OT: Pres Trump Declares his Love for the Furher - SIEG HEIL~

[Jonathan]

We have a fascist President that admires
the Nazi ideology.

President Trump bent over backwards to
defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
and the KKK today.

He expressly stated there is no moral
difference between Nazis and those
protesting against Nazis.

He stated there is little difference between
Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
thousands trying to destroy America to
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.


Betting odds Trump won't finish his
term are running roughly even money
before today.

https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising

[Ray Martinez]

Slanderous tirade via the Nazi card, which means we have a Obama/Hillary supporter who remains enraged over the fact that Trump won 30 states.

What's the best evidence that the Russia investigation is politically driven, not factually driven----that Russian meddling had no impact on the election?

Answer: The fact that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

Ray

[Kalkidas]

You're a moron. Go away.

[raven1]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Slanderous tirade via the Nazi card,

Ray, there were numerous protestors in Charlottesville carrying actual
Nazi flags. What other term would you apply to them?

[Robert Camp]

On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>
> We have a fascist President that admires
> the Nazi ideology.

I don't know that. You don't either. So far, the evidence, as far as I
can tell, simply suggests an ignorance of history, civics and a hundred
other things, an inability to think beyond personal battles, and extreme
narcissism.

> President Trump bent over backwards to
> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
> and the KKK today.

He didn't. He bent over backwards to defend a false equivalency because
it satisfies his immature need to prolong petty feuds and protect
perceived constituencies.

> He expressly stated there is no moral
> difference between Nazis and those
> protesting against Nazis.

I watched the presser. From what I saw he expressly did no such thing.
Those were simply not the sentiments he expressed. He offered a moral
equivalency between the violent on both sides, oblivious of course of
the vast differences - both practical and philosophical - between the
groups. He was willing to blur these critically important distinctions
because he is a child who doesn't like those with whom he has to share
his sandbox.

To be clear, I'm not saying he doesn't harbor Nazi sympathies, he may
well do so, but I don't believe that is clear from anything we've seen
so far.

> He stated there is little difference between
> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
> thousands trying to destroy America to
> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

No, he didn't. It was an analogy - an inept and foolish one to be sure -
intended to defend the protection of confederate statues.

> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
> term are running roughly even money
> before today.

You could be right. In fact I hope you are. But I find the tendency on
the left to interpret as demonic anything Trump does or says (or other
conservatives do or say) to be particularly ironic, considering both
Trump's overwhelming personal inadequacies and the way the last
president was treated.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

[Bill]

Trump is an idiot judging by his words so far. However there
are points being overlooked. Neither Nazism nor racism are
illegal in the U.S. Hate speech and hate crimes are. Since
the President is supposed to represent everyone, protecting
the rights of everyone is a constitutional duty.

To condemn this or that instance of constitutionally
protected speech is one of the hallmarks of Nazism or
Fascism. The State cannot persecute views we may find
despicable just because we don't like them. If we allow it,
we could suppress religion or any social, political or
economic expression the majority (voters) find offensive.

Since the only sources we have that are considered
authoritative are the major news media, they control the
conversation. My complaint is that they only report U.S.
national news, specifically Trump and his frivolous dramas.
They rarely report international events occurring in Syria
or Yemen or Nigeria or Ukraine or Israel. Just Trump. This
is a kind of fake news simply because it isn't news but
gossip.

Bill

[Kalkidas]

Wrong. So-called "hate speech" is not illegal in the U.S.

[Jonathan]

That has nothing to do with it. I despise Trump for
a couple of reasons.

1) He's incompetent
2) He's a serial liar
3) He's a cheat
4) He's a moron
5) He's a Putin lover
6) He's a Neo-fascist
7) He's never defended democracy, not once
8) He never denounces terrorism against Muslims


I could go on and on, but what's the point
I'm talking to a Nazi apologist that people
like Hitler rely on for gaining power.
As Hitler said...



"What luck for rulers, that men do not think."

~ Adolf Hitler



s

[Jonathan]

Another Nazi sympathizer, boy are you folks easy to spot.

[Jonathan]

On 8/16/2017 2:28 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>> We have a fascist President that admires
>> the Nazi ideology.
>
> I don't know that. You don't either.

Sorry, but he's made his racism clear in one too many ways.
Did you know that when touring his various properties
in the past it was a rule all black employees were
not to be placed where Trump can see them? They had
to be hidden whenever he showed up.

His 'who is David Duke' statement speaks clearly
to his racism, that's a clear and deliberate
statement to the white supremacists that he
has their back.

And who says 'where is my African American?"
Answer, a racist says that, and yesterday
he couldn't be clearly that he thinks the
Nazi's and the counter protesters were
morally equivalent.

The first few examples of his racism could
be explained away with some clever semantics
but the other day, case closed.

Even the Joints Chiefs of Staff today felt
compelled to issue a statement, and they
NEVER and I mean NEVER get involved in
politics or openly criticize the President.

Until today.

> So far, the evidence, as far as I
> can tell, simply suggests an ignorance of history,

Equating Robert E Lee to Jefferson and Washington
isn't ignorance of history, a child knows the
difference. It's a deliberate attempt to send
a message to the White Supremacists as that
is their rhetoric. He knows that.

> civics and a hundred
> other things, an inability to think beyond personal battles, and extreme
> narcissism.
>
>> President Trump bent over backwards to
>> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
>> and the KKK today.
>
> He didn't. He bent over backwards to defend a false equivalency because
> it satisfies his immature need to prolong petty feuds and protect
> perceived constituencies.
>

You can't explain yesterday away as childish nonsense, he
said what he wanted to say, and he's standing behind
those words today. There were plenty of 'fine people'
holding those torches and wearing those swastikas.

>> He expressly stated there is no moral
>> difference between Nazis and those
>> protesting against Nazis.
>
> I watched the presser. From what I saw he expressly did no such thing.
> Those were simply not the sentiments he expressed. He offered a moral
> equivalency between the violent on both sides, oblivious of course of
> the vast differences - both practical and philosophical - between the
> groups. He was willing to blur these critically important distinctions
> because he is a child who doesn't like those with whom he has to share
> his sandbox.
>
> To be clear, I'm not saying he doesn't harbor Nazi sympathies, he may
> well do so, but I don't believe that is clear from anything we've seen
> so far.
>

He's done everything except give the Nazi salute.
What do you need a certified letter?

>> He stated there is little difference between
>> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
>> thousands trying to destroy America to
>> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
>
> No, he didn't. It was an analogy - an inept and foolish one to be sure -
> intended to defend the protection of confederate statues.
>
>> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
>> term are running roughly even money
>> before today.
>
> You could be right. In fact I hope you are. But I find the tendency on
> the left to interpret as demonic anything Trump does or says (or other
> conservatives do or say) to be particularly ironic, considering both
> Trump's overwhelming personal inadequacies and the way the last
> president was treated.
>
> Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
>

Stupidity is as likely to err on one side as another.
He never does that, he always errs on the side
of racism and fascist ideologies. His entire
anti immigrant stance, combined with extreme
populism and extreme nationalism are classic
Neo-fascism.

Other classic properties of Neo-fascism is to
call both the left and right corrupt, to
portray the nation as collapsing and claim
only a strong man given unlimited power
can save the nation.

That's Trump to a T.

His constant attacks on the free press and on
the courts are all classic fascism.

Look it up. For fascism to rise in America as
Trump is trying to do by stoking the white
supremacist fires, his storm troopers, is
unacceptable.

Has he even once said a thing in defense
of democracy? Not once. His love affair
with the greatest Fascist of our time
and global threat to democracy in Putin
also shows his true beliefs.



Neo-fascism
From Wiki

Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes
significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually
includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration
policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism,
anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, anti-anarchism and
opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal
democracy.

Groups identified as neo-fascist in the United States generally
include neo-Nazi organizations and movements such as the
alt-right, National Alliance, and the American Nazi Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism

[Jonathan]

'Fighting words' meant to start a fight or riot is illegal
when uttered at a person or a crowd as happened last
weekend. Same goes for hate speech, if it's meant
to cause a crime or riot it becomes illegal.

They may be protected on the Internet or the privacy
of your home, but not when spewed in the face of
others with the goal of starting a fight or riot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

[Jonathan]

On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:

These are the times when one must stand up and be counted.

You failed the test.

[Bill]

So, if I don't condemn something I must sympathize with it.
By this measure, all the things I've never thought about or
even heard of I must agree with by default. Since most
people never talk about Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it's fair
to assume there's nothing to condemn. This kind of logic
always works in the moron's favor so your misunderstanding
will no doubt, prevail.


Bill

[Robert Camp]

I haven't seen anyone overlook these things.

> To condemn this or that instance of constitutionally
> protected speech is one of the hallmarks of Nazism or
> Fascism.

Condemning speech is a feature of an open, free society. We all are
within our rights to condemn speech with which we don't agree, and
should do so without fear of reprisal - which is what is actually a
hallmark of fascism.

> The State cannot persecute views we may find
> despicable just because we don't like them. If we allow it,
> we could suppress religion or any social, political or
> economic expression the majority (voters) find offensive.

Is someone asking that of the state?

> Since the only sources we have that are considered
> authoritative are the major news media, they control the
> conversation. My complaint is that they only report U.S.
> national news, specifically Trump and his frivolous dramas.
> They rarely report international events occurring in Syria
> or Yemen or Nigeria or Ukraine or Israel. Just Trump. This
> is a kind of fake news simply because it isn't news but
> gossip.

Considering his catastrophic liabilities as a leader, thinker, and
worthwhile human being, I can think of little in this world that is more
important right now than covering Trump. People everywhere need to know
the danger he poses to this country and the world. And for anyone
interpreting this as rank partisanship all that is required to disprove
that notion is familiarity with the line of succession.

[R. Dean]

Trump is a dangerous man. People who voted for him are just as racist
and biased as the KKK, white supremacist or the Nazis. As a life-long
democrat I think repubs should be allowed only 2/3 of a vote.

[Robert Camp]

On 8/16/17 4:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 8/16/2017 2:28 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>
>> I don't know that. You don't either.
>
> Sorry, but he's made his racism clear in one too many ways.

Well, you should be sorry, because neither you nor I was talking about
racism.

> Did you know that when touring his various properties
> in the past it was a rule all black employees were
> not to be placed where Trump can see them? They had
> to be hidden whenever he showed up.

I've heard such things. Usually when pasted from hysterical liberal
sites like truthexaminer.com (keep in mind, I'm extremely liberal). If
you've got some reliable source I'll read about it.

> His 'who is David Duke' statement speaks clearly
> to his racism, that's a clear and deliberate
> statement to the white supremacists that he
> has their back.

Again, no one was talking about racism.

> And who says 'where is my African American?"
> Answer, a racist says that,

Entirely possible. It's also possible that someone who cannot articulate
his way out of a paper bag will likely publicly put his foot in it
incessantly when trying to swim in an ocean that is way too deep for him
(politics).

If you think I'm making an excuse for him, then you clearly don't
understand what I'm saying.

> and yesterday
> he couldn't be clearly that he thinks the
> Nazi's and the counter protesters were
> morally equivalent.

As I said before, that is not at all clear. The moral equivalency he was
drawing was between what he perceived to be violent elements on both sides.

But at least you now remember that the subject was Nazis.

> The first few examples of his racism could
> be explained away with some clever semantics
> but the other day, case closed.

Okay, so you've forgotten again already.

I'm afraid that if you cannot keep the issue straight you haven't come
close to making a case, much less closing it.

> Even the Joints Chiefs of Staff today felt
> compelled to issue a statement, and they
> NEVER and I mean NEVER get involved in
> politics or openly criticize the President.
>
> Until today.
>
>> So far, the evidence, as far as I can tell, simply suggests an
>> ignorance of history,
>
> Equating Robert E Lee to Jefferson and Washington
> isn't ignorance of history, a child knows the
> difference.

No, most children don't know the difference. And if you think that there
aren't enough examples of Trump's utter ignorance of American, or any,
history (re: his comments on Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, etc.) to
support dismissal of virtually any relevant comments on the basis of
ignorance, then you haven't been paying attention.

> It's a deliberate attempt to send
> a message to the White Supremacists as that
> is their rhetoric. He knows that.

Very little about what Trump does is coherent, much less deliberate. He
is a narcissist who believes the universe revolves around him. If there
was anything "deliberate" about what he said, I'm much more inclined to
believe it was the influence of Steve Bannon.

