, when Trump said there were fine people on both sides he also specifically excluded neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

And he was wrong to not call out those who were marching alongside the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists. They were not "fine people". They were people who were willing to march alongside Neo Nazis and White Supremacists while horrific racist and anti-semitic chants and slogas were used. That's damning enough.

But the media edits that out because they cant show Trump condemning neo-Nazis when the media is claiming he said they were fine people.

"But, but, but someone else said ..."

For me it's damning enough that he took so long to call out the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists (and not just in this instance either), and that he called those who rallied alongside them "fine people".

[giblets]

[Berzerker]

thats because he didn't know who they were other than peaceful protesters and got confused, in the same press conference he condemned the neo-Nazis

[Kidlicious]

Is that David Deutsch? That guy literally thinks the US is on it's way to being Nazi Germany. He's a conspiracy theorist.

[giblets]

That seems unlikely but interesting theory I guess

[Berzerker]

The chant and tiki torches occured at both rallies. Both were smaller events that happened at night before the official Unite the Right rally.

The chant was also taken up during the daytime march in the Unite the Right rally. As were many other anti-semetic signs, chants, and other racially charged chants/slogans.

Trump condemned them. Again, they were a minority of the protesters. You're pointing at them to smear everyone else. You're not arguing Trump called neo-Nazis fine people, you're arguing the fine people Trump identified are not fine people. So what? The media narrative is Trump called neo-Nazis fine people. That means everyone on both sides were neo-Nazis, right?

I'm not saying they like Neo Nazis. I'm saying they willingly chose to march with Neo Nazis and White Supremacists without any imperative that they do so. Why they did so is irrelevent and the reasons will vary from individual to individual. But in any case, a "fine person" would not do such a thing. A fine person would not associate themselves willfully with such a rally. The statue is STILL there, and will likely be there for decades to come. There was and is no time critical aspect to such a rally that would necessitate associating with those you despise.

The imperative was to protest the removal of a statue the city council voted to get rid of and the statue is still there because of the protests. They weren't marching with the neo-Nazis, they were marching with people supporting the statue. Obviously Trump doesn't agree with your definition of fine people, his includes peaceful protesters on both sides of the issue. He condemned Antifa too, yet he said there were fine people on both sides. So who was he talking about? The people protesting peacefully who were not Antifa and neo-Nazis.

Marching with the KKK, White Nationalists, or Neo Nazis only weakens your argument. Because what you are asying is "whatever my argument is" plus ... "I want to associate my cause with horrible racism"

If the Million Man March had had 2 obviously hateful precursors, and had been a bunch of people chanting "Jews will not replace us" ... or some other hateful thing ... and had groups planning to show up to do horribly racist things that everyone knew they were going to do ... then yes. But the Million Man March had had no precursor which had devolved into horrible racism, and no reason to suspect that it would devolve into horrible racism ... and didn't devolve into horrible racism.

The analog you are looking for is the one I've already mentioned as the analog. Anyone who marched with Black Lives Matter while they were chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" was not a "fine person".

But the million man march was organized by Louis Farrakhan and his nation of Islam. They dont hate? All those people attended a march organized by hateful people, but no guilt by association for them? I disagree with you, I dont hold BLM protesters accountable for what other BLM protesters chant. If you attend a free speech rally and communists or neo-Nazis show up spouting their ideologies, you dont become a bad person for staying to defend free speech.

I myself do not think the statues should be taken down.

Well there's irony, I do.

But I'm not going to show up and march alongside the KKK to voice my opinion, because I'M MUCH MORE FIRMLY AGAINST THE NEO NAZIS AND WHITE NATIONALISM THAN TAKING DOWN A STATUE.

You're not marching along side them. You keep painting this picture of people protesting for the statue of walking hand in hand with neo-Nazis.

If somehow I had unwittingly showed up to such an event I would have crossed sides and counterdemonstrated the Neo Nazis and White Nationalists. Sadly the non Neo Nazis and non White Supremacist people at the Unite the Right rally couldn't say the same. That is why in my book they were not "fine people", though I do hope they have learned to be better people in the interim.

And how would you feel about people on your side attacking protesters? Thats quite a dilemma, you show up to support a statue and see neo-Nazis and join the counter protesters even though they're attacking people who agree with you about the statue. Neo-Nazis bad, violently suppressing speech, good?

Of course it matters.

