Charlottesville riots

[WuDrWu]

What pray tell about that piece was fake news?

Because it's one sided opinion and propaganda with an agenda trying to masquerade as news. That makes it NOT news. I'm not saying that everything they say is false. Anymore than everything Newsmax puts out is false. It's meant to push one side of an agenda. It's not news. It's opinion and propaganda. It's meant to inflame and enrage and bolster support from people just like you that already have their mind made up.

In other words, the Pinocchio to their Geppetto.

It's no different than if you get your 'news' from The Daily Show or even worse (if that's possible) that clown on TBS. It is OPINION, not news. Again, Pinocchio, meet Geppetto.

[Play Angry]

Doc, he was talking about Charlottesville when he said "many fine folks" on both sides. If you thought he was talking about the broader context of arguments revolving around the removal of confederate statues, which was pretty close to a non-existent controversy on the national scale prior to this weekend, then that is giving some serious benefit of the doubt IMO. He certainly bent over backwards with the quotes posted above to indicate that Friday night's torch rally was peaceful (it wasn't) and characterized this as a pretty normal protest event until some bad guys showed up the next day. It's what he said. If you thought he meant something different than what he said, that is fine, but it is not a very strong defense.

He royally eff'd up an opportunity that was served to him on a silver platter this weekend by walking back on the statements General Kelly and Pence encouraged him to make on Monday with the ad libbed embarrassment that took place yesterday. This story was on life support from a newscycle standpoint and he instead gave it a super boost of oxygen.

Read the transcripts of yesterday's presser and tell me if you disagree that he was going to some length to characterize the white nationalist groups (because I think we can all agree that virtually all of the attendees were associated with those groups) as run of the mill statue protesters until some hoodlums showed up. If that's the case, I'll e-shake your hand, agree to disagree, and will probably think I'm living in a bizarro-universe but so be it.

[ShockTalk]

Do you have a link to this? In most of the footage I watched, it was difficult to tell who initiated the skirmishes. If there is footage of the violence at the outset of that morning's event, I'd like to watch it.

The first actual filmed skirmishes on that Vice HBO video is around the 5:20 mark. It appears to be counter protesters pushing into and blocking those walking in the prescribed route. Why the police did not keep the groups separated, I don't know. There was certainly enough warning this could be a powder keg.

[WuDrWu]

Doc, he was talking about Charlottesville when he said "many fine folks" on both sides. If you thought he was talking about the broader context of arguments revolving around the removal of confederate statues, which was pretty close to a non-existent controversy on the national scale prior to this weekend, then that is giving some serious benefit of the doubt IMO. He certainly bent over backwards with the quotes posted above to indicate that Friday night's torch rally was peaceful (it wasn't) and characterized this as a pretty normal protest event until some bad guys showed up the next day. It's what he said. If you thought he meant something different than what he said, that is fine, but it is not a very strong defense.

He royally eff'd up an opportunity that was served to him on a silver platter this weekend by walking back on the statements General Kelly and Pence encouraged him to make on Monday with the ad libbed embarrassment that took place yesterday. This story was on life support from a newscycle standpoint and he instead gave it a super boost of oxygen.

Read the transcripts of yesterday's presser and tell me if you disagree that he was going to some length to characterize the white nationalist groups (because I think we can all agree that virtually all of the attendees were associated with those groups) as run of the mill statue protesters until some hoodlums showed up. If that's the case, I'll e-shake your hand, agree to disagree, and will probably think I'm living in a bizarro-universe but so be it.

Admittedly, having not watched the entire scene (a few minutes were rough enough), I will at some point do exactly that and get back to you.

I do not disagree he handled this poorly. I believe I said and or warned of that right out of the gate, prior to yesterday's fiasco.

I also believe that many fine people in this country voted for him because he's the anti government person. They are fed up with Washington. All sides. That the GOP is fighting him makes them even more happy in their decision. They love when he lambastes Mitch McConnell. I suspect he's likely to double down in the near future.

Trump is NOT a conservative. Not in any meaningful definition that I am aware of and therefore not my first choice for position 1.

But I voted for him (not in the primary by the way) because I wanted a conservative SCOTUS justice. To me, that was the most important thing the President was going to do for the rest of my lifetime. I am happy with the result. So far, the rest of the nightmare I can live with or believe we can fix or curtail. Perhaps it will get worse, I don't know, but I am happy to see Neil Gorsuch on the bench.

[jdshock]

Not at all. I believe 2 groups of people looking for a fight were there. It makes me cringe, but they had a right to peaceful protest, although one had a permit and the other not. I do not know, one way or the other, if there was a reasonable person that "crashed" the skinhead party to protest the removal of the statue. If I were a betting man, I'd say there were probably a few somewhere in the area. I certainly wouldn't have associated myself with them for anything, but I would like to be heard (not necessarily on this forum, but in general) on the removal of statues that are no longer considered politically correct, if that's ok with you?

