The guy who went on a shooting spree wasn't a Democrat, he was a Bernie supporter, what were you saying about pretending.
Last edited:
Trump refers to Nazis as 'us' as he defends racists again
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
The guy who went on a shooting spree wasn't a Democrat, he was a Bernie supporter, what were you saying about pretending.
Pence is keeping such a low profile 
Trump wasn't even supposed to be talking about Charlottesville today but he had to go off script 
http://www.businessinsider.com/phot...umps-wild-press-conference-says-it-all-2017-8
This photo of chief of staff John Kelly during Trump's wild press conference says it all
Jeremy Berke
White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly looks on as President Donald Trump speaks following a meeting on infrastructure at Trump Tower, August 15, 2017 in New York City. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
President Donald Trump's press conference at Trump Tower in New York City on Tuesday afternoon quickly went off the rails after reporters questioned his response to the violence at the "Unite the Right" white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday, which left one counter-protester dead and many others injured.
In his initial statement on Saturday, Trump pinned the blame "on many sides" while not specifically condemning white nationalists.
After widespread criticism, Trump on Monday made another statement, denouncing neo-Nazis and KKK members as "repugnant" and specifically calling out the "hatred and bigotry" at the rally.
On Tuesday afternoon, however, at a press conference billed as being about infrastructure, Trump doubled down on his assertion that the violence was caused by "bad actors" on both sides. He equated what he called "the alt-left" with the "alt-right" at the rally and said that not all those participating were neo-Nazis or white supremacists.
Trump's new chief of staff, John Kelly, who was brought in to help discipline the White House, looked especially displeased with how the press conference panned out.
Maggie Haberman, a political reporter at The New York Times, said on Tuesday that she had been informed by Trump's staff that he wouldn't be answering questions following the infrastructure announcement — but he "chose to overrule his staff."
http://www.businessinsider.com/phot...umps-wild-press-conference-says-it-all-2017-8
This photo of chief of staff John Kelly during Trump's wild press conference says it all
Jeremy Berke
White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly looks on as President Donald Trump speaks following a meeting on infrastructure at Trump Tower, August 15, 2017 in New York City. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
President Donald Trump's press conference at Trump Tower in New York City on Tuesday afternoon quickly went off the rails after reporters questioned his response to the violence at the "Unite the Right" white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday, which left one counter-protester dead and many others injured.
In his initial statement on Saturday, Trump pinned the blame "on many sides" while not specifically condemning white nationalists.
After widespread criticism, Trump on Monday made another statement, denouncing neo-Nazis and KKK members as "repugnant" and specifically calling out the "hatred and bigotry" at the rally.
On Tuesday afternoon, however, at a press conference billed as being about infrastructure, Trump doubled down on his assertion that the violence was caused by "bad actors" on both sides. He equated what he called "the alt-left" with the "alt-right" at the rally and said that not all those participating were neo-Nazis or white supremacists.
Trump's new chief of staff, John Kelly, who was brought in to help discipline the White House, looked especially displeased with how the press conference panned out.
Maggie Haberman, a political reporter at The New York Times, said on Tuesday that she had been informed by Trump's staff that he wouldn't be answering questions following the infrastructure announcement — but he "chose to overrule his staff."
It pains me to say it because I thoroughly enjoy Nazis getting the shit beat out of them but Trump has a point here. I don't think it's the best time to be making the point or the most tactical move but I'm willing to bet w/o looking at the facts that the white nationalists had a permit to "peacefully assemble" for their "demonstration". As much as it may offend the left, racists also get 1st amendment rights and their hate speech gets to be protected.
Now, I sort of find the whole permit thing as counter to the ethos of the 1st amendment, which is why I think authorities tolerate counter protests, yet from a logistics/liability standpoint, the authorities need to allocate a proper perimeter/police count etc...
I doubt the left had a permit to assemble here, I say this because 1. Lefties generally don't think these things through, 2. most counter-protests are rather spur of the moment sort of things, and 3. I doubt the authorities would grant a 2nd permit knowing full well how these things end up.
I understand that one side of the outrage is morally superior to the other, and know these white power assholes are always itching for a fight, and when you have a bunch of anarchists on the left w/the sole motive of stirring shit up, fists will fly. This violence is of equal harm to the physical integrity of a person; your skull cracking doesn't care which side threw the bottle. I get Trump trying to make this point, albeit at the wrong time and w/no tactfulness whatsoever.
Where he went wrong is equating a few broken bones and black eyes to a fatality in the most heinous fashion. It seems like most of the details were in at the time of the 1st press conference so condemning the side that caused the fatality was a free shot and Trump threw an air ball. Even if the details were not in, condemning Nazis and bigots is always a safe bet even if the 1st shot was taken by the other side.
I guess the point I'm making here is that saying that bigotry and violence was of equal measure in both sides paints him as a racist, but the point he was trying to convey in this last press conference is understandable.
Take it as you will but what would be the narrative if some nutter off his meds on the left drove a prius into a crowd of KKK members? Sure it would make us feel warm and fuzzy but disagreements as fundamental as the value of a person based on their skin should never devolve into this level of violence, unless said value is under threat.
Now, I sort of find the whole permit thing as counter to the ethos of the 1st amendment, which is why I think authorities tolerate counter protests, yet from a logistics/liability standpoint, the authorities need to allocate a proper perimeter/police count etc...
I doubt the left had a permit to assemble here, I say this because 1. Lefties generally don't think these things through, 2. most counter-protests are rather spur of the moment sort of things, and 3. I doubt the authorities would grant a 2nd permit knowing full well how these things end up.
I understand that one side of the outrage is morally superior to the other, and know these white power assholes are always itching for a fight, and when you have a bunch of anarchists on the left w/the sole motive of stirring shit up, fists will fly. This violence is of equal harm to the physical integrity of a person; your skull cracking doesn't care which side threw the bottle. I get Trump trying to make this point, albeit at the wrong time and w/no tactfulness whatsoever.
Where he went wrong is equating a few broken bones and black eyes to a fatality in the most heinous fashion. It seems like most of the details were in at the time of the 1st press conference so condemning the side that caused the fatality was a free shot and Trump threw an air ball. Even if the details were not in, condemning Nazis and bigots is always a safe bet even if the 1st shot was taken by the other side.
I guess the point I'm making here is that saying that bigotry and violence was of equal measure in both sides paints him as a racist, but the point he was trying to convey in this last press conference is understandable.
Take it as you will but what would be the narrative if some nutter off his meds on the left drove a prius into a crowd of KKK members? Sure it would make us feel warm and fuzzy but disagreements as fundamental as the value of a person based on their skin should never devolve into this level of violence, unless said value is under threat.
Omar Mateen registered as a democrat in 2006. There has been no evidence he supported Bernie. But the fact that Hillary didn't denounce him and even invited his father to attend her rallies and sit in a VIP section is very telling.
You were not talking about Mateen
Secondly, your Hillary bit is a lie, she didn't invite her father, he attended a rally like the general public and why is the father responsible for his son's actions when in fact he denounced his own son. Plus she did denounce the Orlando act of terrorism.
Seriously, why are you making stuff up?
I was talking about both of them. And as far as hillary goes, you don't get to sit with the cameras on you in the background unless you're invited to sit there. Those people are always hand picked.
I was talking about both of them. And as far as hillary goes, you don't get to sit with the cameras on you in the background unless you're invited to sit there. Those people are always hand picked.
So it went from invited to the rally to invited to sit in the background? Those people are randomly picked, not handpicked. And by the way, why is the father who denounced his own son an issue for you??