And in any case, he doesn't need to send messages to those cockroaches.
It doesn't matter what he says, they still believe he's their man. They
ignored his previous disavowal on the assumption that there was a
"Jewish gun to his head" (not sure who they meant, but it doesn't really
matter).

>> civics and a hundred other things, an inability to think beyond
>> personal battles, and extreme narcissism.
>>
>>> President Trump bent over backwards to
>>> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
>>> and the KKK today.
>>
>> He didn't. He bent over backwards to defend a false equivalency
>> because it satisfies his immature need to prolong petty feuds and
>> protect perceived constituencies.
>
> You can't explain yesterday away as childish nonsense,

Sure I can. In fact I just did.

> he
> said what he wanted to say, and he's standing behind
> those words today. There were plenty of 'fine people'
> holding those torches and wearing those swastikas.

None of which is relevant to my explanation.

>>> He expressly stated there is no moral
>>> difference between Nazis and those
>>> protesting against Nazis.
>>
>> I watched the presser. From what I saw he expressly did no such thing.
>> Those were simply not the sentiments he expressed. He offered a moral
>> equivalency between the violent on both sides, oblivious of course of
>> the vast differences - both practical and philosophical - between the
>> groups. He was willing to blur these critically important distinctions
>> because he is a child who doesn't like those with whom he has to share
>> his sandbox.
>>
>> To be clear, I'm not saying he doesn't harbor Nazi sympathies, he may
>> well do so, but I don't believe that is clear from anything we've seen
>> so far.
>
> He's done everything except give the Nazi salute.
> What do you need a certified letter?

I actually prefer evidence, with all due respect to your unwarranted
(and ultimately counterproductive) hyperbole.

>>> He stated there is little difference between
>>> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
>>> thousands trying to destroy America to
>>> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
>>
>> No, he didn't. It was an analogy - an inept and foolish one to be sure
>> - intended to defend the protection of confederate statues.
>>
>>> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
>>> term are running roughly even money
>>> before today.
>>
>> You could be right. In fact I hope you are. But I find the tendency on
>> the left to interpret as demonic anything Trump does or says (or other
>> conservatives do or say) to be particularly ironic, considering both
>> Trump's overwhelming personal inadequacies and the way the last
>> president was treated.
>>
>> Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
>
> Stupidity is as likely to err on one side as another.
> He never does that, he always errs on the side
> of racism and fascist ideologies. His entire
> anti immigrant stance, combined with extreme
> populism and extreme nationalism are classic
> Neo-fascism.

Of course. There is no reason to expect some sort of random distribution
of nonsense from him. His stupidity (or more accurately, willful
ignorance) isn't without guidance. He has bought into the alternate
reality ideology of the far right. And predictably so, he doesn't read,
has no attention span, and he is obsessed with himself.

He's a dupe. A dangerous one, to be sure, but at this point I see little
evidence to suggest he is malicious. Just ignorant, incompetent,
immature and congenitally unaware of his own shortcomings.

> Other classic properties of Neo-fascism is to
> call both the left and right corrupt, to
> portray the nation as collapsing and claim
> only a strong man given unlimited power
> can save the nation.
>
> That's Trump to a T.

Those classic properties are not limited to fascism, but I'll grant that
he shows plenty of signs of heading in that direction. He also shows no
signs of having any kind of coherent ideology or guiding principle other
than self-interest, so I'll stick with my dupe-of-Bannon or
prisoner-of-his-own-financial-improprieties hypotheses for the time being.

> His constant attacks on the free press and on
> the courts are all classic fascism.

They surely are. Read Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny" if you want to get
into this in a way that is deeper than sound bites.

> Look it up. For fascism to rise in America as
> Trump is trying to do by stoking the white
> supremacist fires, his storm troopers, is
> unacceptable.

There's no need to look anything up. I'm not talking about stoking
fires. I'm not talking about general political approaches and overall
philosophies. I was taking issue with your interpretation of what he
said at that press conference. Your read was hysterical and just the
kind of thing those resisting Trump can do without.

> Has he even once said a thing in defense
> of democracy? Not once.

How much do you want to bet that I can find at least one example of him
saying something in defense of democracy?

> His love affair
> with the greatest Fascist of our time
> and global threat to democracy in Putin
> also shows his true beliefs.

It certainly shows his deference to Putin. And his terror at the
investigation turning toward his finances appears to offer an
explanation why that might be.

Presuming you know

[Ray Martinez]

Obama won two terms, so your claim of Trump voters being racist is shown for what it really is: motivated by partisan hatred.

And I remember the glee expressed by white supremacists over the Iran nuclear deal that Obama gave them, which clearly indicates that they see the deal as granting Iran a weapon slowly over time. And don't forget Obama's Iran are Holocaust deniers and seek to implement the final solution once and for all. So Obama was a total deceiver, and apparently your hero.

When America elected Trump we as a nation punished Obama for the things he did in his second term.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

...something you don't neither sheds light, nor help your cause.

[Robert Camp]

On 8/16/17 7:09 PM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/16/2017 9:41 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 8/16/17 12:09 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:

<snip>

>>> Since the only sources we have that are considered
>>> authoritative are the major news media, they control the
>>> conversation. My complaint is that they only report U.S.
>>> national news, specifically Trump and his frivolous dramas.
>>> They rarely report international events occurring in Syria
>>> or Yemen or Nigeria or Ukraine or Israel. Just Trump. This
>>> is a kind of fake news simply because it isn't news but
>>> gossip.
>>
>> Considering his catastrophic liabilities as a leader, thinker, and
>> worthwhile human being, I can think of little in this world that is
>> more important right now than covering Trump. People everywhere need
>> to know the danger he poses to this country and the world. And for
>> anyone interpreting this as rank partisanship all that is required to
>> disprove that notion is familiarity with the line of succession.
>>
> Trump is a dangerous man. People who voted for him are just as racist
> and biased as the KKK, white supremacist or the Nazis.

Of course Trump is a dangerous man, but your further comments, if
serious, are a foolish exaggeration.

It would seem your grasp of politics is as shallow as your grasp of ID.

> As a life-long
> democrat I think repubs should be allowed only 2/3 of a vote.

Assuming, in this case, that you are trying for irony, you probably want
to say three fifths.

Same as it ever was...

[jillery]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:50:06 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>When America elected Trump we as a nation punished Obama for the things he did in his second term.

If so, then it's a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your
face. That you consider it a rational act speaks poorly of you. Not
sure how doing that punishes Obama.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[R. Dean]

How so, it was evident from the beginning that Trump was a racist, but
this didn't bother his voters.

>
> It would seem your grasp of politics is as shallow as your grasp of ID.
>
>> As a life-long
>> democrat I think repubs should be allowed only 2/3 of a vote.
>
> Assuming, in this case, that you are trying for irony, you probably want
> to say three fifths.
>

Ok 2/3 or 3/5 whatever. Perhaps it would be smart for the Democrat party
once we gain power again to outlaw the repub party.

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Slanderous tirade via the Nazi card,
>
> Ray, there were numerous protestors in Charlottesville carrying actual
> Nazi flags. What other term would you apply to them?

My comment was made in the context of Trump being slandered as a Nazi.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Even if I grant that premise for the purposes of discussion, not being
bothered by his racism (as one of the many things about which voters may
or may not be bothered) is a very different condition from "being just

as racist and biased as the KKK, white supremacist or the Nazis."

>> It would seem your grasp of politics is as shallow as your grasp of ID.
>>
>>> As a life-long
>>> democrat I think repubs should be allowed only 2/3 of a vote.
>>
>> Assuming, in this case, that you are trying for irony, you probably
>> want to say three fifths.
>
> Ok 2/3 or 3/5 whatever. Perhaps it would be smart for the Democrat party
> once we gain power again to outlaw the repub party.

I want to believe you're being tongue-in-cheek, but past experience
suggests to me that you don't have that level of cleverness, so on the
assumption that you're serious, let me answer by saying this - please,
please leave the Democratic Party and never speak again about anything
having to do with politics.

It's bad enough being an avowed fascist. But to advocate fascism and
have no clue that you are doing so, that's, well...positively Trumpian.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:08:46 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[raven1]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 11:15:05 AM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Slanderous tirade via the Nazi card,
>>
>> Ray, there were numerous protestors in Charlottesville carrying actual
>> Nazi flags. What other term would you apply to them?

>My comment was made in the context of Trump being slandered as a Nazi.

[R. Dean]

And why not have a one party system? There would be no Charlottesville
riots.

[R. Dean]

Why? My views are typical democratic, but no one, including you, is
brave enough to say it?

>
> It's bad enough being an avowed fascist. But to advocate fascism and
> have no clue that you are doing so, that's, well...positively Trumpian.
>

What is wrong with there being a one party system? This, since L.B.
Johnson has been the Democrat goal IE to become the predominate party
and win every seat of power and to disenfranchise republicans, so
what is wrong with taking it to the next level and have just democrats
in power?
>
>

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

*



Now wait a minute, Ray.

On July 5th., you said almighty god had "punished Obama" by electing
Trump president. I wrote asking why God had left it until Obama
wasn't running in the election.

You evidently found it too difficult a question to answer, so remained
silent.

I strongly suggest you sit down and THINK before writing a posting. It
will save you oceans of trouble, and will perhaps encourage readers
tto think you are rational.

Let me repeat the question I posed to you in my reply: Is god a
member of the GOP???


Have fun,



Joe Cummings
On July
>Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:09:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

<snip>

>Trump is a dangerous man. People who voted for him are just as racist
>and biased as the KKK, white supremacist or the Nazis. As a life-long
>democrat I think repubs should be allowed only 2/3 of a vote.

And you say *Trump* is a dangerous bigot...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:27:38 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

I have to admit, you're as good a representative of
Democrats as Ray is for religious believers.

>> It's bad enough being an avowed fascist. But to advocate fascism and
>> have no clue that you are doing so, that's, well...positively Trumpian.
> >
>What is wrong with there being a one party system? This, since L.B.
>Johnson has been the Democrat goal IE to become the predominate party
>and win every seat of power and to disenfranchise republicans, so
>what is wrong with taking it to the next level and have just democrats
>in power?

If you're actually serious about that, your civics teachers
(assuming you made it as far as high school) should be
tarred and feathered. And you, personally, should *never* be
allowed to vote.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:44:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

<snip>

>And why not have a one party system? There would be no Charlottesville
>riots.

*Excellent* idea! It worked so well for the Soviets, after
all...and who needs that silly "freedom" anyway?

FYI, that was "sarcasm". Can you say "sarcasm? Gooood!

[R. Dean]

On 8/17/2017 12:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:44:55 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And why not have a one party system? There would be no Charlottesville
>> riots.
>
> *Excellent* idea! It worked so well for the Soviets, after
> all...and who needs that silly "freedom" anyway?
>
> FYI, that was "sarcasm". Can you say "sarcasm? Gooood!
>

Good you caught on!

[R. Dean]

I wanted to see just how far this could go. I was being totally
facetious and trying to be satirical.

[Ernest Major]

So, was I right in identifying you as a Trump voter pretending to be a
straw Democrat?


--
alias Ernest Major

[R. Dean]

On 8/17/2017 12:50 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:09:55 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Trump is a dangerous man. People who voted for him are just as racist
>> and biased as the KKK, white supremacist or the Nazis. As a life-long
>> democrat I think repubs should be allowed only 2/3 of a vote.
>
> And you say *Trump* is a dangerous bigot...
>

I think he is dangerous and irrational.
I know a man who lives in Charlottesville, I called him
this past Monday, he was concerned about what was happening
worrying about his home and family. According to him the
people were standing outside and increasing in numbers, Then
suddenly they rushed in carrying baseball bats, bottles,
bricks and ran into the other group. Didn't say who started
the violence, but it happened.

However, the skinheads, KKK, white supremacist etc came armed
expecting violence and they got it. They brought it on
themselves.

