Trump repeats claim 'both sides' share Charlottesville violence blame: Left has 'pretty bad dudes' also

Resisting is fine. It’s becoming a monster in the process I’m concerned about.

that said chick had the right idea there. Guy said he was going to kill her whole family. Volence is not a response i LIKE, but it is appropriate.

1 Like

Literally anything that can be spun by the spineless media as being even remotely confrontational is a gift to the right, because we are so hell bent on “balance” in journalism. We’re letting the hard right control the narrative here.


Only to the extent that we let the right unilaterally define public discourse, and the narrative of leftist causes. But that would be problematic anyway.

ETA: Ninja’d by @Mindysan33


AH, pardon me, then, and you’re exactly right!

Can every quote of Trump’s be followed by “he said, stupidly.” Or is it just implied?


I have never seen such a succinct and accurate description of how I interact with internet citizens in my life. Thank you.


irrelevant aside: I went to high school with Angie Harmon

1 Like

dude…digits, i needs them. :smiley:

She’s awesomesauce.

We ran in different circles but did share some mutual friends. I remember seeing her at a few parties but didn’t really know her that well.

Angie’s Bacon number is 2 and I see that she’s still connected to some old friends on FB. Does that mean that my Bacon number is 3?


hahaha. You know I was kidding of course. About the digits…I am absolutely serious that she is awesomesauce.

Well I’ve been watching the same news and finding that some pretty staunch Republicans (ie. the two Bushes and others) were rightly critical of Trump’s failure to condemn the neo-nazis and his attempt to equivocate the two sides, and given we’re in an age where a smartphone and a twitter account can have millions of followers I don’t buy this “control” of the media by one group.
Even though a fringe group, their tactics are ammunition for the right. The same goes with Chomsky’s argument for free speech - free speech is not just for viewpoints you agree with.

I don’t know how to convey the essence of my frustration with you directly on these points, I will just share a story:

After Trump fired off the transgender military ban tweet, I was motivated to take to the streets and protest. My very first rally, a rally for trans veterans, we had a nazi from Virginia in our crowd taking notes on the speakers and Proud Boys watching from the bar across the street.

The next day there was to be a protest against the ACA repeal / for universal healthcare. I was shaken from the previous day and once we arrived at the park I was about to turn and leave because I felt very unsafe. I just thought about all the other people there and how I was on the more visible (tall, purple hair, trans) and less dexterous end of the spectrum and presumably everyone else there was just watching out for themselves. I kept having a vision of a “lone wolf” coming by and opening fire on us, everyone scattering and me tripping or being picked out first.

I turned to leave but then I saw the antifa arrive, clad in black and very much an intimidating sight, and they took up station around our perimeter. I felt a sudden wave of relief. I paradoxically stopped thinking about the possibility of violence and contributed my voice to a very energetic rally.

Nazis, by their very presence, cool free speech for everyone else. Antifa are the response. The media is going to start shit anyway about the left because that’s good business, but with the antifa I and presumably quite a few other people were able to engage in free speech.

ETA: My only prior exposure to antifa was via liberal media, and it painted a very different (very negative) picture from what I saw that day and have seen since.


The problem is simply this. People like those in this thread and else where condemning antifa never stop and ask…if the neonazis and those like them didn’t exist would antifa still exist? The answer is no. Their existence is a direct response to the existence of and current brazen activity of white supremist and hate groups today.

I am sorry you dealt with that and glad you found the support to exercise your voice. /cheers


The Washington Examiner is one of those toy papers that exists to spout spineless propaganda. Say what you will about the Post, but the Examiner doesn’t even try…


btw, here’s noam chomsky’s thoughts on the matter.

“You draw the line where the actions are principled and tactically effective. You therefore oppose these actions, on both grounds.
I’ve received so many inquiries I’ve been reduced to form responses, below:
Wrong in principle, and tactically self-destructive. When we move to the arena of violence, the most brutal guys win – that’s the worst outcome (and, incidentally, it’s not us). The right response is to use the opportunity for education and exposure, not to give a gift to the hard right while attacking fundamental principles of freedom of speech.
We’ve been through all of this before, for example, with Weathermen. The Vietnamese pleaded with them to stop actions like these, understanding very well that each such act simply increased support for the war. In this case, the motive is far less significant, but the consequences are very likely to be the same, and we can see that they already are. That’s quite apart from the question of principle. There could be a constructive response that would not simply be a welcome gift to the far right and those elements in the state yearning for a pretext for repression: to use the opportunity for education and organizing.”


He’s framing it wrong.

If antifa were conducting Weatherman style bombings, or if they were assassinating nazis, he’d have a point.

But they aren’t; they are acting as a defensive force for other anti racist protestors. Antifa did not “move to the arena of violence”; the arena of violence came to them.


In that case they were obviously being defensive and non-violent. I’m glad you felt safer in what was essentially a defensive situation, but would you have felt safer if they turned to violence?

The moment you turn to violence, you lose any moral high ground. I also think the far right is more likely to be into serious weapons, and think that sadly your initial fear of someone opening fire on people is only a matter of time.
Forget mainstream or right wing narrative, Chomsky who is obviously on the left has a valid point. In the end it hurts their cause.

Perhaps the US should do what Germany did and make it illegal to be a Nazi or deny the Holocaust.


It’s a gross oversimplification, but I sometimes categorize the factions fighting for equal rights in my childhood as Freedom Riders, Panthers and Deacons. The Freedom Riders showed America a choice we could make; a conscious, peaceful acceptance of the rights of people of all races. The Panthers showed what might happen if we rejected Dr. King’s dream, what racism looks like from the other side. But the Deacons for Justice and Defense kept the Riders from ending up as anonymous bodies at the bottom of Louisiana bayous.

Your post reminded me of that; my own tendencies have always put me firmly in the Deacons, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the Freedom Riders represented the best of America. It’s sad that the Panthers were probably necessary too.

Keep showing up, my friend. Numbers matter!


This is just the latest of his weekly “keep my bigoted base in a lather” remarks.

It’s not a gaffe, it’s strategic.

He can always be relied on to say something like it when something has gone wrong (like the wheels of the Russia investigation turning another notch), or when he’s made conservatives mad (by negotiating with Democrats about DACA or the wall).

When things like that happen, “Publicly endorse Nazism!” jumps to the top of his to-do list.

But in “better” times, we can still rely on him to make some claim or other like that, pretty much on a weekly basis.

He’s like clockwork in that regard. And he knows exactly who he’s talking to there and why.

The fascist version of FDR’s Fireside Chats, basically.