Trump is NOT the answer

[T Smith]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by AutumnW (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
My main criticism with Trump is I believe he will eventually be duped or outright lied to or deceived into war, or buckle to the pressure of the Deep State and the far right of his base. Not so sure how long he can hold of, but as of today, I'm more impressed than I was yesterday.

If we are to believe this 150 people are alive today who wouldn't be given every other POTUS I can think of going back to JFK.

Hmmm...yeah. And that would have nothing to do with the fact he becomes unelectable in 2020 if he starts a war? Plus Saudi Arabia and Israel face potentially grave consequences if the U.S. goes berserko on Iran The drone was shot down over Iranian territory btw. It's framed by the media as a total affront to the U.S. though.

Of course the drone was shot down over Iranian territory. This is the second orchestrated "provocation". Another will follow. And another. There will likely be casualties to come, until the POTUS takes the bait. This is my point. I'm not sure Trump is strong enough to resist.

Simply, the Powers That Be are baiting Trump to war. Isn't that obvious? If that is not obvious per your understanding of events, what do you think is going on?

On that front:

Hard to say how taking the bait affects the 2020 election. Typically the sheeple support a war president, especially if the POTUS is responding to an attack, e.g. Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc. A false flag provocation to lure US to war with Iran will likely galvanize support behind Trump. Not sure why you think war would hurt the POTUS reelection bid. You are giving the war-hungry and revengeful electorate way too much credit.

But let me respond to my own observation here. What will happen is, the media will be aghast at the attacks and will tacitly demand a strong response (inaction will be deemed weak; inaction will hurt his 2020 bid), but the minute the POTUS responds they will flip the script and change the narrative. Immediately. The media may even out the US and the Trump administration as the "bad guys" in the conflict.

Grounds rife for impeachment.

Words of advice for Trump -- DON'T ... TAKE... THE... BAIT!!!!

[AutumnW]

TSmith, I totally get what you're saying here and agree up to a point. I would just take it a step further and say that people who support him get the intent wrong. If it serves him he will stoop lower than a sewer rat to do whatever needs to be done for Donald Trump. If that is the best the U.S. can do, in terms of foreign policy, then I'll take it, if his hands off Iran policy continues after the election.

He is, however, pulling a Venezuela on them by sanctioning them so harshly. This is war of another kind and may be just as brutal in its own way. He has to stop listening to Israel and Saudi Arabia and start acting like the president of his own country and not the entire globe.

[kfm27917]

Escobar: One Quadrillion Reasons Why Washington Fears Iran's "Maximum Counter-Pressure"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...unter-pressure

[AutumnW]

KFM,

Welcome to the forum! Your article is a great catch and certainly illuminates the possibly deeper reason, beyond mere military reasons, that the U. S. under Trump will refrain from starting another hot war in that region. And in as much as I think Trump is a self interested dumb ass, I do respect that fact that his self interest manifests in a strong desire to make resorts not war, too. So for that reasons, his self interest is a good thing....sometimes. The mistake his supporters make is mistaking the dollar signs in his eyes for peace signs!

Highlighted below is a paragraph from your Escobar link (He was my favorite writer for Asia Times Online)

"As I previously reported, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world’s $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.

Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5 million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000."

[Franny]

Hey there...I posted a video with Catherine Austin Fitts and Dark Journalist a couple of days ago in the CAF thread. It seems to have gotten buried quickly and not much noticed so I wanted to cross post it here as I think it's pretty significant.

It's not being talked about in MSM or much at all in alt news sources yet it will have an affect on everyone in the country and by extension the rest of the world.

CAF and Dark Journalist talk about FASB 56 and how it takes the Fed budget dark, that is, classified, and the effect it has on the country, swamp, economy and the commoners.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lNuk70L5Ccc

A few bullet points by CAF from the first few minutes:

• The US govt just changed it's model from a Constitutional Republic to fascism through an obscure accounting policy
• HUD says it needs the secret budget
• SEC takes most US securities markets dark
• Adopted during the Kavanaugh hearings when it looked like a war (apparently a distraction for public consumption)
• Govt Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget needed to approve it
• Bi-partisan approval in Senate, House and White House
• They agreed to the greatest increase of the Swamps power since the 47 and 49 Act

Much, much more, enjoy

It leaves me wondering about swamp draining and where Qanon would stand on this. It does not look much like 5d chess to me. I haven't been following it much the past month or 2 - anyone know what Q says about the big improvements to the swamp?