[R. Dean]

No, I am a Democrat. I voted for Bernie Sanders. I thought we
had extremely poor choices. I didn't like either Hillary Clinton or
Donald Trump.
>

[Jonathan]

On 8/16/2017 9:30 PM, Bill wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2017 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>>
>>>> President Trump bent over backwards to
>>>> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
>>>> and the KKK today.
>>>>
>>>> He expressly stated there is no moral
>>>> difference between Nazis and those
>>>> protesting against Nazis.
>>>>
>>>> He stated there is little difference between
>>>> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
>>>> thousands trying to destroy America to
>>>> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
>>>> term are running roughly even money
>>>> before today.
>>>>
>>>> https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising
>>>
>>>
>>> You're a moron. Go away.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Another Nazi sympathizer, boy are you folks easy to spot.
>
> So, if I don't condemn something I must sympathize with it.

When someone denouncing Nazi's is called a moron, you bet
your sweet ass that means they sympathize with Nazi's.

Unless of course you think 'moron' means they agree with
the sentiment.

> By this measure, all the things I've never thought about or
> even heard of I must agree with by default. Since most
> people never talk about Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it's fair
> to assume there's nothing to condemn. This kind of logic
> always works in the moron's favor so your misunderstanding
> will no doubt, prevail.
>

You should try thinking before speaking, we weren't discussing
any of those other issues.




>
> Bill
>

[Kalkidas]

On 8/16/2017 4:39 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 8/15/2017 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>
>>> President Trump bent over backwards to
>>> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
>>> and the KKK today.
>>>
>>> He expressly stated there is no moral
>>> difference between Nazis and those
>>> protesting against Nazis.
>>>
>>> He stated there is little difference between
>>> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
>>> thousands trying to destroy America to
>>> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
>>>
>>>
>>> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
>>> term are running roughly even money
>>> before today.
>>>
>>> https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising
>>
>>
>>
>> You're a moron. Go away.
>>
>
>

> These are the times when one must stand up and be counted.

Yeah. Watch out for the low ceiling in your Mom's basement.

[Jonathan]

On 8/16/2017 10:38 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 8/16/17 4:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 8/16/2017 2:28 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>
>>> I don't know that. You don't either.
>>
>> Sorry, but he's made his racism clear in one too many ways.
>
> Well, you should be sorry, because neither you nor I was talking about
> racis

m.
>

Nazism is the science of racism, do you get out much?


Nazism
From Wiki

"Sometimes characterised as a form of fascism that
incorporates scientific racism..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

One doesn't become a billionaire and president
by being stupid, chalking up his morality or
lack thereof to stupidity and ignorance is
just plain absurd.

He knows exactly what he's saying and why.

And I'll wait for your Trump quote about democracy.




s

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have a fascist President that admires
> the Nazi ideology.
>

> President Trump bent over backwards to
> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
> and the KKK today.
>

> He expressly stated there is no moral
> difference between Nazis and those
> protesting against Nazis.
>

> He stated there is little difference between
> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
> thousands trying to destroy America to
> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
>
>

> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
> term are running roughly even money
> before today.
>

> https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising
>
Though I probably can't agree with him on the particulars of his beef with
Amazon, I have reservations about the societal impact that behemoth
corporation has had. So my feelings about his anger toward Amazon are
mixed. In a battle between between Trump and Bezos I hope they both suffer.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I voted for Bernie in primaries. I figured the worst that could happen
voting for Hillary as I did in general election would be that
investigations of Benghazi and email server would result in non sequitur of
Slick Willy banging an intern again or having a threesome with Hill-Dawg's
staff members. Small fry compared to what we got going on now that Congress
doesn't seemed very concerned about. But they would be aggressively
pursuing Hillary in an alternative history where the voters who had
Electoral College clout weren't fucking stupid or mentally deranged.

But here we are. At least we have a crazy guy to match alleged endowment of
wits and other physical measurement with Kim Jong-un. Could out batshitting
the opponent be the way to go? If so...OK?

[Robert Camp]

On 8/17/17 3:51 PM, Jonathan wrote:
We have a fascist President that admires

the Nazi ideology.> On 8/16/2017 10:38 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 8/16/17 4:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2017 2:28 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that. You don't either.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but he's made his racism clear in one too many ways.
>>
>> Well, you should be sorry, because neither you nor I was talking about
>> racis
>
> m.
>
> Nazism is the science of racism, do you get out much?

Nazism is much more than racism. It includes, along with racism, plenty
of nationalism, fascistic politics, anti-socialism etc., etc.

Since your memory is either conveniently bad or you are just ineptly
trying to cover your ass, let me remind you of the statement to which I
took exception. You said,

"We have a fascist President that admires the Nazi ideology."

Admiring Nazi ideology is much broader charge than racism, yet you
proclaimed your indignation (and your foolishness) with the "Sorry"
comment above. This (including the complexity stuff) will all be much
easier for you if you stop and think for a few minutes before shooting
your mouth off.

<snip>

>>> His love affair
>>> with the greatest Fascist of our time
>>> and global threat to democracy in Putin
>>> also shows his true beliefs.
>>
>> It certainly shows his deference to Putin. And his terror at the
>> investigation turning toward his finances appears to offer an
>> explanation why that might be.
>

> One doesn't become a billionaire and president
> by being stupid,

One doesn't need to be smart to inherit money. And Trump has managed to
lose plenty of it.

Also, my only comment about "stupidity" came in the context of a
paraphrase of a rather common trope (I suppose I should have noted
that). Everywhere else I cast my remarks about Trump in the context of
willful ignorance (which, I suppose, one could make a case for being a
stupid life choice).

And one can indeed become president by being willfully ignorant, all one
has to do is run a campaign designed to appeal to the other ignorant
people out there. Sadly, there are far more than I thought.

> chalking up his morality or
> lack thereof to stupidity and ignorance is
> just plain absurd.

Yeah, well you've certainly made an excellent case so far.

> He knows exactly what he's saying and why.

Of course he knows what he's saying. But the context for what he's
saying is a reality that is different from yours and mine. Assuming
there is some overarching strategy to what he does, especially in light
of the last year of exposure to his behavior, is frankly clueless.

> And I'll wait for your Trump quote about democracy.

You said something stupid, I offered a bet in response. You'll wait for
quite a while until you make it worth my time.

[Bill]

One can be a moron and still condemn Nazism. There's been
plenty of evidence of that in the last few days. There was a
time when Nazism was considered modern and progressive. Same
with Fascism, Stalinism or Maoism or Imperial Japan. You
accepted what the State said or you suffered. Your false
dichotomy is the essence of totalitarian rule.

>
>
>> By this measure, all the things I've never thought about
>> or even heard of I must agree with by default. Since most
>> people never talk about Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it's
>> fair to assume there's nothing to condemn. This kind of
>> logic always works in the moron's favor so your
>> misunderstanding will no doubt, prevail.
>>
>
>
> You should try thinking before speaking, we weren't
> discussing any of those other issues.
>

You see racism in opinions that you don't like and tell
yourself you're justified.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/16/17 6:30 PM, Bill wrote:
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>> On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2017 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>>
>>>> President Trump bent over backwards to
>>>> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
>>>> and the KKK today.
>>>>
>>>> He expressly stated there is no moral
>>>> difference between Nazis and those
>>>> protesting against Nazis.
>>>>
>>>> He stated there is little difference between
>>>> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
>>>> thousands trying to destroy America to
>>>> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
>>>> term are running roughly even money
>>>> before today.
>>>>
>>>> https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising
>>>
>>>
>>> You're a moron. Go away.
>>
>> Another Nazi sympathizer, boy are you folks easy to spot.
>
> So, if I don't condemn something I must sympathize with it.

If condemning something is almost as easy as staying silent, and you
stay silent, then you, de facto, sympathize with it.

Do you, or do you not, believe that Nazis and the positions which
defined them are bad? And that they should still be considered enemies
of the United States, just as they were when America was great?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Mark Isaak]

And the trains would run on time. Which would be important, since road
and airport infrastructure would go to pot.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/16/17 7:38 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 8/16/17 4:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:

>> On 8/16/2017 2:28 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>

>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>

>>> I don't know that. You don't either.
>>
>> Sorry, but he's made his racism clear in one too many ways.
>
> Well, you should be sorry, because neither you nor I was talking about
> racism.
>

>> Did you know that when touring his various properties
>> in the past it was a rule all black employees were
>> not to be placed where Trump can see them? They had
>> to be hidden whenever he showed up.
>
> I've heard such things. Usually when pasted from hysterical liberal
> sites like truthexaminer.com (keep in mind, I'm extremely liberal). If
> you've got some reliable source I'll read about it.

Much of Trump's racism is documented here:
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-racist-meme/

Granted, that alone does not equate with Fascism. But combine it with
his relentless attacks on the media, the use to which he puts INS agents
(even if their shirts are more often khaki than brown), and his
willingness to listen to Steve Bannon and other white supremacists, I
think it is fair to call Trump a fascist.

[big snip]

>
> He's a dupe. A dangerous one, to be sure, but at this point I see little
> evidence to suggest he is malicious.

Really? Trump himself says he hold grudges. His recent treatment of
people on his own staff can at best be described as mean-spirited. See also
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trumps-cruel-streak/501554/
for plenty more examples.

[jillery]

An historical reference presented as satire to another historical
reference. Well done.

[jillery]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:58:42 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
wrote:

Your satire looked no different from your comments about ID. Think
about it.

[Robert Camp]

On 8/17/17 9:12 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/16/17 7:38 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 8/16/17 4:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2017 2:28 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that. You don't either.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but he's made his racism clear in one too many ways.
>>
>> Well, you should be sorry, because neither you nor I was talking about
>> racism.
>>
>>> Did you know that when touring his various properties
>>> in the past it was a rule all black employees were
>>> not to be placed where Trump can see them? They had
>>> to be hidden whenever he showed up.
>>
>> I've heard such things. Usually when pasted from hysterical liberal
>> sites like truthexaminer.com (keep in mind, I'm extremely liberal). If
>> you've got some reliable source I'll read about it.
>
> Much of Trump's racism is documented here:
> http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-racist-meme/

I respect and use Snopes, but a lot in that article is either indirectly
connected with Trump or hearsay. That being said, I have no problem
believing he is racist. All one needs to do is consider the birther
thing. That seems like pretty direct evidence to me.

My point was about Jonathan's (and some overexcited leftists')
hyperbole, not Trump's innocence.

> Granted, that alone does not equate with Fascism. But combine it with
> his relentless attacks on the media, the use to which he puts INS agents
> (even if their shirts are more often khaki than brown), and his
> willingness to listen to Steve Bannon and other white supremacists, I
> think it is fair to call Trump a fascist.

On this I am less sanguine, if only because I think it gives him credit
for having a coherent perspective. There is little doubt that Trump is
slouching toward fascism. He admires fascists, he seeks retribution
toward political enemies, he emboldens and empowers nationalists, he
lies and then declares the repudiators liars, he attempts to diminish
the power of the press, etc., etc. But I see these as knock-on effects
of his psychoses.

As I said to Jonathan, I don't see in him an ideologist, I see an
extreme narcissist - someone who no doubt can be used by fascists (i.e.,
Bannon). Everything is about him. Dissenters become dangerous
subversives, admirers (the more obsequious the better) become friends.
All events are seen through the how-does-this-effect-me filter. I don't
actually believe he is capable of a larger, consistent worldview.

I may be wrong about all of this, and it is reasonable to respond to my
arguments by saying his behavior, not his motivation, is the important
thing to consider here. However, I think this misses the true danger of
the man.

An essentially stable person, even one who maintains an odious ideology,
can be reasoned with at least to the degree that he can recognize his
own self-interest in the broader context. An example might be Pence,
whose political and personal beliefs are far more antithetical to mine
than Trump's.

Trump, on the other hand, is an unstable child who lives in a universe
that is entirely about self-interest. There is no larger context for him
to consider. And I believe this leaves him subject to dangerous whims
that someone like Pence would never consider.

In the end, though, I certainly wouldn't disagree that there is growing
momentum toward fascism in this country and that this administration is
helping it along. [I will once again highly recommend Timothy Snyder's
short (takes an hour or so) book, "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the
Twentieth Century."]

But I still think calling him a fascist misses the mark, and worse,
misses the peril he presents. Even accounting for our apparently
ethically-impaired congress, I think they could summon the spine to
check an overt fascist. I don't think anyone has a clue what to do with
a sociopath.

>> He's a dupe. A dangerous one, to be sure, but at this point I see
>> little evidence to suggest he is malicious.

I differentiate between a person's intent and their behavior. As such, I
reserve words like malice and evil for the most egregious cases. Bigots,
charlatans, even dictators, invariably think they are doing the right thing.