If government is attacking people for their associations it is INFRINGING on their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. If I say attending a rally organized by a White Supremacist, knowing White Supremacists and KKK will be there, marching alongside them as they chant antisemetic chants and wave swastikas ... it makes you not a "fine person" ... That's EXERCISING my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

The difference between EXERCISING a right and INFRINGING on that right is immense.

We're not talking about the 1st Amendment. We're talking about using guilt by association to smear people. Thats what Joe McCarthy did and its what you are doing.

And he was wrong to not call out those who were marching alongside the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists. They were not "fine people". They were people who were willing to march alongside Neo Nazis and White Supremacists while horrific racist and anti-semitic chants and slogas were used. That's damning enough.

He was wrong to not smear people with your guilt by association?

"But, but, but someone else said ..."

So you're okay with media propaganda?

For me it's damning enough that he took so long to call out the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists (and not just in this instance either), and that he called those who rallied alongside them "fine people".

He didn't take long, he condemned the violence the day of the brawl and waited for the facts to come in before a more lengthy press conference 2-3 days later during which he described peaceful protesters on both sides of the issue as fine people while condemning the violent people, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Antifa. Who are these people who rallied alongside the neo-Nazis? Where were the militia folk in those images of neo-Nazis and Antifa duking it out? They had guns, they weren't fighting. Nobody wanted to fight with them. They kept the peace. Wherever they went a safe space was created for anyone who didn't want to fight. I imagine some of them were vets too, you may not think of them as fine people but so what? They're not neo-Nazis.

[Kidlicious]

Aeson is just making a big dea about nothing. The US was *united* with the USSR during WW2, it isn't something nefarious.

[Kidlicious]

This issue isn't about "taking down statues." The statues are only one small part of the overall plan by the Left to radically change American society. It's also a way to piss both black and white people against each other and cause violence between them. But you want to make this just about taking down statues so that you can demonize the right.

[Kidlicious]

"I don’t know who Joaquin Castro is other than the lesser brother of a failed presidential candidate (1%) who makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth. Joaquin is not the man that his brother is, but his brother, according to most, is not much. Keep fighting Joaquin!"
-Donald J Trump

Let's see if they say it's racist.

[Kidlicious]

Universal Pictures is making a movie about liberal elites hunting down and murdering Americans (not liberals).

[Aeson]

You're not arguing Trump called neo-Nazis fine people, you're arguing the fine people Trump identified are not fine people. So what?

So that's what you originally responded too. If you didn't wish to discuss my opinion on whether the people Trump called "fine people" were fine people or not, you shouldn't have addressed it. It's not my fault you're so stupid that it's taken you this long to figure out that your constant harping on the media is just a long line of strawmen you've been making.

The imperative was to protest the removal of a statue the city council voted to get rid of and the statue is still there because of the protests.

No, the statue is still there because the laws that protect war memorials. The protests had exactly nothing to do with it. And the timing of the 3 different rallies speaks volumes about how pressing an issue it was. Again ... not pressing at all.

They weren't marching with the neo-Nazis, they were marching with people supporting the statue.

The neo-Nazis were in the same rally, at least one swastika flag can be seen in many of the photos. Many of the guest speakers at the event were self-avowed White Nationalists. The organizers of the rally were White Nationalists.

Obviously Trump doesn't agree with your definition of fine people

I take that as a compliment.

But the million man march was organized by Louis Farrakhan and his nation of Islam. They dont hate? All those people attended a march organized by hateful people, but no guilt by association for them? I disagree with you, I dont hold BLM protesters accountable for what other BLM protesters chant. If you attend a free speech rally and communists or neo-Nazis show up spouting their ideologies, you dont become a bad person for staying to defend free speech.

There is a difference between "X showed up" and "X invited you to their rally". There is a difference between defending free speech and marching with Neo Nazis and White Supremacists in their own rally LITERALLY claiming to unite you with them. There is a difference between staying in a peaceful rally, and staying in one that has turned ugly with anti-semetic and racist chants and signs on your side.

Those are the differences that determine whether someone is a "fine person" or not.

Well there's irony, I do.

Legally you are wrong then, they are protected by law.

You're not marching along side them. You keep painting this picture of people protesting for the statue of walking hand in hand with neo-Nazis.

Go watch the videos and look at pictures of the rally. I'm not painting any pictures. I'm describing them. There were Stars and Bars and Nazi flags literally side by side.