And I think I, and many others, can have that stance and discussion without actually being hateful racists scumbags, as you and so many others are quick to lump people together as. Or can we not?

My problem has always been with Trump, and defenders of Trump, that have said there were "very fine people" on the nazi side at Charlottesville. Trump did not say there were fine people on the side of keeping the statue, he said there were very fine people "in that group," talking about the folks at the event. He said in the pictures that were being reported he saw that there were people in there just protesting the statue.

Look, someone who marched with the people chanting the things they chanted, carrying torches, have done enough to earn the labels that are being placed on them. Even if they aren't card carrying members of the KKK, they did nothing about what was going on at the event. If you'd shown up to the event to support keeping the statue, you're telling me that you wouldn't have ever stopped and leaned over to your neighbor and said "wait, what did you just saw about Jews?" And then hightailed it out of there? Based on your posts here, I think you probably wouldn't have stuck around. There were not "very fine" folks that were involved in this event.

You don't need my permission, but absolutely you can have the discussion about the statue without being a hateful racist scumbag. Personally, I think they belong in museums and that's about it, but that's not really the debate.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

n/m

[Aargh]

Because it's one sided opinion and propaganda with an agenda trying to masquerade as news. That makes it NOT news. I'm not saying that everything they say is false. Anymore than everything Newsmax puts out is false. It's meant to push one side of an agenda. It's not news. It's opinion and propaganda. It's meant to inflame and enrage and bolster support from people just like you that already have their mind made up.

In other words, the Pinocchio to their Geppetto.

It's no different than if you get your 'news' from The Daily Show or even worse (if that's possible) that clown on TBS. It is OPINION, not news. Again, Pinocchio, meet Geppetto.

If the HBO piece was a one-sided agenda piece intended to discredit those protesting the removal of the statue, they achieved their agenda by giving the white supremacists an open mic. It was the people interviewed, not the people doing the interviews who discredited the protesters.

I thought the HBO piece was a documentary with little if any intention to be a news piece. I struggle to see how a documentary can be considered "fake news". "Fake news" has typically been reporting as fact things that are not true. It's difficult to doubt the accuracy of information about a group when that information comes directly from activists within the group.

[Play Angry]

Admittedly, having not watched the entire scene (a few minutes were rough enough), I will at some point do exactly that and get back to you.

I do not disagree he handled this poorly. I believe I said and or warned of that right out of the gate, prior to yesterday's fiasco.

I also believe that many fine people in this country voted for him because he's the anti government person. They are fed up with Washington. All sides. That the GOP is fighting him makes them even more happy in their decision. They love when he lambastes Mitch McConnell. I suspect he's likely to double down in the near future.

Trump is NOT a conservative. Not in any meaningful definition that I am aware of and therefore not my first choice for position 1.

But I voted for him (not in the primary by the way) because I wanted a conservative SCOTUS justice. To me, that was the most important thing the President was going to do for the rest of my lifetime. I am happy with the result. So far, the rest of the nightmare I can live with or believe we can fix or curtail. Perhaps it will get worse, I don't know, but I am happy to see Neil Gorsuch on the bench.

I was also very happy with the nomination of Gorsuch. I voted for McMullin but understand the choice many conservatives were faced with in the election when they chose Trump.

What I don't understand is why so many folks take an attack on Trump for pretty obvious self-inflicted PR disasters, at a level we did not see anything close to under George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or even Barack Obama (Clinton had a few misadventures which are comparable), to be something that is an attack on them in their capacity as a voter or otherwise. We've all voted for countless disappointing politicians, and of course acknowledging that their actions are embarrassing doesn't lessen anyone's value or self-worth. The knee-jerk reaction, however, is so often to give borderline-ludicrous benefit of the doubt to that same politician and refuse condemnation at all costs. How many folks on here lead in with "I don't really like Trump but . . ." and then follow up with some limp defense of one of his more extreme actions or statements with logic that would have incurred their fiercest wrath if and when someone from the opposition uses the same logic to defend their team?

I think VP Pence and General Kelly have tried their best despite the President's best efforts to screw this up. Pence's interview on Sunday was quite good. Kelly's coercion of Trump's Monday press conference was the right move. Yesterday was a complete embarrassment, and that is the reason the fringe right groups are doing Deion Sanders touchdown dances for the last 20 hours. This is exactly the sort of wink and nod they have been promising would come from the big guy in charge for a couple of years, and he gave it to them whether intentionally or (if we are being generous) unintentionally.

[wufan]

Not at all. I believe 2 groups of people looking for a fight were there. It makes me cringe, but they had a right to peaceful protest, although one had a permit and the other not. I do not know, one way or the other, if there was a reasonable person that "crashed" the skinhead party to protest the removal of the statue. If I were a betting man, I'd say there were probably a few somewhere in the area. I certainly wouldn't have associated myself with them for anything, but I would like to be heard (not necessarily on this forum, but in general) on the removal of statues that are no longer considered politically correct, if that's ok with you?