I have no doubt that in Trump's world he is blameless and righteous.

[R. Dean]

Of course I was not serious, Mark. I don't appreciate today's republican
party. I think it far from the party of Lincoln. The racist and
anti-American fanatics have gone to the GOP. But I don't like the
vendetta being waged by the democrats who lost the election.

[Robert Camp]

On 8/18/17 8:13 AM, R. Dean wrote:
> On 8/17/2017 11:24 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/17/17 7:44 AM, R. Dean wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2017 5:04 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:08:46 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/16/2017 11:02 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/17 7:09 PM, R. Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2017 9:41 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/17 12:09 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:

<snip>

>>>>>>> As a life-long
>>>>>>> democrat I think repubs should be allowed only 2/3 of a vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming, in this case, that you are trying for irony, you
>>>>>> probably want
>>>>>> to say three fifths.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ok 2/3 or 3/5 whatever. Perhaps it would be smart for the Democrat
>>>>> party
>>>>> once we gain power again to outlaw the repub party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same as it ever was...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
>>>  >
>>> And why not have a one party system? There would be no
>>> Charlottesville riots.
>>
>> And the trains would run on time.  Which would be important, since
>> road and airport infrastructure would go to pot.
>>
> Of course I was not serious, Mark. I don't appreciate today's republican
> party. I think it far from the party of Lincoln. The racist and
> anti-American fanatics have gone to the GOP. But I don't like the
> vendetta being waged by the democrats who lost the election.

What vendetta would that be?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:00:52 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:

>On 8/17/2017 12:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:44:55 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@Gmail.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> And why not have a one party system? There would be no Charlottesville
>>> riots.
>>
>> *Excellent* idea! It worked so well for the Soviets, after
>> all...and who needs that silly "freedom" anyway?
>>
>> FYI, that was "sarcasm". Can you say "sarcasm? Gooood!
>>
>Good you caught on!

I "caught on" that what I posted was sarcasm? Oy...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:58:42 -0400, the following appeared

That was far from obvious.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:23:08 -0400, the following appeared

Neither did I, and I liked Bernie even less.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:17:47 -0400, the following appeared

OK. Now explain where Trump was standing in this
confrontation.

And I note that, despite your disclaimer elsethread, you are
supporting your assertion above. So maybe your claim to be
posting that sort of bigoted tripe sarcastically was damage
control?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:37:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

Not necessarily. Not even probably.

>Unless of course you think 'moron' means they agree with
>the sentiment.

Non sequitur. One can be of the opinion "A pox on both their
houses", and commenting negatively about one side does *not*
imply sympathy for the other. An example would be the
German/Soviet conflict during WWII. The fact that I can call
Stalin a monster doesn't mean I think Hitler was less of
one.

I'm actually a bit surprised that someone who embraces
complexity theory as the be-all and end- all of knowledge is
so enamored of strict "black/white" logic, which is
inherently strictly reductionist.

>> By this measure, all the things I've never thought about or
>> even heard of I must agree with by default. Since most
>> people never talk about Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it's fair
>> to assume there's nothing to condemn. This kind of logic
>> always works in the moron's favor so your misunderstanding
>> will no doubt, prevail.

>You should try thinking before speaking, we weren't discussing
>any of those other issues.

You should try thinking about the meanings of "analogy" and
"counter example", and how they might be relevant to what he
posted.

And BTW, it should be obvious from our posting history that
I'm not a fan of Bill's, so this isn't a case of "coming to
his rescue", but one of pointing out your errors.

[Mark Isaak]

I agree with 90% or more of what you say, but I think it is fair to say
that Trump is consistent on two things: Bigotry and narcissism. The
first is certainly an ideology, and the second has a component
(believing oneself to always be right) that I think qualifies also.

Fascism is little more than bigotry plus power. If Trump does not get
to be the dictator, he would be vehemently opposed to fascism. But as
it stands now, he is a fascist.

As for our ethically-impaired congress, I think their big problem is
that ousting Trump would mean admitting they -- or more significantly,
the Republican Party -- made a big mistake in giving him any support.
And part of their ethical impairment is not recognizing that admitting
mistakes is a *good* think. And their attitude that loyalty to Party is
more important than loyalty to country.

>
>>> He's a dupe. A dangerous one, to be sure, but at this point I see
>>> little evidence to suggest he is malicious.
>
> I differentiate between a person's intent and their behavior. As such, I
> reserve words like malice and evil for the most egregious cases. Bigots,
> charlatans, even dictators, invariably think they are doing the right
> thing.
>
> I have no doubt that in Trump's world he is blameless and righteous.
>
>> Really? Trump himself says he hold grudges. His recent treatment
>> of people on his own staff can at best be described as mean-spirited.
>> See also
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trumps-cruel-streak/501554/
>> for plenty more examples.

[Ernest Major]

But Bernie Sanders wasn't running in the general.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

That's ok, neither was Obama, but that doesn't stop some people
blaming him for everything.

[Robert Camp]

I think that stretches the definition of "ideology" so as to leave it
virtually meaningless.

> Fascism is little more than bigotry plus power.  If Trump does not get
> to be the dictator, he would be vehemently opposed to fascism.

I agree. And that neatly makes my point that Trump's approach is not
about ideology, it's about personal psychoses.

> But as it stands now, he is a fascist.

I don't agree. But in this I suspect we are standing on different sides
of my argument about behavior vs. motivation.

> As for our ethically-impaired congress, I think their big problem is
> that ousting Trump would mean admitting they -- or more significantly,
> the Republican Party -- made a big mistake in giving him any support.
> And part of their ethical impairment is not recognizing that admitting
> mistakes is a *good* think.  And their attitude that loyalty to Party is
> more important than loyalty to country.

Well, I'm sure many of them convince themselves that loyalty to party
*is* loyalty to country (what else to do when your opponents are godless
demons bent on destroying decency?). But I agree that they have
effectively given themselves over to tribalism much more so than
Democrats have.

[Bill]

I see no significant differences between either party. They
both believe that "the people" exist to serve the State. The
official parties see themselves as the only possible
solution to the problems they create. They exclude other
parties by using petitions and primaries and rigged
convention to bar other points of view. These people reduce
all discourse to either black or white.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

Since we have an entrenched two-party system, undesireables are bound to show up in one of two places. The media ignores and acts like they don't understand in order to grind their partisan ax under a guise of truth, facts, and objective journalism.

The American people well understand what I just said. The media thinks they don't. They think they will make headway and influence voters against Trump. The media's partisan bias will only continue to ensure that Trump gets a second term, because, like I said, the American people well understand every caricature, out of context quote, and misrepresentation made against him. So the mainstream media is caught-up in a perpetual state of having lost their composure, ranting accusations of racism and bigotry because they see no other way to defeat Trump and poison the minds of the masses against him. Intelligent people know that this is what the race card indicates: total failure to win based on legitimate concepts like "merit" and "facts."

Ray

[snip....]

[Ernest Major]

And there you were claiming to be a Democrat.

--
alias Ernest Major

[*Hemidactylus*]

Who are you to speak of "the American people", the favorite catchphrase of
political charlatans and hacks? Oh I think I just answered my own question.

You think in black and white unchanging categories, an essentialist and
reify the abstract.

[R. Dean]

I voted for the devil I didn't know. I knew the other two.

[Bill]

Ernest Major wrote:

...

>>>
>>> Well, I'm sure many of them convince themselves that
>>> loyalty to party *is* loyalty to country (what else to
>>> do when your opponents are godless demons bent on
>>> destroying decency?). But I agree that they have
>>> effectively given themselves over to tribalism much more
>>> so than Democrats have.
>>
>> I see no significant differences between either party.
>> They both believe that "the people" exist to serve the
>> State. The official parties see themselves as the only
>> possible solution to the problems they create. They
>> exclude other parties by using petitions and primaries
>> and rigged convention to bar other points of view. These
>> people reduce all discourse to either black or white.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> And there you were claiming to be a Democrat.

I have many opinions about politics but feel no need to be
consistent. By this fact, I have no allegiance to any
political party. I believe in the basic principles expressed
in the Constitution and find them expressed in varying
degrees by various political views. I don't believe that any
of these views are absolute or infallible.

I see the opinions popular now as transitory, changing with
each generation according to the passing fancies of
ideologues. I see this as fundamental to our political
successes over the last 200 years or so. I see legislation
as the different parties battling for dominance, each
looking for loopholes.

Bill

[Jonathan]

Nature routinely selects certain traits for extinction.
Nazi ideology, like Polio or Cancer, needs to be
targeted for extinction before it takes hold
once again.

>>> By this measure, all the things I've never thought about or
>>> even heard of I must agree with by default. Since most
>>> people never talk about Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it's fair
>>> to assume there's nothing to condemn. This kind of logic
>>> always works in the moron's favor so your misunderstanding
>>> will no doubt, prevail.
>
>> You should try thinking before speaking, we weren't discussing
>> any of those other issues.
>
> You should try thinking about the meanings of "analogy" and
> "counter example", and how they might be relevant to what he
> posted.
>
> And BTW, it should be obvious from our posting history that
> I'm not a fan of Bill's, so this isn't a case of "coming to
> his rescue", but one of pointing out your errors.
>

Oh please, he made his feelings clear not just by
apologizing for Nazis, but this statement he made
is about the most ignorant thing I've ever read.

"There was a time when Nazism was considered modern and
progressive. Same with Fascism, Stalinism or Maoism or
Imperial Japan."

Modern and progressive? By who?

Those were ALL ideologies imposed upon a population
by force, without the democratic consent of the
people.

When Mao had 20 million executed was that modern and
progressive, when Stalin did much the same?
When Fascism and Imperial Japan plunged the entire world
into war and killed 50 million more, how is any of
that considered modern and progressive by anyone
except those few in power that were committing
those crimes against humanity?

I judge morality by it's effect on society. Does x,y or z
make a healthier evolutionary system or weaker?

Ideologies that are one/off or zero sum such
as white supremacy are unhealthy and evil.

You're very confused, concluding a zero sum game
is unhealthy and should be decided against is
NOT using a zero sum process.

It's the correct answer.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Although he may be a RINO or too moderate or centrist for the tea-laden
current state of GOP, the Terminator has stolen the show here:

https://youtu.be/FN_YIBr0ELM

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 09:58:58 -0400, the following appeared

A simple "you are correct" would have been easier.

Er, you *do* realize that your reply is a total non
sequitur, right?

>>>> By this measure, all the things I've never thought about or
>>>> even heard of I must agree with by default. Since most
>>>> people never talk about Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it's fair
>>>> to assume there's nothing to condemn. This kind of logic
>>>> always works in the moron's favor so your misunderstanding
>>>> will no doubt, prevail.
>>
>>> You should try thinking before speaking, we weren't discussing
>>> any of those other issues.
>>
>> You should try thinking about the meanings of "analogy" and
>> "counter example", and how they might be relevant to what he
>> posted.
>>
>> And BTW, it should be obvious from our posting history that
>> I'm not a fan of Bill's, so this isn't a case of "coming to
>> his rescue", but one of pointing out your errors.
>>
>
>
>
>Oh please, he made his feelings clear not just by
>apologizing for Nazis, but this statement he made
>is about the most ignorant thing I've ever read.
>
>
>"There was a time when Nazism was considered modern and
>progressive. Same with Fascism, Stalinism or Maoism or
>Imperial Japan."
>
>
>Modern and progressive? By who?

By many (Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism, through most of the
'30s; I can't speak for Maoism or Imperial Japan), at least
until the war actually started. History isn't your strong
suit, is it?

>Those were ALL ideologies imposed upon a population
>by force, without the democratic consent of the
>people.

OK, so history *isn't* your strong suit. And your statement
is another non sequitur; how those started is irrelevant to
how they were viewed from outside. And even, for some
(Mussolini's Fascism and Hitler's Nazism leap to mind), from
the *inside* until not long before the end.

>When Mao had 20 million executed was that modern and
>progressive, when Stalin did much the same?
>When Fascism and Imperial Japan plunged the entire world
>into war and killed 50 million more, how is any of
>that considered modern and progressive by anyone
>except those few in power that were committing
>those crimes against humanity?