[Kryztian]

So, if you want to be an important figure in the Trump Administration, you have to be pro-torture.

Swamp creatures: Leaked docs of Trump transition team show ‘opposition to torture’ is 'red flag'
Published time: 24 Jun, 2019 02:12 Russia Today
https://www.rt.com/usa/462529-tortur...flag-petraeus/


Kellyanne Conway, campaign manager and senior advisor to the Trump Presidential Transition Team, stands next to two "Naked Cowboy" themed street performers in the lobby at Trump Tower in New York.

Former CIA director David Petraeus was considered for secretary of state, but there were “red flags”: he was against “torture” and a “military solution in Syria,” according to leaked vetting documents from Trump’s transition team.

A trove of internal vetting documents, compiled by the Republican National Committee (RNC) at the behest of then-president-elect Donald Trump’s team, were leaked to Axios, which reported the scoop on Sunday.

While there is nothing unusual in a vetting process during which candidates’ histories are checked for potential problems, the documents give a glimpse into Washington’s “swamp,” and have been picked apart for eye-catching quotes by commentators and Twitter ‘pundits.’ Some were dumbfounded by the RNC choice of that particular concern.

For instance, four-star general Petraeus, who was mooted for the secretary of state job, had many red flags in the eyes of those who combed through his biography – and one of them was that the former CIA chief was opposed to torture.
____________________________________

Rest of the story available at rt.com.

[Mypos]

I have just watched the series When they see us and found out that Trump put out an add to call for the death penalty against some innocent black kids. You really want to put your hope in the arms of such a man? The more i learn about Trump the less i have faith in him standing up against the deep state. The man is totally bonkers. Did you see the things he said about his own daughter? That he wants to have sex with her? If there is anybody in this world today an Anti Christ it is him.

[AutumnW]

Thank you Mypos,

Yes, being a complete ***hole predated his presidency. Thanks for your post!

[T Smith]

From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time discerning the difference.

[Mypos]

Posted by T Smith (here)
From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

[T Smith]

Posted by Mypos (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full page ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

[Mypos]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Mypos (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full pay ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

We can of course also discuss your last point if you want. People who show no wisdom at all at one side and at the other side show clear hatefull actions are imo indeed not fit for the position. Sadly our world is run by people like that in general. There are far more powerfull and more evil men who run this world then Trump.

The examples i named of Trump being more then just boorish like you say are just two. There are far far more examples to name. If someone says something degrading or racist or incestous 1 or 2 time it can be a mistake or something that doesnt speak to there personality. If someone shows this kind of behavior often you can indeed speculate that they are not just boorish but in fact bigots or racist. If someone shows this why not call it that?

If you need me to name all the examples of this behavior here i can do it but i think you are allready aware of it?

[T Smith]

Posted by Mypos (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Mypos (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full pay ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

We can of course also discuss your last point if you want. People who show no wisdom at all at one side and at the other side show clear hatefull actions are imo indeed not fit for the position. Sadly our world is run by people like that in general. There are far more powerfull and more evil men who run this world then Trump.

The examples i named of Trump being more then just boorish like you say are just two. There are far far more examples to name. If someone says something degrading or racist or incestous 1 or 2 time it can be a mistake or something that doesnt speak to there personality. If someone shows this kind of behavior often you can indeed speculate that they are not just boorish but in fact bigots or racist. If someone shows this why not call it that?

If you need me to name all the examples of this behavior here i can do it but i think you are allready aware of it?

I believe I am aware of many of the examples you may be talking about. And there may be instances of where Trump has uttered a genuine racist remark, but all the instances I know of speak more to his detractors dishonestly pinning a racist label on his lapel by spinning his words or taking them out of context. I have yet to discern a genuine proclivity for racism that isn't contrived (which doesn't only apply to Trump, BTW. Racism is a highly emotional and charged construct, so it is very easy to weaponize it. This is basically the political trick du jour politicians and media and public relations gurus love to employ to sabotage their opponents).