And how would you feel about people on your side attacking protesters?

I don't take "sides" in the first place. I stand for myself and my beliefs, no one else gets to talk for me and I don't attempt to speak for anyone else either. That aside, anyone behaving violently or racist would not be on my side. I would stand against them, kick them out, or leave. (Whichever was feasible.)

Thats quite a dilemma, you show up to support a statue and see neo-Nazis and join the counter protesters even though they're attacking people who agree with you about the statue. Neo-Nazis bad, violently suppressing speech, good?

False dichotomy. You can continue to support the statue and counterprotest Neo Nazis. I would argue that in fact it would be much more beneficial to your cause to do so. To march with the Neo Nazis while they chant anti-semetic things would only undermine your position.

(In this case it didn't matter anyway. It's a legal question and the law is rather clear on that point.)

We're not talking about the 1st Amendment.

Of course we are.

We're talking about using guilt by association to smear people.

You're talking about that, wrongly. Guilt by association in the way you are talking about it (eg. McCarthyism) is to say that since person A did X and person B was around person A, then person B also did X.

I am not saying that anyone who associates with Neo Nazis is a Neo Nazi, nor that anyone who associates with White Supremacists is a White Supremacist. You are factually wrong.

He was wrong to not smear people with your guilt by association?

He was wrong to claim they were "very fine people". Especially given the actual statement which was worse than what I remembered, where he was claiming those in the Tiki Torch rally were "very fine people".

So you're okay with media propaganda?

No. For someone who claims to be so opposed to mischaracterization of what someone has said, you sure do it a lot.

You addressed me, quoting what I had said in response to Kid. It was not about the media, but rather was my own opinion on the matter. You threw up the strawman of someone(s) in the media (unsourced) mischaracterizing what Trump had said on the matter. You seem to be promoting the same lie that was exposed in the Prager U response video, but without you actually sourcing what you're talking about I can't be sure. I certainly don't care about some unfounded claim you make about a non-defined "media" entity without offering any evidence to back up your assertion.

He didn't take long, he condemned the violence the day of the brawl and waited for the facts to come in before a more lengthy press conference 2-3 days later during which he described peaceful protesters on both sides of the issue as fine people while condemning the violent people, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Antifa. Who are these people who rallied alongside the neo-Nazis? Where were the militia folk in those images of neo-Nazis and Antifa duking it out? They had guns, they weren't fighting. Nobody wanted to fight with them. They kept the peace. Wherever they went a safe space was created for anyone who didn't want to fight. I imagine some of them were vets too, you may not think of them as fine people but so what? They're not neo-Nazis.

The speakers at the rally were in large part White Supremacists. The organizers were White Supremacists. This was no surprise to anyone as the White Supremacists had gotten national coverage for their first rally (the Tiki Torch one) a couple months earlier. It's not like the KKK, Neo Nazis, and White Supremacists just showed up uninvited to a peaceful demonstration. It was their idea, their rally, and the name of the rally was LITERALLY to "unite" with them.

Sorry, but no one marching alongside a guy carrying a Nazi flag can claim to be a "fine person" in my book. No amount of strawmen, mischaracterizations, hyperbole, or hypocrisy on your part is going to change that.

[Aeson]

The US was *united* with the USSR during WW2, it isn't something nefarious.

That's how ****ing bad Nazis are...

[Kidlicious]

Like I said, everyone there wanted to fight or was stupid. But saying there was fine people there isn't nefarious.

[Kidlicious]

The makers of the movie are now calling it satire. People that have watched the trailer don't believe that.

A feminist puts a guys eye out and says "war is war" because of the war on women.

I think it might be good.

[giblets]

Iraqi man dies after Trump administration deports him

A 41-year-old Detroit man deported to Iraq in June died Tuesday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and two people close to the man’s family.

The man, Jimmy Aldaoud, spent most of his life in the U.S., but was swept up in President Donald Trump’s intensified immigration enforcement efforts.

Edward Bajoka, an immigration attorney who described himself as close to Aldaoud’s family, wrote on Facebook that the death appeared to be linked to the man’s inability to obtain insulin in Baghdad to treat his diabetes. Aldaoud was an Iraqi national, but he was born in Greece and came to the U.S. as a young child, his family friend said. He had never lived in Iraq and did not speak Arabic, according to Bajoka.