You are conflating what *we* think with what was perceived
at the time, a rather nasty habit of some lately (see
opinions about Columbus as an example), along with ignoring
what was perceived at the time prior to WWII. Many in this
country and elsewhere expressed admiration for both Stalin
and Mussolini, and (to a lesser extent) Hitler before any of
them showed their true colors.

>I judge morality by it's effect on society. Does x,y or z
>make a healthier evolutionary system or weaker?

That has nothing to do with what he posted, which was about
perceptions and attitudes, not science.

>Ideologies that are one/off or zero sum such
>as white supremacy are unhealthy and evil.
>
>You're very confused, concluding a zero sum game
>is unhealthy and should be decided against is
>NOT using a zero sum process.
>
>It's the correct answer.

And this has...*what*...to do with either Bill's post or
mine? Your rant is irrational, even *if* it were true, and
only demonstrates that you live in a fantasy world where
what you think "should be" is relevant.

[*Hemidactylus*]

American progressivism has had its nasty side, leading toward German
adoption of eugenics:

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay1text.html

https://newrepublic.com/article/128144/dark-history-liberal-reform

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2698847/

[Bill]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

...

>>> "There was a time when Nazism was considered modern and
>>> progressive. Same with Fascism, Stalinism or Maoism or
>>> Imperial Japan."
>>>
>>>
>>> Modern and progressive? By who?
>>
>> By many (Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism, through most of
>> the '30s; I can't speak for Maoism or Imperial Japan), at
>> least until the war actually started. History isn't your
>> strong suit, is it?

In the thirties, Totalitarianism was considered acceptable
and even admirable by just about everyone. Spain, Italy,
Russia, Germany, the Balkans, Argentina, Brazil and more.
Fascism and Nazism were the political avant garde for a
while and admired even in America. War changed all that and
Fascism was transformed into evil by the winners.

The popular current view is that the Nazis were evil because
of the holocaust but that wasn't even a factor until after
the war. Everything said about the Nazis could be said about
Stalin but he ended up being an ally so his crimes are
excused.

The 20th century was a time of extreme evil and extreme
hypocrisy. Now we like to pretend it never happened and that
people are inherently good and all will be well. History
will sneak up on us again of course.

Bill

[Jonathan]

You claimed my opinion displayed reductionist or
simple reasoning, my response was to show it
was based on the opposite of that, evolutionary
considerations, as is my entire morality.

It's entirely logical to explain the why when
an opinion is challenged, logic isn't your
strong suit and I suggest you review the
definition of your favorite Latin expression.

>>>>> By this measure, all the things I've never thought about or
>>>>> even heard of I must agree with by default. Since most
>>>>> people never talk about Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, it's fair
>>>>> to assume there's nothing to condemn. This kind of logic
>>>>> always works in the moron's favor so your misunderstanding
>>>>> will no doubt, prevail.
>>>
>>>> You should try thinking before speaking, we weren't discussing
>>>> any of those other issues.
>>>
>>> You should try thinking about the meanings of "analogy" and
>>> "counter example", and how they might be relevant to what he
>>> posted.
>>>
>>> And BTW, it should be obvious from our posting history that
>>> I'm not a fan of Bill's, so this isn't a case of "coming to
>>> his rescue", but one of pointing out your errors.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh please, he made his feelings clear not just by
>> apologizing for Nazis, but this statement he made
>> is about the most ignorant thing I've ever read.
>>
>>
>> "There was a time when Nazism was considered modern and
>> progressive. Same with Fascism, Stalinism or Maoism or
>> Imperial Japan."
>>
>>
>> Modern and progressive? By who?
>
> By many (Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism, through most of the
> '30s;

By many? Show me the evidence.

Show me something more than the entirely empty and
deliberately vague term 'many'. Is that most people?
Is that half, is it more than a few but less than a lot?
Is it a couple or a bunch?

Show me the opinion polls from 1930's Russia
or Germany, and then show me how they can
be trusted to be anything more than propaganda
tools.

I won't be holding my breath.

Many people! Good grief what a Trumpian response
as you'll see below.

>I can't speak for Maoism or Imperial Japan), at least
> until the war actually started. History isn't your strong
> suit, is it?
>

'Many' Japanese hated it, I won't say more however
who needs facts or evidence? Certainly not you.
[sarcasm alert]

>> Those were ALL ideologies imposed upon a population
>> by force, without the democratic consent of the
>> people.
>
> OK, so history *isn't* your strong suit. And your statement
> is another non sequitur;

Again, look up the definition of you favorite excuse.
Explaining the context of the rise of those 'ism's
is entirely logical to refuting their popularity
or lack thereof.

> how those started is irrelevant to
> how they were viewed from outside. And even, for some
> (Mussolini's Fascism and Hitler's Nazism leap to mind), from
> the *inside* until not long before the end.
>

Try reading once in a while, this is how 'history'
judged the popularity of fascism in America pre WW2.


"While these groups enjoyed some support, they were
largely peripheral."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_North_America#United_States



Since you don't know what non sequitur means maybe I
should remind you what peripheral means, it means...

supportive, tributary; secondary, subordinate, subservient,
subsidiary; dispensable, excess, nonessential, superfluous,
surplus, unessential'

>> When Mao had 20 million executed was that modern and
>> progressive, when Stalin did much the same?
>> When Fascism and Imperial Japan plunged the entire world
>> into war and killed 50 million more, how is any of
>> that considered modern and progressive by anyone
>> except those few in power that were committing
>> those crimes against humanity?
>
> You are conflating what *we* think with what was perceived
> at the time,

By 'many' people right? Your entire line of reasoning
is based on a Trumpian lie-ism.


The world according to Trump and you....


Blitzer: Here's the question, did the conspiracy start in 1961
where the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu
Advertiser contemporaneously published announcements
that he was born in Hawaii?

Trump: That's right. That's right. And many people put
those announcements in because they wanted to get the
benefit because of getting so-called born in this country.
Many people did it. It was something that was done by
many people even though they weren't born in the country.
..........



Blitzer: Well, what did they find?

Trump: There's been plenty found. You can call many people.
You can read many, many articles on the authenticity of
the certificate. You can read many articles
.........



Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama
refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were
insulted.
..........



France isn’t France anymore. We’re not going. And
so many people are saying that.
..........


We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people
to pour into our country many of whom have the same thought
process as this savage killer. Many of the principles of
radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and
institutions.
.......

> a rather nasty habit of some lately

Using vague and undefined terms to make a false claim
into a sweeping truth, such as 'many people'?
Yes on that I would agree as such a term is
the favorite tools of bullshit artists like
Trump, and more recently Nazi apologists.

(see
> opinions about Columbus as an example), along with ignoring
> what was perceived at the time prior to WWII. Many in this
> country and elsewhere expressed admiration for both Stalin
> and Mussolini, and (to a lesser extent) Hitler before any of
> them showed their true colors.
>
>> I judge morality by it's effect on society. Does x,y or z
>> make a healthier evolutionary system or weaker?
>
> That has nothing to do with what he posted, which was about
> perceptions and attitudes, not science.
>

I'm not surprised you insist on focusing on
perceptions and attitudes, since one can
claim anything whatsoever about them
without so much as a whit of evidence
or logic.

Just say 'many people' and it becomes Truth.

>> Ideologies that are one/off or zero sum such
>> as white supremacy are unhealthy and evil.
>>
>> You're very confused, concluding a zero sum game
>> is unhealthy and should be decided against is
>> NOT using a zero sum process.
>>
>> It's the correct answer.
>
> And this has...*what*...to do with either Bill's post or
> mine? Your rant is irrational, even *if* it were true, and
> only demonstrates that you live in a fantasy world where
> what you think "should be" is relevant.
>

The future, or what 'should be' is the only
thing that truly matters, the past is for
those that like to cherry pick to fit their
own biased beliefs. Makes them feel better.

The effects on the future of the rise of Nazism
is the question, and what matters, the rest
I'll leave to the bullshit artists.



s

[Jonathan]

On 8/17/2017 7:26 PM, Robert Camp wrote:

> On 8/17/17 3:51 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> We have a fascist President that admires

> the Nazi ideology.> On 8/16/2017 10:38 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 8/16/17 4:35 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/2017 2:28 PM, Robert Camp wrote:

>>>>> On 8/15/17 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>>>

>>>>> I don't know that. You don't either.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but he's made his racism clear in one too many ways.
>>>
>>> Well, you should be sorry, because neither you nor I was talking
>>> about racis
>>
>> m.
>>

>> Nazism is the science of racism, do you get out much?


>
> Nazism is much more than racism. It includes, along with racism, plenty
> of nationalism, fascistic politics, anti-socialism etc., etc.
>
> Since your memory is either conveniently bad or you are just ineptly
> trying to cover your ass, let me remind you of the statement to which I
> took exception. You said,

>
> "We have a fascist President that admires the Nazi ideology."
>

> Admiring Nazi ideology is much broader charge than racism,




Oh I see you 'logic' for one to be called a democrat or republican
they must hold to all the beliefs, every one.

Sorry, oops I did it again, but holding to the core belief
is enough, and with Nazism, or White Supremacists or the
Klan, holding to their core value of a race based system
IS MORE THAN ENOUGH.




yet you
> proclaimed your indignation (and your foolishness) with the "Sorry"
> comment above. This (including the complexity stuff) will all be much
> easier for you if you stop and think for a few minutes before shooting
> your mouth off.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> His love affair
>>>> with the greatest Fascist of our time
>>>> and global threat to democracy in Putin
>>>> also shows his true beliefs.
>>>
>>> It certainly shows his deference to Putin. And his terror at the
>>> investigation turning toward his finances appears to offer an
>>> explanation why that might be.
>>
>> One doesn't become a billionaire and president
>> by being stupid,
>
> One doesn't need to be smart to inherit money. And Trump has managed to
> lose plenty of it.
>




It's not possible for someone to be as stupid as
you claim he is and become a billionaire and
president. Your making an extraordinary claim
without any evidence at all, let alone the required
extraordinary evidence.





> Also, my only comment about "stupidity" came in the context of a
> paraphrase of a rather common trope (I suppose I should have noted
> that). Everywhere else I cast my remarks about Trump in the context of
> willful ignorance (which, I suppose, one could make a case for being a
> stupid life choice).
>
> And one can indeed become president by being willfully ignorant, all one
> has to do is run a campaign designed to appeal to the other ignorant
> people out there. Sadly, there are far more than I thought.
>
>> chalking up his morality or
>> lack thereof to stupidity and ignorance is
>> just plain absurd.
>
> Yeah, well you've certainly made an excellent case so far.
>
>> He knows exactly what he's saying and why.
>
> Of course he knows what he's saying. But the context for what he's
> saying is a reality that is different from yours and mine. Assuming
> there is some overarching strategy to what he does, especially in light
> of the last year of exposure to his behavior, is frankly clueless.
>



His overall strategy is clear and unequivocal, he's
pandering to his base of support. And it's even
more dangerous to be led down such a fascist path
by a extreme populist that is lying about his beliefs
than a true believer.

The true believer isn't necessarily a bald faced
liar and hypocrite that will switch sides the
minute he sees something in it for him.

As with Trump.




>> And I'll wait for your Trump quote about democracy.
>
> You said something stupid, I offered a bet in response. You'll wait for
> quite a while until you make it worth my time.
>




I thought so, there are none to be found, only
his rants AGAINST democracy.

[Bill]

You must be one of those who believe the world began with
the 21st century. There was a long history before that but
who cares, right? Your ignorance of history is profound so
there's probably no cure. Stick to Facebook.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 13:30:01 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Sure; there was a time when most believed in eugenics as a
matter of faith, which was part of the reason Nazism held
fairly wide initial appeal.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 21:24:34 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Or Twitter, the venue for twits.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 20:23:11 -0400, the following appeared

Oh; sorry. My comment referred to your apparent inability to
address my actual point, that condemning the actions of one
party to a debate doesn't mean support for the other party,
something your two-value logic seems unable to comprehend.

IOW, anything I may post will be considered to be a
"propaganda tool" and ignored. OK.

>I won't be holding my breath.

Pity...