For example, the 2017 Charlotteville protests in the U.S. (which resulted in more than 30 deaths) were characterized inaccurately by the media as a violent White Nationalist revolt (inspired by Trump) to "take America back" (presumably for Jim Crow, etc.). Gleaning from the headlines and spin, one would presume, especially from afar, that not only was this protest a clash between a violent group of racists and bigots and those who reasonably opposed them, but that Trump himself was a cheerleader for it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The protest was actually about the removal of a statue of Confederate icon Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park (among other Confederate monuments from public spaces, etc.). The vast majority of demonstrators were either peacefully protesting political correctness and the erasing and censure of history itself in full Orwellian fashion or advocating for the removal of the statues because they glorified a period of history characterized by institutionalized racism. In any case, the vast majority of the demonstration--as in 99% of it--was peaceful and had nothing to do with White Supremacy--or even racism (this last assertion being debatable).

I'm sure some may disagree with this assessment and we can certainly discuss further. However, the point is, like anything else, people are expressing valid opinions on both sides of the debate; whereas the media's portrayal attempts to de-legitimatize one side entirely by skewing the facts, and in so doing conveniently throws Trump under the bus.

The bottom line is, this type of reporting is agenda-ridden, manipulative, and inaccurate, not to mention the main source of information on which the vast majority of detractors base their opinions.

Now, that said, there were some White Supremacists present at the protest and there were some bigots and racists present. One of them drove a car through the crowd that killed people, which is the angle the media seized on and ran with. So when President Trump pointed out there were "good people" on both sides of the protest (his words), the media opportunistically seized on his sentiments to imply he was condoning and even defending murderous White Supremacists, those who believe in Jim Crow laws, institutionalized racism, etc., when this is simply not the truth.

My point is, these are the kind of examples folks use time in, time out (among other things) to cite claims that Trump is racist. It's hard for me to take those regurgitated and manufactured hit points seriously.

Of course we could go case by case testing out this analysis--and perhaps you are aware of some things I am not where this doesn't apply--but that would be exhaustive, and honestly, my intent is not to defend all Trump's words and actions.

I just think at the end of the day most of the racist (and incestuous) aspersions are mostly dishonest. Anyone who is in politics understands well they need to be very careful with their words and self censor themselves at every public occasion, lest they be unduly characterized for what they are not. But these are two things Trump simply does not know how to do.

[Mypos]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Mypos (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by Mypos (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)
From what I can tell, nearly every criticism of Donald Trump reiterates the obvious:

Gasp! Donald Trump is a boorish man!

Really? You think? What tipped you off?

Let me guess... those who continually point out the obvious don't really like a boorish men (or women). I guess they may prefer the more polished and deceitful?

Whatever the case, I do get why the majority of Trump detractors despise him. He's an easy target to despise, and his unlikableness is understandable. And I don't fault anybody's personal dislike of Trump, the man. I stand with them on many of these points.

But here's the thing: being boorish and crass and unsophisticated and idolizing and aspiring to be Hugh Hefner, say, hardly justifies all the accusations of being bonkers, insane, stupid, incompetent, bigoted, racist, hawkish, dovish, or whatever. Those are all different things. Let's stick to the facts. Donald Trump is a boorish man.

Carry on, just thought I would point that out to all who have a hard time dicerning the difference.

I think you can say alot more about Trump then just being boorish. For Trump has for instance done several things that i know off that show racism towards black people. This add he put in the paper asking the death penalty for a few innocent black kids being one of them. You cannot put that action under boorish. The things he says about having sex with his own daughter are also things you cannot put under boorish. And thats just scratching the surface.

I assume you are referring to this? If so, every last comment cited here, in its proper context, is the exact definition of "boorish", i.e. all these comments are in bad taste and speak of a man who has an inflated sense of self-importance--the key word being "self"--but in none of these comments does he ever say he wants to have sex with his daughter. These comments are all about him, and the beauty he bestowed upon the world.

The very reason boorish people offend so easily is because one can "infer" all kinds of offensive meanings from their ego-centric behavior. This in one reason we humans have "polite" society in the first place, so people don't get the wrong idea about our actions.