“Rest In Peace Jimmy,” Bajoka wrote. “Your blood is on the hands of ICE and this administration.”

The Trump administration has sought to deport more than 1,000 Iraqis with final orders of removal, including Chaldean Catholics in the Detroit metro area, of which Aldaoud was one. Chaldeans are an eastern branch of the Roman Catholic church who trace their roots to ancient Mesopotamia in present-day Iraq, where they are at high risk of being tortured or killed by the the terror group ISIS, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in a related legal case.

"Jimmy Aldaoud ... should have never been sent to Iraq," Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) said in a written statement. "My Republican colleagues and I have repeatedly called on the executive branch to cease deportation of such vulnerable people. Now, someone has died."

Advocates point out that many Chaldeans targeted for deportation have spent years or decades in the U.S.

Miriam Aukerman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the immigrants in a class-action lawsuit, warned that continued deportations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement could put more people at risk.

“Jimmy’s death has devastated his family and us,” she said in a written statement. “We knew he would not survive if deported. What we don’t know is how many more people ICE will send to their deaths.”

ICE, the State Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The battle over the fate of the immigrant group has played out in Michigan, a state that Trump won by a narrow margin in 2016. Many in the Chaldean community supported Trump‘s candidacy and feel betrayed now.

Martin Manna of the Chaldean Community Foundation said roughly 160,000 Chaldeans live in the state and that at least half are registered voters.

“There’s a tremendous amount of anxiety in the community,” he said. “Iraq’s not a safe place for many of the people who are being sent back.”

Manna said his organization has pressed the Trump administration to grant Chaldeans “deferred enforced departure,” a form of humanitarian relief that would allow the population to remain in the U.S. and work legally on a temporary basis.

The administration extended the status for as many as 3,500 Liberians in March, but generally has moved to draw down enrollment in immigration relief programs.

Levin and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) introduced a bipartisan bill in May, H.R. 2537 (116), that would grant two years of deportation relief to Iraqis with final orders of removal. While the measure counts 30 cosponsors, the passage of any immigration legislation in the current partisan environment could be a challenge.

The battle over the fate of Iraqis with final orders of removal began shortly after Trump took office.

The government of Iraq in 2017 agreed to accept deportees after previously refusing to cooperate with repatriations. Reuters reported at the time that the concession was part of an agreement to remove Iraq from the list of restricted countries in Trump’s original travel ban.

“We are doing things as required by international law, and sometimes you lose sleep over it,” an Iraqi diplomat told POLITICO about agreements with the U.S.

Advocates for the immigrants took the fight to federal court, but were hit with a major setback in December when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled the Trump administration could proceed with removals. The decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the enforcement actions.

In its decision, the 6th Circuit stressed that many of the people subject to deportation had committed crimes.

According to the ACLU and a POLITICO search of court records, Aldaoud had a criminal conviction for disorderly conduct and served 17 months for a home invasion.

Bajoka, the family friend, said Aldaoud suffered from schizophrenia and other mental health issues.

“His mental health was the primary reason for his legal issues that led to his deportation,” Bajoka wrote on Facebook.

Aldaoud spoke about his deportation in an undated video posted to Facebook this week. In the video, he appears to be sitting on a sidewalk stoop in Baghdad.

“Immigration agents pulled me over and said I’m going to Iraq,” he said. “I said, ‘I’ve never been there. I’ve been in this country my whole life, since pretty much birth.’ … They refused to listen to me.”

Aldaoud said in the video that he had been homeless, vomiting because of a lack of access to insulin and unable to speak the language in Iraq. He also said he had been kicked while sleeping in the street.

“I begged them,” he said of his conversations with ICE agents. “I said, ‘Please, I’ve never seen that country, I’ve never been there.’ However, they forced me.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/iraqi-man-dies-deportation-trump-administration-1643512

Trump supporters are white supremacists.

[Kidlicious]

Still can't believe....

Kid: A journo claimed that Trump is planning to kill all the hispanics

JR: She corrected that.

[-Jrabbit]

Since you likely did not view the original video, read the original story, nor read the retraction and apology, it is no surprise that you "can't believe..."

[Kidlicious]

Cortez got outraged by fake "boys will be boys" quote. Or was it fake outrage and she knew it was fake.

[-Jrabbit]

You realize that every time you and your conservative friends talk about AOC, she gains more fans, more power, and more influence, right?