>Many people! Good grief what a Trumpian response
>as you'll see below.
>
>
>
>>I can't speak for Maoism or Imperial Japan), at least
>> until the war actually started. History isn't your strong
>> suit, is it?
>>
>
>
>
>'Many' Japanese hated it, I won't say more however
>who needs facts or evidence? Certainly not you.
>[sarcasm alert]

There are many (there's that word again, but GIYF) articles
about world opinion during the '30s, and quite a few
antebellum (that's the WWII one, not the usual) books
dealing with issues related to your rant. I'd suggest, as a
start, "Japan's Imperial Conspiracy" by David Bergamini for
the history and progress of Imperial Japan prior to and
during WWII.

<snip rant>

>> a rather nasty habit of some lately
>
>
>
>Using vague and undefined terms to make a false claim

It's not false, whether or not you like it.

>into a sweeping truth, such as 'many people'?
>Yes on that I would agree as such a term is
>the favorite tools of bullshit artists like
>Trump, and more recently Nazi apologists.
>
>
>
>
>(see
>> opinions about Columbus as an example), along with ignoring
>> what was perceived at the time prior to WWII. Many in this
>> country and elsewhere expressed admiration for both Stalin
>> and Mussolini, and (to a lesser extent) Hitler before any of
>> them showed their true colors.
>>
>>> I judge morality by it's effect on society. Does x,y or z
>>> make a healthier evolutionary system or weaker?
>>
>> That has nothing to do with what he posted, which was about
>> perceptions and attitudes, not science.
>>
>
>
>
>I'm not surprised you insist on focusing on
>perceptions and attitudes, since one can
>claim anything whatsoever about them
>without so much as a whit of evidence
>or logic.

That would also apply to your perceptions and attitudes,
right? Like the perception of support and sympathy for
Nazism you expressed in your earlier post?

>Just say 'many people' and it becomes Truth.
>
>
>
>
>>> Ideologies that are one/off or zero sum such
>>> as white supremacy are unhealthy and evil.
>>>
>>> You're very confused, concluding a zero sum game
>>> is unhealthy and should be decided against is
>>> NOT using a zero sum process.
>>>
>>> It's the correct answer.
>>
>> And this has...*what*...to do with either Bill's post or
>> mine? Your rant is irrational, even *if* it were true, and
>> only demonstrates that you live in a fantasy world where
>> what you think "should be" is relevant.
>>
>
>
>
>The future, or what 'should be' is the only
>thing that truly matters, the past is for
>those that like to cherry pick to fit their
>own biased beliefs. Makes them feel better.
>
>The effects on the future of the rise of Nazism
>is the question, and what matters, the rest
>I'll leave to the bullshit artists.

You seem anxious to join them. And you *still* haven't
addressed my refutation of your initial false assertion,
that anyone who condemns one party to an argument without
condemning the other necessarily supports the other.

So the fact that you condemn the Nazis without also
condemning (at the same time) Stalin means that you're a
Stalinist sympathizer, right?

Moron.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/17/17 8:15 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 8/16/17 6:30 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2017 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a fascist President that admires
>>>>> the Nazi ideology.
>>>>>
>>>>> President Trump bent over backwards to
>>>>> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
>>>>> and the KKK today.
>>>>>
>>>>> He expressly stated there is no moral
>>>>> difference between Nazis and those
>>>>> protesting against Nazis.
>>>>>
>>>>> He stated there is little difference between
>>>>> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
>>>>> thousands trying to destroy America to
>>>>> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
>>>>> term are running roughly even money
>>>>> before today.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're a moron. Go away.
>>>
>>> Another Nazi sympathizer, boy are you folks easy to spot.
>>
>> So, if I don't condemn something I must sympathize with it.
>

> If condemning something is almost as easy as staying silent, and you
> stay silent, then you, de facto, sympathize with it.
>
> Do you, or do you not, believe that Nazis and the positions which
> defined them are bad? And that they should still be considered enemies
> of the United States, just as they were when America was great?

Your silence is noted. You support Naziism.

[Bill]

What a great example of Nazi logic.

Bill

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 10:10:03 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:

> We have a fascist President that admires
> the Nazi ideology.
>
> President Trump bent over backwards to
> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
> and the KKK today.

You posted this the day AFTER Trump said the following:

Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name
are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis,
white supremacists, and other hate groups that are
repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/08/14/white-supremacist-violence-no-place-america/

You don't give a single quote in support of what you allege of
Trump above. Is your tirade based on anything more tangible than
Trump having tacked on

by many sides, by many sides

to the following:

We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious
display of hatred, bigotry, and violence

?

If Obama had said the same identical words (minus the tacked on part),
the media would have known that he was referring to the "Unite the Right"
demonstrators and ONLY them -- AGREED?

Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

Well, we got two statements that actually reflect Trump's views, sandwiched around a statement that was clearly written for him and delivered unwillingly.

His initial statements, yes, blamed both sides for the tragedy, strongly implying a moral equivalence. Listening to that statement, you would never have known that one "side" was made up of heavily armed (and in one case murderous) Nazis and fascists.

The second statement was clearly written for him, and he was clearly uncomfortable delivering it. That was the one that actually called out the pro-white hate groups.

And surprise, surprise, a couple days later, when he was back off-leash, he outright stated that there were a lot of "bad" people among the counter-protestors, and a lot of good, history-loving statue buffs taking part in the rally. Once again, he was acting as apologist for white supremacists. If there WAS any disclarity about what he meant by "by many sides," that final statement clarified it.

Comparisons to Obama are specious, because he WOULDN'T have said what Trump said, and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have tried to place the blame on "many sides." And because Trump DID say "by many sides" (and a second time, for emphasis), we know he WASN'T just referring to the "Unite the Right" thugs.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Other than that how did you enjoy the eclipse? It was full in SC right?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:20:04 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/16/17 6:30 PM, Bill wrote:
> > Jonathan wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:

> >>> On 8/15/2017 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> We have a fascist President that admires
> >>>> the Nazi ideology.
> >>>>
> >>>> President Trump bent over backwards to
> >>>> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
> >>>> and the KKK today.
> >>>>

> >>>> He expressly stated there is no moral
> >>>> difference between Nazis and those
> >>>> protesting against Nazis.
> >>>>
> >>>> He stated there is little difference between
> >>>> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
> >>>> thousands trying to destroy America to
> >>>> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
> >>>> term are running roughly even money
> >>>> before today.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You're a moron. Go away.
> >>
> >> Another Nazi sympathizer, boy are you folks easy to spot.
> >
> > So, if I don't condemn something I must sympathize with it.
>
> If condemning something is almost as easy as staying silent, and you
> stay silent, then you, de facto, sympathize with it.

I take it then, that you, sympathize with and support [see your own
follow-up to this post of yours a week later] the antifa thugs and
antifa censors in Charlottesville.

I don't. To me, the melee reminded me of the clashes between
the Brown Shirts and the Communists in Weimar Germany. "A plague
on both of your houses" is the only reasonable attitude for anyone
who really cares about democracy.

Yes, the one death [not counting the two police who died due to
a helicopter mishap] was due to a white supremacist, but from all
I have heard about the incident, he was acting alone without any
collusion with anyone. That killing, of course, deserves special
condemnation.

> Do you, or do you not, believe that Nazis and the positions which
> defined them are bad? And that they should still be considered enemies
> of the United States, just as they were when America was great?

Yes to both, except for the satirical last phrase of the second question
[America never stopped being great, IMHO].

But the same applies to the antifa, IMO. Since, by your logic,
you sympathize with them and support them, I must ask you the same
questions about them.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> On 8/16/2017 1:27 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> > On 8/15/2017 7:06 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> >>
> >> We have a fascist President that admires
> >> the Nazi ideology.
> >>
> >> President Trump bent over backwards to
> >> defend neo-Nazi's, White Supremacists
> >> and the KKK today.
> >>
> >> He expressly stated there is no moral
> >> difference between Nazis and those
> >> protesting against Nazis.
> >>
> >> He stated there is little difference between
> >> Robert E Lee, who killed hundreds of
> >> thousands trying to destroy America to
> >> George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
> >>
> >>
> >> Betting odds Trump won't finish his
> >> term are running roughly even money
> >> before today.
> >>
> >> https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/61199-will-trump-actually-quit-betting-odds-of-impeachment-rising
> >
> >
> > You're a moron. Go away.
> >
>
>

> These are the times when one must stand up and be counted.
>
> You failed the test.

So did you, by failing to condemn the antifa. See my reply to
Mark Isaak a few minutes ago.

By the way, don't think for one moment that Sean Dillon's
(almost completely irrelevant) reply to me let you off the hook.
I still expect answers to the questions I asked you, including
the one whose intent Sean completely misunderstood.

Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

Looks pretty relevant to me. You're trying to sweep the damning part of what Trump initially said under the rug, and trying to refocus us on the scripted statement he clearly gave under duress.

Trump was giving succor to white supremacists. On purpose. And they know it, even if you're sticking your head in the sand about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-duke-donald-trump_us_59936199e4b009141640bd7b

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:33:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

Don't be silly; agreement wouldn't suit his agenda.

[Jonathan]

Boy, the sense of right and wrong is sure lost on you.

Let me try a perfectly good analogy, a mob of people
carrying torches are descending on your house with
the intention of burning it down with you and your
family as well.

If you to rush outside, meet them and put all their torches
out with a garden hose, would you still give the two the
same moral standing?

Those Nazis marched into town, uttering 'fighting words', do
you know what those are? For instance the N word, or
SWASTIKAS, are not protected speech when spoken in person
to others or to a mob, but speech designed to start
a riot which they accomplished.




"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional
law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words


Which means the guilt, morally and legally, is with the
Nazi demonstrators and not with the counter protesters.

And here I thought math professors were supposed to be guardians
of clear, logical thought.

Your grade on this moral test?

Click here

video (0:05)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3CfD8TPac

[*Hemidactylus*]

I see after your month off you dive back in at your typical level of
topicality. Is this your way of avoiding jonathan's mathematical challenge
to you?

[Peter Nyikos]

It is totally irrelevant to the bones of contention between me and
Jonathan. You never quoted anything from Trump -- not here,
not in your first reply to me -- that would soften
the jarring contrast between Jonathan's inflammatory and probably
slanderous rhetoric and BOTH things I quoted from Trump.

To make matters worse, you have completely ignored that rhetoric,
and you never participated on this thread except in direct reply

to me.


> You're trying to sweep the damning part of what Trump initially said under the rug,

Unsupported use of "damning," noted.

Unsupportable derogatory comments about me, noted.

> and trying to refocus us on the scripted statement he clearly gave under duress.

Unexplained certainty ("clearly") about unsupported speculation ("under
duress"), noted.

You made similar "notable" comments in your first reply to me,
but at least there, you refrained from character assassination
(at best, by your definition). But now, in mis-describing what I did there,
you are letting your mask of reasonableness slip.


And your rhetoric is now a whole lot more similar to that of Jonathan:

> Trump was giving succor to white supremacists. On purpose.

Unsupported attribution of intent by Trump, noted.

> And they know it, even if you're sticking your head in the sand about it.

Polemical use of unsupportable character assassination [see above] to lend
credence to blatant assertion, noted.

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-duke-donald-trump_us_59936199e4b009141640bd7b

Gossipy Huffington post puff piece, including gloating over near-nonentity David Duke being thrilled for reasons unfathomable about that tacked-on bit
and similar non-one-sided comments by Trump.

You sure are easily impressed, Sean.

What keeps you from explicitly endorsing Jonathan's tirade?

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

When people start invoking Naziism toward others either a thread has run
its course or maybe shouldn't have been started to begin with. Who started
it? Oh yeah. Mr. 'Oops I meant that for another newsgroup' eternal
recurrence. This discussion is getting too heated and is on a hot rail that
is sure to fry any who touch. Due to the present political climate all
discussion groups regardless of charter are pretty much fucked.

[Peter Nyikos]

It was magnificently total in Columbia, and we really lucked out.
Some parts of Columbia had clouds hiding the whole of totality
[I really feel sorry for the crowds in Fort Jackson, for instance]
and I know two people who live two or so miles from me who saw the
first half but had clouds hide the second half, when the unforgettable
diamond ring effect came on for a second.


We hedged our bets: some of us stayed home, some went down to the
State Museum where there was a rich educational program (including
a personal appearance by Apollo 16 moonwalker Charles Duke) and,
most important, big screens showing live webcams from places unobscured
by clouds.

[I found that out by e-mailing the museum two days before, noting that
the Weather Channel had predicted "partly cloudy, with scattered
thunderstorms" for the time of the eclipse. The museum webpage made
no mention of that crucial provision for inclement weather.]