As far as the death penalty comments go, you can make those comments about race, if you wish, but is that also not just an inference? And a weak one at that? The case was about a gang of 5 kids who were convicted of brutally raping a jogging woman through the park (all of whom admitted guilt). If one believes Trump's reaction to the crime is racist, one then must also believe Trump would have never taken such a stance if the five thugs were not of ethnic persuasion.

Again, one can embrace those beliefs, but those beliefs would just be speculation. And more to the point, they are more likely beliefs manufactured by the agenda underlying the identity politics of our times rather than beliefs founded on solid critical connection.

A more accurate "inference" of Trump's actions back in 1986, if we must speculate, per this man's psychological profile, speaks more to his staunchly rigid understanding of "strong" men taking necessary action to protect "helpless" women. If anything, these are sexist comments. I do not believe Trump would have taken out this ad in the New York Times, regardless of what race the attackers were, if the jogger were a man.

In other words, the psychology of Trump's actions, including paying for a full pay ad in the New York Times, is more likely a chivalry thing on display (which would fit his Hugh Hefner image) rather than a racist thing.

The points here are not to defend Trump's comments or action. They are all very embarrassing. But rather to put them in their proper context. Someone who so rashly and passionately and publicly argues for the death penalty, for example, could be very dangerous. One could make a very convincing argument that said person has no business being in such a high position of power in the government, e.g. POTUS. Now that's the kind of thing we should be discussing here...

We can of course also discuss your last point if you want. People who show no wisdom at all at one side and at the other side show clear hatefull actions are imo indeed not fit for the position. Sadly our world is run by people like that in general. There are far more powerfull and more evil men who run this world then Trump.

The examples i named of Trump being more then just boorish like you say are just two. There are far far more examples to name. If someone says something degrading or racist or incestous 1 or 2 time it can be a mistake or something that doesnt speak to there personality. If someone shows this kind of behavior often you can indeed speculate that they are not just boorish but in fact bigots or racist. If someone shows this why not call it that?

If you need me to name all the examples of this behavior here i can do it but i think you are allready aware of it?

I believe I am aware of many of the examples you may be talking about. And there may be instances of where Trump has uttered a genuine racist remark, but all the instances I know of speak more to his detractors dishonestly pinning a racist label on his lapel by spinning his words or taking them out of context. I have yet to discern a genuine proclivity for racism that isn't contrived (which doesn't only apply to Trump, BTW. Racism is a highly emotional and charged construct, so it is very easy to weaponize it. This is basically the political trick du jour politicians and media and public relations gurus love to employ to sabotage their opponents).

For example, the 2017 Charlotteville protests in the U.S. (which resulted in more than 30 deaths) were characterized inaccurately by the media as a violent White Nationalist revolt (inspired by Trump) to "take America back" (presumably for Jim Crow, etc.). Gleaning from the headlines and spin, one would presume, especially from afar, that not only was this protest a clash between a violent group of racists and bigots and those who reasonably opposed them, but that Trump himself was a cheerleader for it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The protest was actually about the removal of a statue of Confederate icon Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park (among other Confederate monuments from public spaces, etc.). The vast majority of demonstrators were either peacefully protesting political correctness and the erasing and censure of history itself in full Orwellian fashion or advocating for the removal of the statues because they glorified a period of history characterized by institutionalized racism. In any case, the vast majority of the demonstration--as in 99% of it--was peaceful and had nothing to do with White Supremacy--or even racism (this last assertion being debatable).

I'm sure some may disagree with this assessment and we can certainly discuss further. However, the point is, like anything else, people are expressing valid opinions on both sides of the debate; whereas the media's portrayal attempts to de-legitimatize one side entirely by skewing the facts, and in so doing conveniently throws Trump under the bus.

The bottom line is, this type of reporting is agenda-ridden, manipulative, and inaccurate, not to mention the main source of information on which the vast majority of detractors base their opinions.

