MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
Mister Sandman
New Member
My issue is not about "who" was there but about trump equating both sides
I have yet to hear or read anything from Trump that equates both sides. I've read several statements from people accusing him of it, though.
But hey, while I was writing that it occurred to me that I don't see much of a difference between either side anymore. Both are a bunch of violent racist fucks who want the government to discriminate against the other side as well as anyone who looks like the other side. If they want to fight each other, I'm all for it.
When you make a statement then you should be able to support that statement. You keep tap dancing around never offering any counter evidence or even a basic reply.
So let's try this again. Explain and or show me how he equated both sides. Was it by saying both sides were comitting violence? They were, it's a fact that is undeniable and I can provide evidence to support it. If that's not the statement you are referring then explain which statement and how he equated both sides from said statement. I'm rooting for you here...
Both sides are violent hate groups that came with ill intent. You can go off of what either side says publicly on a website or when interviewed or you can go off factual and evidence based. There may be some differences, but there are more similarities. The way i see it there are some that are against both parties beings how they see what both parties actually stand for and there are some that are for either party and make excuses for either party. Trump made his position very clear. He is against both parties seeing how both parties are hate groups causing nothing, but fear and violence. Oh, i forgot about the group that is for one side using it as a tool for a political agenda. Of those, how many actually believe in the stance and are not just using it as a way to anger thier base into marching against thier political opponents like hillary who was against blm before she was for it? Like barry sanders who was for all lives matter before he was against it and moved to the blm side of it? How many news journalists are actually for blm and antifa and aren't just using it as a tool for ratings and a political agenda?
So, what gets you is that trump is against both sides because they are both violent groups tearing down the fabric of our nation. Because make no mistake, trump has denounced racism and white supremacy groups for many, many years. It's on record and because it takes him a day or 2 to make a statement about an incident (which is what he should do) he is actually "for" the group he denounces? The fact that this makes sense to someone is just insane.
Mister Sandman
New Member
What Trump calls “the alt left” or called also antifa (which is short for anti-fascist) is a
movement that traces its roots to the militant leftists who in the 1920s and 1930s brawled with fascists on the streets of Germany, Italy, and Spain.
In the 1970s (and later in the 80s and even 90s) the Punk movement from UK and Germany mobilized to defeat neo-Nazi skinheads who were infiltrating the music scene. Via Punk, groups calling themselves "anti-racist action" —and later "anti-fascist action" or "antifa" — sprung up in the United States.
They have seen explosive growth in the trump era for an obvious reason: There’s more open white supremacism to mobilize against.
As members of a largely anarchist movement, antifa activists generally combat white supremacism not by trying to change government policy but through direct action. They try to publicly identify white supremacists and get them fired from their jobs and evicted from their apartments. And they disrupt white-supremacist rallies, including by force.
Some of their tactics are genuinely troubling.
They’re troubling tactically because conservatives use antifa’s violence to justify—or at least distract from—the violence of white supremacists, as trump did in his press conference.
They’re troubling strategically because they allow white supremacists to depict themselves as victims being denied the right to freely assemble.
And they’re troubling morally because antifa activists really do infringe upon that right. By using violence, they reject the moral legacy of the civil-rights movement’s fight against white supremacy.
So, yes, antifa is not a figment of the conservative imagination. It’s a moral problem that liberals need to confront.
But saying it’s a problem is vastly different than implying, as trump did, that it’s a problem equal to white supremacism. Using the phrase “alt-left” suggests a moral equivalence that simply doesn’t exist.
For starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn’t perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do.
Second, antifa activists don’t wield anything like the alt-right’s power. White, Christian supremacy has been government policy in the United States for much of American history. Anarchism has not.
And antifa’s vision is not as noxious.
Antifa activists do not celebrate regimes that committed genocide and enforced slavery.
They’re mostly anarchists. Anarchism may not be a particularly practical ideology. But it’s not an ideology that depicts the members of a particular race or religion as subhuman.
If trump really wants to undermine antifa, he should do his best to stamp out the bigotry that antifa—counterproductively—mobilizes against.
Illustration by Edel Rodriguez for TIME
For the Aug. 28 issue of TIME on hate in America we turned to artist Edel Rodriguez to create a cover to capture the aftermath of the Charlottesville tragedy. With his bold, graphic approach, Rodriguez depicts a protester giving a Nazi salute while draped in an American flag.
“These people are hiding behind the flag and the idea of patriotism it connotes. They have tried to change the language from ‘White Supremacist’ to ‘White Nationalist,’ to further hide behind the flag, and the idea of patriotism,” says Rodriguez, a Cuban American artist. “But they are espousing the same views as always.”
