45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)
Discussion
thatsprettyshady said:
They both lie ridiculously, Biden told a long list of lies at the debate and CNN rightly listed them all in a fact check.
These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
Still banging that drum? He said “very fine people on both sides”These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
That means he was complimenting those opposed to the far right white supremacist racists who organised the rally. And also those who went to support the far right white supremacist racists.
Not sure I’d those that as a win for Trump.
Bonefish Blues said:
For all Biden's integrity, and we know he's not going to do anything extreme, he has an overarching duty to his country too, so his top people (that's 'top people' who really are top people, as opposed to the boy band Trump name checks) need to put their thinking caps on pdq to mitigate this.
Seeing as we're making s
t up and presidents can do what the fk they like, why not go to town; declare the supreme court dissolved and expedite nomination of 9 new justices with term limits and an enforced ethics code, breach of which means they get demoted and have to do night court duty in Washington. Dissolve the FEC and nominate new commissioners. Puerto Rico, DC and other Territories of the US are now 3 new states if they want to be, so they can elect representatives to congress and the senate. See kids? Forging a new republic can be fun! 
Bonefish Blues said:
5 In a Row said:
Speed 3 said:
Bonefish Blues said:
sugerbear said:
If Trump wins I think that is the US done for many many years, more worrying is who/will be Trumps successor because I am pretty sure it wont be a democrat. War in Europe almost a certainty, something I don't think I would ever had thought possible after the cold war.
Successor?To my mind he's only a convenient front man, look at the wealthy evangelicals lurking in the shadows.
As soon as possible they'll divest themselves of Trump - he hardly ticks any of their boxes with his multiple marriages, shagging porn stars, etc.
I'm sure they'd be much happier with a puppet like Mike Pence who refers to his wife as Mother, etc.
Or Mike Johnson, the guy who shares his phone access with his son so they can each make sure the other isn't being led astray by watching porn, etc
Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 2nd July 21:13
LF5335 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
They both lie ridiculously, Biden told a long list of lies at the debate and CNN rightly listed them all in a fact check.
These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
Still banging that drum? He said “very fine people on both sides”These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
That means he was complimenting those opposed to the far right white supremacist racists who organised the rally. And also those who went to support the far right white supremacist racists.
Not sure I’d those that as a win for Trump.
thatsprettyshady said:
LF5335 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
They both lie ridiculously, Biden told a long list of lies at the debate and CNN rightly listed them all in a fact check.
These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
Still banging that drum? He said “very fine people on both sides”These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
That means he was complimenting those opposed to the far right white supremacist racists who organised the rally. And also those who went to support the far right white supremacist racists.
Not sure I’d those that as a win for Trump.
Keep digging.hidetheelephants said:
thatsprettyshady said:
LF5335 said:
thatsprettyshady said:
They both lie ridiculously, Biden told a long list of lies at the debate and CNN rightly listed them all in a fact check.
These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
Still banging that drum? He said “very fine people on both sides”These fact check websites have been weaponised by both sides anyway as they get very literal in their interpretation of what either side says. Something stared as an opinion usually gets fact checked and ruled false when it was never meant to be a definitive statement anyway. Although there have been some delicious ones along the way, especially when Snopes finally fact checked the “very fine people” comments.
That means he was complimenting those opposed to the far right white supremacist racists who organised the rally. And also those who went to support the far right white supremacist racists.
Not sure I’d those that as a win for Trump.
Keep digging.thatsprettyshady said:
Digging what? The fact he called white supremicists “very fine people” is literally fact checked as untrue, unless the fact check websites are now wrong because they didn’t mislead about orange man bad?
The people he categorised as not nice were the white supremacists with the tiki torches and the anti semitic chants; I'm talking about the protesters he defended as very fine people who were protesting to prevent the removal of a statue of an insurrectionist and renaming of the park the statue was in. Those ones cheerleading for an insurrectionist. thatsprettyshady said:
Yep, still banging that drum because you still won’t read what he actually said, including specifically excluding the hate groups from “very fine people”.
Oh I read it. I read it all. I read the deflection, the attempts at obfuscation and his feeble attempt to hide his support for the racists, the nonsense about claiming stuff he’d done as a President. You defending this specific incident speaks volumes too
Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/con...
hidetheelephants said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Digging what? The fact he called white supremicists “very fine people” is literally fact checked as untrue, unless the fact check websites are now wrong because they didn’t mislead about orange man bad?