Now, that said, there were some White Supremacists present at the protest and there were some bigots and racists present. One of them drove a car through the crowd that killed people, which is the angle the media seized on and ran with. So when President Trump pointed out there were "good people" on both sides of the protest (his words), the media opportunistically seized on his sentiments to imply he was condoning and even defending murderous White Supremacists, those who believe in Jim Crow laws, institutionalized racism, etc., when this is simply not the truth.

My point is, these are the kind of examples folks use time in, time out (among other things) to cite claims that Trump is racist. It's hard for me to take those regurgitated and manufactured hit points seriously.

Of course we could go case by case testing out this analysis--and perhaps you are aware of some things I am not where this doesn't apply--but that would be exhaustive, and honestly, my intent is not to defend all Trump's words and actions.

I just think at the end of the day most of the racist (and incestuous) aspersions are mostly dishonest. Anyone who is in politics understands well they need to be very careful with their words and self censor themselves at every public occasion, lest they be unduly characterized for what they are not. But these are two things Trump simply does not know how to do.

The picture you paint about the events at Charlotteville are absolutely wrong. Where do you get your information? Of course it started out about a conflict about the statue of Robert Lee but on the 12th of August it was clearly something more. On July 8 there had allready been a demonstration of the KKK in Charlotteville and on 12 of August it was a demonstration of a large group of right wing and white nationalist groups called "Unite the right". These are all just basic facts.

And then Trump gave his support to the hatefull alt right side. For me its pretty clear to see. Its also clear to see that you say you "are not here to defend Trump or his actions" but you are exactly doing THAT. So thats not really fair is it? Speak your truth because now you are not.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Posted by Mypos (here)

The picture you paint about the events at Charlotteville are absolutely wrong. Where do you get your information? Of course it started out about a conflict about the statue of Robert Lee but on the 12th of August it was clearly something more. On July 8 there had allready been a demonstration of the KKK in Charlotteville and on 12 of August it was a demonstration of a large group of right wing and white nationalist groups called "Unite the right". These are all just basic facts.

And then Trump gave his support to the hatefull alt right side. For me its pretty clear to see. Its also clear to see that you say you "are not here to defend Trump or his actions" but you are exactly doing THAT. So thats not really fair is it? Speak your truth because now you are not.

Here are the facts about Trumps “both sides” remark. (The whole transcript)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...sides-remarks/


Here’s a small part that has been left out by the MSM most of the time.....

Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?

"Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day --

" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent.“





—

[T Smith]

Posted by Mypos (here)

The picture you paint about the events at Charlotteville are absolutely wrong. Where do you get your information? Of course it started out about a conflict about the statue of Robert Lee but on the 12th of August it was clearly something more. On July 8 there had allready been a demonstration of the KKK in Charlotteville and on 12 of August it was a demonstration of a large group of right wing and white nationalist groups called "Unite the right". These are all just basic facts.

And then Trump gave his support to the hatefull alt right side. For me its pretty clear to see. Its also clear to see that you say you "are not here to defend Trump or his actions" but you are exactly doing THAT. So thats not really fair is it? Speak your truth because now you are not.

Hello Mypos,

Your observations support what I'm saying. We aren't in disagreement; but I'll clarify so there are no misunderstandings regarding my observations:

The KKK group on July 8 consisted of 20 - 30 people. One could probably gather twice as many people in a city half the size of Charlottesville to march for the flat earth (say 40 - 60, for sake of illustration); that would not make a protest of thousands and thousands of people about the flat earth, regardless of how brilliant the psyop was executed and regardless of how brilliantly the media created the desired public perception.

The Unite the Right group on August 12 was larger, estimated at approximately 400 according to the permit. They came from all over the country (not just Charlottesville). These numbers arguably represent the fringe on the right, but still only represent a minuscule fraction of the conflict, which had been ebullient for many months. There are many people rightly concerned about the Orwellian development of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" in the United States, where statues and history are disappearing from the public lexicon and the assessment of history itself can be construed as "thought crimes" by a charged mob. This is a very dangerous development. I would submit to you authoritarians and the MSM are exploiting this in a agitprop way to evoke the very responses you have leveled at my post. The Unite the Right group was also but a fraction of the people in protest on August 12. Most of the protesting, probably 10 to 1, was done by leftist groups, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Standing up for Racial Justice, and Congregate Charlottesville. Some of these leftist groups were peaceful, some were violent.