For most of the penumbral partial eclipse, clouds hid the sun
in our yard, and it looked like the others had made the right
decision. But then, half the sky cleared with the sun right in the
middle, and I had the sweet satisfaction of seeing the eclipse
work its magic on our own yard.

The others, at the museum, also had no problem with clouds at totality.
They too got that unmatched firsthand experience of looking directly at
the totally eclipsed sun. And one of them not only took some excellent
pictures, but also got a chance to speak to former astronaut Duke for
several minutes, with a photo-op to boot.

We were all lucky to be close enough to the center of the umbral
path to get more than 2 minutes of totality. I do, however, envy
people who have seen other eclipses where totality lasted up to 7 minutes.


I learned some things from direct observation that I've never seen in
books or articles on astronomy, despite a lifelong interest in astronomy
and reading hundreds of books, etc. I'll mention them on the thread
whose title talks about the eclipse, where it's more on topic.


Still, I welcome this diversion from the intensely politicized
and polarized discussion/debate/mudslinging on this thread.
Thanks for asking.


Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

Since I was in fact responding to the very first post you made in this thread, I'm not sure what "contention" you're talking about. I responded to exactly what you wrote. Unless this is another of those situations where you leak a single argument from thread to thread. Is that the case?

> You never quoted anything from Trump -- not here,
> not in your first reply to me -- that would soften
> the jarring contrast between Jonathan's inflammatory and probably
> slanderous rhetoric and BOTH things I quoted from Trump.

I gave a narrative account of Trump's statements that does exactly that. I'm not going to quote the speeches in their entirety... they're available to read online.

>
> To make matters worse, you have completely ignored that rhetoric,
> and you never participated on this thread except in direct reply
> to me.

I wasn't troubled by the rhetoric. I was troubled by your response.

>
>
> > You're trying to sweep the damning part of what Trump initially said under the rug,
>
> Unsupported use of "damning," noted.

That he tried to sneak a moral equivalence between the fascist Nazis and anyone else IS damning.

>
> Unsupportable derogatory comments about me, noted.

>
> > and trying to refocus us on the scripted statement he clearly gave under duress.
>
> Unexplained certainty ("clearly") about unsupported speculation ("under
> duress"), noted.

Well, Peter, I'm sorry for not explaining myself. This is an area where I can in fact claim some expertise, being as I am an actor and acting teacher. In my expert opinion as someone who recognizes bad acting when I see it, there is a very clear contrast between his 1st and 3rd statements (which were emphatic and sincere), and his 2nd, which was clearly not only scripted, but delivered without any actual conviction. The enthusiasm with which he jumped back to his "moral equivalency" sentiments in his 3rd statement certainly indicates that the 2nd is not at all what he wanted to be saying, and he rankled at being made to say it.

Of course, this could also be simply attributable to Trump's refusal to ever admit he has done anything wrong, and his childish pushback against anyone and anything trying to control his behavior.

>
> You made similar "notable" comments in your first reply to me,
> but at least there, you refrained from character assassination
> (at best, by your definition). But now, in mis-describing what I did there,
> you are letting your mask of reasonableness slip.

The "he" in my sentence above refers to Trump. I just want to be sure we're both clear on that.

>
>
> And your rhetoric is now a whole lot more similar to that of Jonathan:
>
> > Trump was giving succor to white supremacists. On purpose.
>
> Unsupported attribution of intent by Trump, noted.

Well, lets look at t

>
>
> > And they know it, even if you're sticking your head in the sand about it.
>
> Polemical use of unsupportable character assassination [see above] to lend
> credence to blatant assertion, noted.

I'm not attacking your character. I'm attacking your actions. Here and above. There's a difference.

>
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-duke-donald-trump_us_59936199e4b009141640bd7b
>
> Gossipy Huffington post puff piece, including gloating over near-nonentity David Duke being thrilled for reasons unfathomable about that tacked-on bit
> and similar non-one-sided comments by Trump.

The source isn't important. The quotes directly attributable to Duke are. And the reasons Duke was thrilled are not at all unfathomable. He (racist prick that he is) seems to recognize what you don't:

Aside from his second statement, which -- again -- Trump was pressured into delivering, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to recognize that Trump was soft-pedaling to white supremacists. He's dancing with the girl what brought him. He's dog-whistling his tacit support. Or if he wasn't, his words left him unacceptably wide open to that interpretation... by mainstream media sources, international leaders, and of course the alt-right itself.

>
> You sure are easily impressed, Sean.
>
> What keeps you from explicitly endorsing Jonathan's tirade?

Sorry, I didn't know my endorsement is required.

>
> Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

LOL!!!

Jonathan's challenge wasn't mathematical because complexity "science"
isn't a branch of mathematics. It's about as interdisciplinary
a topic as there is, and calling it a "science" gives the discipline
credit for far more unity than it has.

As to why I'm holding off posting to Jonathan's pretentious thread...

Jonathan's self-important thread title reminds me of the gnat who
sat on the horn of an ox in the Aesop fable, and asked the ox if his
weight was bothering him. The ox replied that he wouldn't even have
noticed the gnat if it hadn't spoken up.

Jonathan first issued his challenge on another thread, with another
pretentious title,

Subject: Will Global Warming Prevent a Disastrous Ice Age?

Here, he said that an ice age could start "any time", in defiance of
Al Gore, and also many other attackers of "denialists".

Perhaps he thought it could be set off by a butterfly flapping
its wings in Sao Paulo. ;-)


Unable to get any real sympathy for his far-out babble,
he issued a challenge to me out of the blue, taking advantage
of the fact that his old nemesis, Richard Norman, has been
absent from t.o. for many months now, with nobody having any
idea what happened to him.


Perhaps you are unaware of the many hours I put in, backing up Richard
in his patient explanations that Jonathan either ignores
or misunderstands the mathematics that behind the things he spouts.

Jonathan couldn't even begin to refute Richard's explanations, so he
appealed to Richard's imagination with the dazzling possibilities
complexity science supposedly opens up, like making a lasting
peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.


So that's one reason I decided to tackle Jonathan on this thread first,
but there are two other reasons, and (1) alone would have carried
enough weight:

(1) There were many people posting to this thread, yet there
were essentially NO direct quotations from Trump to back up what
people were saying. This includes the extreme represented by
Jonathan on the hand and the one represented by Ray Martinez on
the other, and lots of intermediate positions. I felt that such an
explosive and controversial topic deserved at least some of the
documentation that one often finds in the scientific discussions
in talk.origins.

(2) Perhaps you've forgotten how Jonathan surprised me and many
others the day after the election, by predicting that Trump would
revert to his Democratic (note the capital D) roots and disappoint
an awful lot of the people who voted for him.

Methinks Jonathan started this thread out of extreme frustration over
how his prediction had been so horribly trampled by Trump *before*
the events in Charlottesville. All you need do is look at the
Supreme Court nomination of Gorsuch and the "nuclear option" that
even so moderate a Republican senator as Lindsey Graham supported,
to see just how far Trump has come from his Democratic roots.


Jonathan would like for everyone to forget his earlier prediction,
I'm sure, just as he would like for everyone to forget just how
well and how often Richard Norman mopped up the floor with him
on complexity "science".


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
at the original USC -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

<big snip of things I will address separately if it seems called for>

You've claimed that you were responding to what Jonathan and I
had written above, Sean, yet the only such response was the following:

> Comparisons to Obama are specious,

As I told jonathan, you've completely missed the point of my comparison.
Read it again.

If that doesn't work, keep reading.

> because he WOULDN'T have said what Trump said,

Which part of the following would Obama not have said?

We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious

display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.

Do you suppose Obama would have left off "and violence" lest someone
point out that the antifa was also guilty of violence, as in the
act of censorship involved in knocking down a young woman
reporter after ordering her to stop filming -- and worse?

> and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have tried to place the blame on "many sides."

Of course not. But my question to Jonathan had to do with the
perception of the MEDIA as to Obama's intent, had Obama said the
words I've re-quoted.

Hence you were being specious up there, not I.

And you have failed utterly to give your own take on the question
I asked at the end.

<snip>

Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

Or maybe you should clarify, since I seem to be so thick.

>
> > because he WOULDN'T have said what Trump said,
>
> Which part of the following would Obama not have said?
>
> We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious
> display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.

You're leaving out the part he would never have said: "by many sides." He also would not have omitted to name the culprits in his first statement, as Trump did.

>
> Do you suppose Obama would have left off "and violence" lest someone
> point out that the antifa was also guilty of violence, as in the
> act of censorship involved in knocking down a young woman
> reporter after ordering her to stop filming -- and worse?

He would not have allowed the comparatively minor violences committed by anti-fascists to distract from condemning the much greater violence and acts of intimidation (and the intrinsically violent ideology) of the Klansmen/Nazis/White Supremacists who made up the Unite the Right rally.

Now, because Obama is actually a competent thinker and public speaker (and frankly a functioning adult), it is quite possible that he WOULD have also condemned violence in response to the Unite the Right rally, but not in such a way as to imply that both sides were equally bad, or equally to blame.

>
>
> > and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have tried to place the blame on "many sides."
>
> Of course not. But my question to Jonathan had to do with the
> perception of the MEDIA as to Obama's intent, had Obama said the
> words I've re-quoted.

Had Obama used those words and ONLY those words -- which Trump didn't and Obama wouldn't have -- then the media would have LOGICALLY assumed Obama was referring only to the Unite the Right rally. Both because of Obama's history, but also because the Nazis intimidated counter-protestors with torches, were armed to the teeth, and ACTUALLY KILLED SOMEONE. On the other hand, people MIGHT have given Trump the benefit of the doubt that he meant only the White Supremacists, had he not made it explicitly clear that this was not the case.

But again, to ask this question is to miss the point: Obama would never have left open the possibility (let alone the clear inference) that both sides were equivalently to blame.

>
> Hence you were being specious up there, not I.
>
> And you have failed utterly to give your own take on the question
> I asked at the end.

Oh I answered it, by denying the premise of the question. Just because you demand a yes/no answer doesn't mean you get one.

>
> <snip>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

Let me step back and put it another way, Peter... below is the KIND of speech Trump needed to make. The sort of speech the world NEEDED him to make:

"I condemn the bigotry, violence, and hatred that lead to and resulted from the Unite the Right rally. Racism has no place in our civil society, and I stand with all Americans of character in repudiating the views behind this event. And in mourning the tragedies that resulted from it.

I understand the desire to fight back against the utter evils of Naziism and white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan. They are a blight on our nation. And yet, we must not allow ourselves to become the thing we hate. We must not respond with violence to the expression of free speech, however vile we find that speech. That flies in the face of our cherished Constitutional Rights, and the spirit of our country, and we are frankly better than that.

I ask that all of us join together, peacefully but loudly, in condemning ideologies of hate. Let them know that they will not win, and they will not drag us down to their level."

Now... this is not a great speech. I'm not a speech writer, and I just pounded it out in ten minutes. But even this would have been better than what Trump actually said. Does it condemn violence against Nazis? Yes. But it also keeps the focus where it belongs: on repudiating Nazis.

THIS is what the world, and decent people needed to hear from the American President. Did Trump literally say "Nazis aren't so bad"? No. (Though he came way too close.) But the distance between what he needed to say and what he actually said was so great as to function as an endorsement.

[Mark Isaak]

No. Thank you for asking.

[Peter Nyikos]

What really needs to be done is for you to scroll back up
and revise what you write in the wake of what you read
(AND write!) later.

Is your short-term memory not up to the task? Perhaps you
should see whether you are in the early stages of Alzheimer's.

Anyway, I HAVE clarified one thing up there already, and that is that none
of your long "analysis" had anything to do with the points I was making,
nor the points Jonathan was making.

You made no objection to that clarification, you know.


And now, you made a lame Harshman-clone witticism ("...I seem so
thick") instead of showing that you belatedly DID understand
my point, near the end.

By the way, I scrolled up when I realized what you had done,
and modified what I had written accordingly. I don't suppose you'd
like to see what I wrote before, and deleted.

> >
> > > because he WOULDN'T have said what Trump said,
> >
> > Which part of the following would Obama not have said?
> >
> > We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious
> > display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.

Evidently you think Obama might have said it, because you
made no objections to this part.

> You're leaving out the part he would never have said: "by many sides."