And I think I, and many others, can have that stance and discussion without actually being hateful racists scumbags, as you and so many others are quick to lump people together as. Or can we not?

I was watching the coverage of the event on the news prior to the homicide. Two fellas were interviewed that were there to "protect free speech". One was a middle-aged white dude that didn't want the statue removed and stated he disagreed with the "Unite the Right" movement, but believed in their right to protest. The second fella was an older black dude. He said he was glad the statue was coming down, and was there to counter-protest, but also believed that UtR had a right to free speech.

I only bring this up to say that there were absolutely some folks in Charlottesville that were more or less moderate.

[pinstripers]

I am against Natzis, rapists, arrogant leftist pricks, and though I hate the ACLU, we gotta have it.

[wufan]

I was also very happy with the nomination of Gorsuch. I voted for McMullin but understand the choice many conservatives were faced with in the election when they chose Trump.

What I don't understand is why so many folks take an attack on Trump for pretty obvious self-inflicted PR disasters, at a level we did not see anything close to under George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or even Barack Obama (Clinton had a few misadventures which are comparable), to be something that is an attack on them in their capacity as a voter or otherwise. We've all voted for countless disappointing politicians, and of course acknowledging that their actions are embarrassing doesn't lessen anyone's value or self-worth. The knee-jerk reaction, however, is so often to give borderline-ludicrous benefit of the doubt to that same politician and refuse condemnation at all costs. How many folks on here lead in with "I don't really like Trump but . . ." and then follow up with some limp defense of one of his more extreme actions or statements with logic that would have incurred their fiercest wrath if and when someone from the opposition uses the same logic to defend their team?

I think VP Pence and General Kelly have tried their best despite the President's best efforts to screw this up. Pence's interview on Sunday was quite good. Kelly's coercion of Trump's Monday press conference was the right move. Yesterday was a complete embarrassment, and that is the reason the fringe right groups are doing Deion Sanders touchdown dances for the last 20 hours. This is exactly the sort of wink and nod they have been promising would come from the big guy in charge for a couple of years, and he gave it to them whether intentionally or (if we are being generous) unintentionally.

Briefly and over-simplified, the defense of Trump is a rejection of PC culture. Not right or wrong, but that's how it is manifested. Unfortunately, this is a platform that the Alt-Right and traditional conservatives believe in.

[Walker]

The first actual filmed skirmishes on that Vice HBO video is around the 5:20 mark. It appears to be counter protesters pushing into and blocking those walking in the prescribed route. Why the police did not keep the groups separated, I don't know. There was certainly enough warning this could be a powder keg.

I think that's probably the most important question at the root of all of this that I think @pinstripes and maybe a few others brought up, what's with these mayors telling law enforcement to stand down? It seems to be a reoccurring theme at these protests/riots. You go back to Ferguson, Baltimore, Berkeley, Charlottesville, etc. and it's the same thing over and over with law enforcement being told to stand down even in the face of assaults, basically pure anarchy until tragedy hits in the worst way possible.

I don't know how any mayor or public official can come to the conclusion that tying up their law enforcers hands will have a positive ending when the most fanatical people within multiple factions are coming into contact with one another. Is it possible it's these officials are hoping some mayhem breaks out in order to sway the political winds in their or their party's favor?

[Play Angry]

Briefly and over-simplified, the defense of Trump is a rejection of PC culture. Not right or wrong, but that's how it is manifested. Unfortunately, this is a platform that the Alt-Right and traditional conservatives believe in.

I generally agree.

PC certainly overreaches and deserves derision when it does so. I think the pendulum is swinging too far at the moment where a lot of good people on the right are lining up behind the wrong champions out of reflex.

[Aargh]

I think that's probably the most important question at the root of all of this that I think @pinstripes and maybe a few others brought up, what's with these mayors telling law enforcement to stand down? It seems to be a reoccurring theme at these protests/riots. You go back to Ferguson, Baltimore, Berkeley, Charlottesville, etc. and it's the same thing over and over with law enforcement being told to stand down even in the face of assaults, basically pure anarchy until tragedy hits in the worst way possible.

I don't know how any mayor or public official can come to the conclusion that tying up their law enforcers hands will have a positive ending when the most fanatical people within multiple factions are coming into contact with one another. Is it possible it's these officials are hoping some mayhem breaks out in order to sway the political winds in their or their party's favor?

I believe the mayors ordering their police forces to stand down are doing so in order to ensure the survival of their police forces. I suspect there were people on both sides of this issue who would have no problem taking out a police officer.

[WuDrWu]

I believe the mayors ordering their police forces to stand down are doing so in order to ensure the survival of their police forces. I suspect there were people on both sides of this issue who would have no problem taking out a police officer.

I believe politicians will make decisions based upon what is best for politicians and more importantly, their own political life, first and foremost, 9 times out of 10.

If your best interest, or my best interest, or out best interest happen to intersect, then they get to tout their brownie points to us as well.