I acknowledge radical people do exist; I also acknowledge there were radical people at the rally. But allow me to be more precise: this was psyop; the 400 or so radical right were confronted violently by a much larger group on the radical left, and the Charlottesville police were ordered to stand down to let these groups clash. Why do you suppose this was so? The city of Charlottesville could have diffused this situation entirely and we wouldn't even be discussing this today (or even aware of it). I am also on record multiple times in many related conversations here on Avalon observing an extremely "charged" (by design) atmosphere; sometimes it only takes a teaspoon of gasoline and a spark to create the desired explosion.

I would submit to you -- trying to put aside our prejudices -- that we need to discern what this means in context. Donald Trump is on record condemning the violence and hatred on both sides... I'm a little confused about how pointing this out constitutes a defense of Donald Trump. But if so, and if by pointing out the psyop and the media's dishonest betrayal of the events constitute a defense of Donald Trump, then I would say, yeah, a guess I am defending Trump on this particular point.

Kind Regards,


T Smith

[AutumnW]

Condemning the violence, "on both sides" was a bizarre way of framing a series of events where people died due to the actions of a hard right lunatic. And that was the clear intent. The guy was out to kill people with his vehicle.

It doesn't matter how much verbiage, mental gymnastics are used. It was not in the least, or in any way, fair, even handed. It was just the opposite. It may not have come off to some pro Trumpers as an invitation to commit atrocities, but taken with the entire gist of his presidency, it has fueled the flames of racism.

[T Smith]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Condemning the violence, "on both sides" was a bizarre way of framing a series of events where people died due to the actions of a hard right lunatic. And that was the clear intent. The guy was out to kill people with his vehicle.

It doesn't matter how much verbiage, mental gymnastics are used. It was not in the least, or in any way, fair, even handed. It was just the opposite. It may not have come off to some pro Trumpers as an invitation to commit atrocities, but taken with the entire gist of his presidency, it has fueled the flames of racism.

People died because two violent groups on opposite ends of the political spectrum showed up on the streets of Charlotteville with helmets, tear gas, chemical bombs, and weapons--and in the case of one hard-right lunatic, an automobile. The police let them fight. It's honestly a miracle more people weren't maimed or killed. This "street brawl" was the culmination of a months-long conflict between folks in the middle of the political spectrum (many of whom I have to assume are peaceful and decent people, on both sides, to paraphrase the President) regarding the removal of statues and the renaming of parks, etc.

How else should this be framed?

[AutumnW]

Watch the documentary, "Altright" on Netflix. Even discounting for the bias of the filmmaker, it is still a huge eye opener. I didn't know too much about the whole Charlotteville fiasco until I watched the film. And it certainly doesn't portray what you would call, the Left, in a pleasant light either.

You simply can't create a moral equivalency argument out of what occurred there. Anti-fa is disruptive, breaks things, maybe beats people up. (I don't know. I don't follow it closely)

But the neo-fascist movements attract people who want to KILL. There are many among them who are simply disenfranchised and angry, but there is a contingent among that crowd who are also paranoid and that begets acts of terrorism.

It is up to the leader of the free world to differentiate fascists and racists in the alt right, who use coded lingo, like "patriots" etc... with those who are stridently opposed.

[Gracy]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Condemning the violence, "on both sides" was a bizarre way of framing a series of events where people died due to the actions of a hard right lunatic. And that was the clear intent. The guy was out to kill people with his vehicle.

Yes he was, and he was just convicted,but if there weren't "both sides" committing violence there, what is happening in this short clip? Surely this isnt the white nationalists fighting themselves?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nUv7hIVXKFQ

The msm still mostly refer to violent left wing actions on the street as "counter protesters", after that episode many of us began to learn who antifa is.

Here is antifa on display more recently in Portland Oregon, where they are allowed to roam free, they could have killed Andy with those head shots but he *only* wound up in the hospital instead. His crime? Being on the right side of the politacal aisle while reporting.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8WzMZxT-41k

edit to add. 1 person was murdered in cold blood that day, the two others were state troopers whose chopper crashed.