As did you below, when you belatedly answered my second question to
Jonathan at the end.

> He also would not have omitted to name the culprits in his first statement, as Trump did.

There would have been no need to do so. The whole point of
my question to jonathan was that the media would have known
exactly whom Obama had meant if he had ONLY said the above.

And you belatedly admitted that below.

The only detail I had doubt about is the one I describe next:

> >
> > Do you suppose Obama would have left off "and violence" lest someone
> > point out that the antifa was also guilty of violence, as in the
> > act of censorship involved in knocking down a young woman
> > reporter after ordering her to stop filming -- and worse?
>
> He would not have allowed the comparatively minor violences committed by anti-fascists to distract from condemning the much greater violence and acts of intimidation (and the intrinsically violent ideology) of the Klansmen/Nazis/White Supremacists who made up the Unite the Right rally.

At the time Trump made the speech I've been quoting from, there was
no realistic way he had of knowing that a homicide had taken place.
[Documentation on request.]

So I must ask you what basis you have for your strong contrast, besides
your ideologically driven opinion.

>
> Now, because Obama is actually a competent thinker and public speaker (and frankly a functioning adult),

One would assume that any President of the United States was
a functioning adult. Even Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot were functioning
adults; it's just the use to which their functioning adult brains were put
that separates them from people like Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, Anwar Sadat, and Nelson Mandela.

> it is quite possible that he WOULD have also condemned violence in response to the Unite the Right rally, but not in such a way as to imply that both sides were equally bad, or equally to blame.

Unsupported use of "equally" as applied to Trump, noted.

> > > and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have tried to place the blame on "many sides."
> >
> > Of course not. But my question to Jonathan had to do with the
> > perception of the MEDIA as to Obama's intent, had Obama said the
> > words I've re-quoted.
>
> Had Obama used those words and ONLY those words -- which Trump didn't and Obama wouldn't have

Why not? You failed to find any fault with those words above, so
you have given no reason for this mind-reading of Obama.

> -- then the media would have LOGICALLY assumed Obama was referring only to the Unite the Right rally.

Thank you for that ringing "YES" answer to my question for Jonathan.
It will be interesting to see whether he will ever answer it for
himself.

Your first explanation for your answer is sound, but the other is
highly debatable. I have a much better one later, involving the
words "hate" and "bigotry".

> Both because of Obama's history,
> but also because the Nazis intimidated counter-protestors with torches, were armed to the teeth, and ACTUALLY KILLED SOMEONE.

See above about the words you are "shouting." Are you denying that some of
the Antifa were also armed to the teeth, intimidating their opponents, like
their ideological counterparts in China Grove back in 1979? [Documentation
on request.]

> On the other hand, people MIGHT have given Trump the benefit of the doubt that he meant only the White Supremacists, had he not made it explicitly clear that this was not the case.

"benefit of the doubt" explains my use of "ideologically driven opinion"
above. People should know, from the recent special issue of Time Magazine,
that the word "hate" ONLY refers to right-wing hate in the eyes
of the mainstream media. The Left has thoroughly co-opted that word
"hate" and also the word "bigot", and "moderate-right" politicians
like Mitt Romney have meekly fallen in line.

> But again, to ask this question is to miss the point: Obama would never have left open the possibility (let alone the clear inference) that both sides were equivalently to blame.

Hey, the two-liner I keep quoting does that quite handily, as
even you have belatedly admitted.

> >
> > Hence you were being specious up there, not I.
> >
> > And you have failed utterly to give your own take on the question
> > I asked at the end.
>
> Oh I answered it,

You answered it NOW, and not before.

> by denying the premise of the question.

Like a stereotyped polemicist, you seem to not understand the
function of the word "if". And you have yet to give a plausible
reason for denying the premise.

> Just because you demand a yes/no answer doesn't mean you get one.

There was no such demand. You continue to behave like an ideologically driven polemicist.

And you have shown just how feasible a YES answer is, by giving it.

Peter Nyikos

[Sean Dillon]

...So what? Your "point" is without point, since Trump DIDN'T just say the above, and Obama would NOT have just said the above. You're presenting a counter-factual hypothetical that has no bearing on the actual events in question.

>
> And you belatedly admitted that below.
>
> The only detail I had doubt about is the one I describe next:
>
> > >
> > > Do you suppose Obama would have left off "and violence" lest someone
> > > point out that the antifa was also guilty of violence, as in the
> > > act of censorship involved in knocking down a young woman
> > > reporter after ordering her to stop filming -- and worse?
> >
> > He would not have allowed the comparatively minor violences committed by anti-fascists to distract from condemning the much greater violence and acts of intimidation (and the intrinsically violent ideology) of the Klansmen/Nazis/White Supremacists who made up the Unite the Right rally.
>
> At the time Trump made the speech I've been quoting from, there was
> no realistic way he had of knowing that a homicide had taken place.
> [Documentation on request.]

The crash happened around 1:30 ET on Aug 12. National news outlets were reporting it by 2pm ET. The President's presser was at 3:30 ET. Did he know Heyer had died yet? I couldn't say. But there was no question even then that mass homicide was attempted, regardless of whether it was accomplished.

>
> So I must ask you what basis you have for your strong contrast, besides
> your ideologically driven opinion.

It isn't a question of ideology, but of common sense. Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, even Mike Pence all had the good sense to make statements that focused clearly on condemning the Nazis, as did many other politicians across the political spectrum. There is absolutely no reason to imagine Obama would have been the exception to that.

>
> >
> > Now, because Obama is actually a competent thinker and public speaker (and frankly a functioning adult),
>
> One would assume that any President of the United States was
> a functioning adult. Even Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot were functioning
> adults; it's just the use to which their functioning adult brains were put
> that separates them from people like Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther
> King, Anwar Sadat, and Nelson Mandela.

I wish we could assume that. However, I believe without exaggeration that the current officeholder has the emotional maturity and self-control of a 3rd grader. I don't doubt that the evil men you mentioned were functional adults. The same does not hold true of Trump.

>
>
> > it is quite possible that he WOULD have also condemned violence in response to the Unite the Right rally, but not in such a way as to imply that both sides were equally bad, or equally to blame.
>
> Unsupported use of "equally" as applied to Trump, noted.

If you can't see the moral equivalence implicit in the words of Trump's 1st and 3rd statements (the ones that reflected his actual views), I cannot help you.

>
>
> > > > and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have tried to place the blame on "many sides."
> > >
> > > Of course not. But my question to Jonathan had to do with the
> > > perception of the MEDIA as to Obama's intent, had Obama said the
> > > words I've re-quoted.
> >
> > Had Obama used those words and ONLY those words -- which Trump didn't and Obama wouldn't have
>
> Why not? You failed to find any fault with those words above, so
> you have given no reason for this mind-reading of Obama.

The fault in those words, but in the wds that are not included in that statement. In Trump's case, he DID SAY "on many sides," which told us what we needed to know. And given, again, the clear statements issued by politicians of all ideological stripes (even Orrin Hatch's initial statement focused on the condemnation of Nazis, for christ sake), it doesn't take a mind reader to know that Obama would have said much more than those two sentences, and his emphasis would not have been unclear. Obama may have faults, but being an ineloquent public speaker is certainly not one of them.

>
>
> > -- then the media would have LOGICALLY assumed Obama was referring only to the Unite the Right rally.
>
> Thank you for that ringing "YES" answer to my question for Jonathan.
> It will be interesting to see whether he will ever answer it for
> himself.

>
> Your first explanation for your answer is sound, but the other is
> highly debatable. I have a much better one later, involving the
> words "hate" and "bigotry".
>
>
> > Both because of Obama's history,
> > but also because the Nazis intimidated counter-protestors with torches, were armed to the teeth, and ACTUALLY KILLED SOMEONE.
>
> See above about the words you are "shouting." Are you denying that some of
> the Antifa were also armed to the teeth, intimidating their opponents, like
> their ideological counterparts in China Grove back in 1979? [Documentation
> on request.]

1. Most of the counter-protestors were not violent, or armed.
2. Those who were brought clubs, shields, and pepper spray, while many of the Nazis wore actual paramilitary gear, including extensive firearms.
3. While, again, a small minority of counter-protestors may have been trying to intimidate the Nazis, that really doesn't hold a candle to, say, surrounding counterprotestors with a ring of torches, or brandishing firearms, or shouting slogans of racial hate.

Again, you are drawing an equivalence where there wasn't one. The Nazis and counter-protestors were not equal-but-opposite in any sense.

>
>
> > On the other hand, people MIGHT have given Trump the benefit of the doubt that he meant only the White Supremacists, had he not made it explicitly clear that this was not the case.
>
> "benefit of the doubt" explains my use of "ideologically driven opinion"
> above. People should know, from the recent special issue of Time Magazine,
> that the word "hate" ONLY refers to right-wing hate in the eyes
> of the mainstream media. The Left has thoroughly co-opted that word
> "hate" and also the word "bigot", and "moderate-right" politicians
> like Mitt Romney have meekly fallen in line.

The only things the counter-protestors were preaching "hate" of, were racism, Naziism, and white supremacy. Perhaps consider that Mitt Romney isn't being meek, he just isn't accepting the extremism at the far-right edge of the political spectrum, which does not in fact HAVE a real, actual existing equivalent at the left-most edge of American politics, for all you may try to cast anti-fa in that role.

>
>
> > But again, to ask this question is to miss the point: Obama would never have left open the possibility (let alone the clear inference) that both sides were equivalently to blame.
>
> Hey, the two-liner I keep quoting does that quite handily, as
> even you have belatedly admitted.

But the "two-liner you keep quoting" does not constitute the entirety of Trump's statement, nor can we reasonably imagine it would constitute the entirety of Obama's.

We KNOW that Trump came down on the side of hate, because he went on to draw a moral equivalence between the two sides. Given Obama's record, we can be pretty sure that he would have done, but would rather have called out the evil of white supremacy specifically, and by name.

>
> > >
> > > Hence you were being specious up there, not I.
> > >
> > > And you have failed utterly to give your own take on the question
> > > I asked at the end.
> >
> > Oh I answered it,
>
> You answered it NOW, and not before.
>
> > by denying the premise of the question.
>
> Like a stereotyped polemicist, you seem to not understand the
> function of the word "if". And you have yet to give a plausible
> reason for denying the premise.

Actually I have... repeatedly: it doesn't reflect reality. It is counter-factual. We don't HAVE to read into a vague statement to know what Trump meant. Trump TOLD us exactly what he meant. And in fact, we don't have to guess what Obama would have meant either, since he posted this as a response to the events on Twitter:

"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."

Any ambiguity for you there, which side Obama was calling out? Because I think it is pretty clear.

>
>
> > Just because you demand a yes/no answer doesn't mean you get one.
>
> There was no such demand. You continue to behave like an ideologically driven polemicist.

Sticks and stones. You're going to have to do better than calling me names.

>
> And you have shown just how feasible a YES answer is, by giving it.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Actually, no, you missed my point. The essense of my answer is that we don't HAVE to assume what Trump or Obama would have meant, because they both told us what they ACTUALLY MEANT. The question is irrelevant, an attempt to set up a counter-factual that couches your argument in a scenario that favors your position by putting Trump and Obama on an even footing in a way that -- in reality -- they are not. Neither of them DID give a vague statement, so the question isn't germaine. It is like asking "If Trump and Obama both talked about grabbing women by the pu**y, do you think people would believe Obama said that?"

Trump ACTUALLY expressed a moral equivalency between the two sides. Obama ACTUALLY did not. There is no ambiguous "what-if" to worry about here.

[Peter Nyikos]

The similarities between you and Ray Martinez just keep on piling up.

Neither of you can draw the most obvious conclusions from the
standards you impose on others.

Did you get this way by imitating him, or did you grow up having it,
or did you acquire it somewhere along the line?


The only loophole I can see for you is that you find condemning the
antifa extremely painful.

But why would that be? Are you such a doctrinaire Leftist that
condemning the antifa would be turning your back on everything
you hold dear?

Or are you afraid of the reprisals that may come your way if
you were to condemn the antifa? You know, like Charlie Hebdo
found out after they condemned the People Neither Barack Obama
Nor Eric Holder Dare Utter the Name of?

OK, I know I haven't covered all possible reasons for avoiding
condemnation. If yours hasn't been covered, I'm all ears.

Peter Nyikos