The people he categorised as not nice were the white supremacists with the tiki torches and the anti semitic chants; I'm talking about the protesters he defended as very fine people who were protesting to prevent the removal of a statue of an insurrectionist and renaming of the park the statue was in. Those ones cheerleading for an insurrectionist. To be absolutely clear I’m not including any hate group, white supremacy or violent group in the above list, as I know how easy it is for people to misunderstand this sort of thing.
Would you like a US president to outright condemn a peaceful group just trying to (legally) protest their side?
Edited by thatsprettyshady on Tuesday 2nd July 17:19
Mortarboard said:
So does being a peaceful racist qualify you for the "fine people" moniker?
Asking for a pedantic friend.
M.
Depends really, if these people are just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting then I wouldn’t say racist.Asking for a pedantic friend.
M.
I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked. thatsprettyshady said:
Would you like a US president to outright condemn a peaceful group just trying to (legally) protest their side?
Yes, I'd expect him to defend their right to protest while pointing out they're protesting to defend the indefensible, not call them very fine people.thatsprettyshady said:
Mortarboard said:
So does being a peaceful racist qualify you for the "fine people" moniker?
Asking for a pedantic friend.
M.
Depends really, if these people are just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting then I wouldn’t say racist.Asking for a pedantic friend.
M.
I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/ch...
hidetheelephants said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Would you like a US president to outright condemn a peaceful group just trying to (legally) protest their side?
Yes, I'd expect him to defend their right to protest while pointing out they're protesting to defend the indefensible, not call them very fine people.I think anyone that comes out to -in good faith- let their feelings towards a subject be known is generally fine, I might not agree but I wouldn’t say they are terrible people or anything. At the very least sunshine is the best disinfectant with certain groups.
p1stonhead said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Mortarboard said:
So does being a peaceful racist qualify you for the "fine people" moniker?
Asking for a pedantic friend.
M.
Depends really, if these people are just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting then I wouldn’t say racist.Asking for a pedantic friend.
M.
I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/ch...
And it’s the very thing we seem to be discussing now.
thatsprettyshady said:
Depends really, if these people are just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting then I wouldn’t say racist.
I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get fked.
So marching along with the white supremacists is OK then? As long as you don't join in with the songs, is that it? How about the nazi regalia? History buff, or racist?I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked. Or are we to believe some "very fine people" accidently got caught up with what they thought was a march to preserve historical artifacts, just didn't happen to see the flags/uniforms, and didn't hear any of the rhetoric spouted along the way?
Those the ones trump was referring to?
M.
thatsprettyshady said:
hidetheelephants said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Would you like a US president to outright condemn a peaceful group just trying to (legally) protest their side?
Yes, I'd expect him to defend their right to protest while pointing out they're protesting to defend the indefensible, not call them very fine people.I think anyone that comes out to -in good faith- let their feelings towards a subject be known is generally fine, I might not agree but I wouldn’t say they are terrible people or anything. At the very least sunshine is the best disinfectant with certain groups.
Mortarboard said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Depends really, if these people are just trying to avoid parts of US history being erased by peacefully protesting then I wouldn’t say racist.
I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get fked.
So marching along with the white supremacists is OK then? As long as you don't join in with the songs, is that it? How about the nazi regalia? History buff, or racist?I don’t support their viewpoint, but I don’t think they’re racist.
Again, not the violent, anti semitic, white supremacy ones - they can get f
ked. Or are we to believe some "very fine people" accidently got caught up with what they thought was a march to preserve historical artifacts, just didn't happen to see the flags/uniforms, and didn't hear any of the rhetoric spouted along the way?
Those the ones trump was referring to?
M.
I have had friends go to those marches protesting a genocide in Gaza, I would consider those people fine.
Certain elements of that crowd just hate Jewish people and they use anti-Semitic chants/slogans - these people should be condemned.
They mix together and they are in the same spaces, but they are not the same.
Edited by thatsprettyshady on Tuesday 2nd July 17:54
hidetheelephants said:
thatsprettyshady said:
hidetheelephants said:
thatsprettyshady said:
Would you like a US president to outright condemn a peaceful group just trying to (legally) protest their side?
Yes, I'd expect him to defend their right to protest while pointing out they're protesting to defend the indefensible, not call them very fine people.I think anyone that comes out to -in good faith- let their feelings towards a subject be known is generally fine, I might not agree but I wouldn’t say they are terrible people or anything. At the very least sunshine is the best disinfectant with certain groups.
thatsprettyshady said:
The civil war was a big part of American history, why erase it?
Who's erasing it? It's strawmanning the local council's decision to rename the park and remove the statue commemorating a racist insurrectionist because the locals are fed up looking at it as a redraft of history books, which it isn't. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff