Donald Trump

PJPOWER

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

Tiki said:

Freedom of speech, yes.

Freedom to intimidate, no.

I'm not sure who disagrees with this.  Let's name some groups known for intimidation through violence:
KKK
Antifa
Nazis
BLM
ISIS
etc...
They should all be named as terrorist organizations.

What a joke.

Which mentioned group is not guilty of political  intimidation through violence, aka terrorism? 

HesCalledDyer

pjhawks said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

JC29856 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

g under p said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Any comment from Ben Carson regarding Charlottesville? Can someone go wake him up and ask him what is like working for a racist, white nationalist? Please.
 

I know you would prefer to have a different President but now you've gone from disagreeing with President Trump to he's a white nationalist?

Isn't it obvious?

Ok.  So if someone disagrees with your stance what do you consider them.

Do you actually pay attention or understand what it is that you write? Jeez!

Peace

I do yes.  People are starting to shut down any side of discussion on here until others agree with their stance.  There is some serious suppression going on.

There is a reason for that: the recent incident is not up for discussion. Nazis and nazi supporters do not have a voice and never should have a voice.

Who decides who can and cant have a voice? Sounds facist-y to me

Common sense tells us what the limitations are for free speech. When speech is harmful... the brakes need to be applied.

Pedophiles cannot speak to the pleasures of children. They don't get a voice.
Rapists cannot speak to women deserving rape because they wear revealing clothing. They don't get a voice.
Nazis cannot speak to white supremacy because dark people are mud people. They don't get a voice.

Do you get the point?

your point is completely wrong though.  Free speech defends the right to speech we don't like as much as the speech we do like.  In the US yes those assholes have to right to speak and assemble. it's a basic tenet of our democracy.  yes their message is 100% vile and disgusting, but they do have a right to promote that message.  If not then who decides what speech is ok and what speech is harmful to use your term? hell just look at social media and how often someone is offended by pretty much everything these days.  do you really want to go down that path where we start limiting speech by who is offended by it?

It's not a matter of someone just being offended by something they don't like.  Nazism is communicating hatred.  When it is downright hate speech, yes, it should be suppressed.  We fucked up after WWII by not condemning symbols of the Nazi Party.  We should make amendment.

ikiT

There were plenty of anti racist demonstrators there who didn't come with the shields and helmets.  

Everyone of those KKK rebel/swastika flag waving tools came looking for violence.

There is no equivalence. 

ikiT

Black Lives DO Matter

http://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/

pjhawks

HesCalledDyer said:

pjhawks said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

JC29856 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

g under p said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Any comment from Ben Carson regarding Charlottesville? Can someone go wake him up and ask him what is like working for a racist, white nationalist? Please.
 

I know you would prefer to have a different President but now you've gone from disagreeing with President Trump to he's a white nationalist?

Isn't it obvious?

Ok.  So if someone disagrees with your stance what do you consider them.

Do you actually pay attention or understand what it is that you write? Jeez!

Peace

I do yes.  People are starting to shut down any side of discussion on here until others agree with their stance.  There is some serious suppression going on.

There is a reason for that: the recent incident is not up for discussion. Nazis and nazi supporters do not have a voice and never should have a voice.

Who decides who can and cant have a voice? Sounds facist-y to me

Common sense tells us what the limitations are for free speech. When speech is harmful... the brakes need to be applied.

Pedophiles cannot speak to the pleasures of children. They don't get a voice.
Rapists cannot speak to women deserving rape because they wear revealing clothing. They don't get a voice.
Nazis cannot speak to white supremacy because dark people are mud people. They don't get a voice.

Do you get the point?

your point is completely wrong though.  Free speech defends the right to speech we don't like as much as the speech we do like.  In the US yes those assholes have to right to speak and assemble. it's a basic tenet of our democracy.  yes their message is 100% vile and disgusting, but they do have a right to promote that message.  If not then who decides what speech is ok and what speech is harmful to use your term? hell just look at social media and how often someone is offended by pretty much everything these days.  do you really want to go down that path where we start limiting speech by who is offended by it?

It's not a matter of someone just being offended by something they don't like.  Nazism is communicating hatred.  When it is downright hate speech, yes, it should be suppressed.  We fucked up after WWII by not condemning symbols of the Nazi Party.  We should make amendment.

i can see banning the symbols for sure.  when you start to tell someone they can't speak about things you disagree with is where the freedom of speech comes in.  i don't know maybe i'm drawing the line in the wrong place but to me freedom of speech is one of the most basic and important attributes of our democracy. even if it allows complete utter aholes and crazies to speak.  

PJfanwillneverleave1

Laugh a little folks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrYd2dbxiT4

HughFreakingDillon

The First Amendment does not, however, protect all speech. It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel. The First Amendment also does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech.

mrussel1

1. Pence is not Trump.. Trump needs to speak clearly for himself. The alt-right does not follow the administration, they follow Trump.

2. Free speech is not unlimited. The courts have made this clear through litigation. When speech moves to intimidation or threats of violence, then it becomes a legal issue. You cannot threaten another person.

 3. Nothing should prevent Trump for speaking clearly and without equivocation on the marches, whether they are legal or not. No one is arguing that Trump should conduct mass arrests or crackdowns on actual peaceful protesters, whichever side or however reprehensible their views are.

It's all really pretty straightforward, philosophically. The problem is that Trump cannot condemn violence perpetrated by the white nationalist side. Yet, he has no issue casting blame and ridicule on every other issue. He cannot condemn nationalists or Putin. He has no problem with anyone else. Seems quite odd.

dignin

Tiki said:

Black Lives DO Matter

http://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/

Careful Tiki, you're posting a link to a terrorist organization....someone might make a phone call and turn you in.

rgambs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^

You're missing the point TB.  Who is supporting Nazis on here?  No one.  There are people on here that perceive others that do and shout at them and say their opinions and thoughts don't count. As I said Nazis and their supporters should never have a voice but just to be a normal guy and get labelled as one because I'm not going around calling everyone a Nazi is crazy.

Did someone call you a Nazi or are you speaking falsehoods?  
I don't recall any posters here being called Nazis.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

1. Pence is not Trump.. Trump needs to speak clearly for himself. The alt-right does not follow the administration, they follow Trump.

2. Free speech is not unlimited. The courts have made this clear through litigation. When speech moves to intimidation or threats of violence, then it becomes a legal issue. You cannot threaten another person.

 3. Nothing should prevent Trump for speaking clearly and without equivocation on the marches, whether they are legal or not. No one is arguing that Trump should conduct mass arrests or crackdowns on actual peaceful protesters, whichever side or however reprehensible their views are.

It's all really pretty straightforward, philosophically. The problem is that Trump cannot condemn violence perpetrated by the white nationalist side. Yet, he has no issue casting blame and ridicule on every other issue. He cannot condemn nationalists or Putin. He has no problem with anyone else. Seems quite odd.

A few things if I may

Do/does the alt-right follow Bannon(senior counselor to the president)? Please clarify your comment alt-right does not follow the administration.
Trump did condemn the "violence" which is not protected.
I absolutely agree with this, Trump by not specifically calling out white nationalists and Putin, does rise to the level of odd.

Smellyman

What it's like defending Trump.  So much winning.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

1. Pence is not Trump.. Trump needs to speak clearly for himself. The alt-right does not follow the administration, they follow Trump.

2. Free speech is not unlimited. The courts have made this clear through litigation. When speech moves to intimidation or threats of violence, then it becomes a legal issue. You cannot threaten another person.

 3. Nothing should prevent Trump for speaking clearly and without equivocation on the marches, whether they are legal or not. No one is arguing that Trump should conduct mass arrests or crackdowns on actual peaceful protesters, whichever side or however reprehensible their views are.

It's all really pretty straightforward, philosophically. The problem is that Trump cannot condemn violence perpetrated by the white nationalist side. Yet, he has no issue casting blame and ridicule on every other issue. He cannot condemn nationalists or Putin. He has no problem with anyone else. Seems quite odd.

A few things if I may

Do/does the alt-right follow Bannon(senior counselor to the president)? Please clarify your comment alt-right does not follow the administration.
Trump did condemn the "violence" which is not protected.
I absolutely agree with this, Trump by not specifically calling out white nationalists and Putin, does rise to the level of odd.

Does the alt right follow Bannon or vice versa?  I have no idea.  I do know that Breitbart is the mouthpiece of the alt right.  We know Bannon ran Breitbart.  We rightly assume that he's feeding them info on McMaster from the West Wing.  I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your question.  
No, he condemned violence on many, many sides when only one side killed someone on Saturday.  He has yet to call the Duke/Spencer led nationalists.  Many, many republicans have, by name.  

Halifax2TheMax

Trump identifies with Putin, thinks he's a strong leader. Putin murders political opponents and journalists, jails homosexuals. That's who I want as my president, someone who idolizes Putin. It really is very difficult for some here to see the parallels and why the outrage.

Follow the money, from Russia with love and a PTAPE, all the way to impeachment. 755.

The Juggler

"We're the platform for the alt right." - Steve Bannon at the RNC last year speaking about his website Breitbart.

Cliffy6745

Trump about to give a statement.  Here's your dog whistle. 

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Tiki said:

Freedom of speech, yes.

Freedom to intimidate, no.

I'm not sure who disagrees with this.  Let's name some groups known for intimidation through violence:
KKK
Antifa
Nazis
BLM
ISIS
etc...
They should all be named as terrorist organizations.

So antifa and blm have said things you disagree with and deserve the terrorist label?

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

g under p said:

Let's see 36 hours no mention from the President of the Nazi white supremacist group's violence. On the the other hand in less than an hour he calls out the CEO of Merck an African American businessman.

What do think those white supremacists are thinking or feeling today? 

For me I think they're saying the MFing President has our backs.....high fives.

Peace

Here is what I was referring to in a post yesterday about "radical Islamic terror" and hypocrisy.
Trump is famous for asking Obama and whoever else, to condemn radical islamic terror(ism), Im para-phasing, how can you defeat it if you cant even say it. Trump campaigned on that phrase, saying it over and over. How stupid is it to think that saying radical islamic terror will somehow help solve it? Terrorists with their ears to Obama are suddently going to stop plowing into crowds and blowing up nightclubs if/when Obama says the words "radical islamic terror".
Since charlottesville, everyone and their brother wants Trump to condemn specifically Nazis and the KKK because Im guessing by specifically saying KKK and Nazi Trump will suddenly rip the hate from there hearts and minds and they will trade in their Nazi flags for rainbow ones. It completely stupid on all sides. Its this a form of symptom blaming and not problem solving.
I dont know how to stop racism, you cant ignore but you cant suppress their speech either.

Is racism all of a sudden a threat to our democracy? Should we take to the streets to raise awareness that white supremacists are racist? Should we protest that our president didnt condemn violence enough, by mentioning Nazis and the KKK?

You're missing a huge aspect of this. trump himself is a white supremacist and has white supremacists working with him in the White House. Therefore the threat trump poses to democracy is actual. 

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Tiki said:

Freedom of speech, yes.

Freedom to intimidate, no.

I'm not sure who disagrees with this.  Let's name some groups known for intimidation through violence:
KKK
Antifa
Nazis
BLM
ISIS
etc...
They should all be named as terrorist organizations.

So antifa and blm have said things you disagree with and deserve the terrorist label?

Evidently you missed the "intimidation through violence" part...Not sure where you got confused unless you just did not read what you quoted.  What they say is just fine, when they pull their Louisville sluggers out and set shit on fire on the other hand...

wndowpayne

So if Hillary were President there would be no KKK or White Supremecist rallies? This was gonna happen regardless of who was POTUS. You move or remove a confederate statue and people will protest. It became a national tragedy when that idiot drove that car into a crowd.