He called people protesting the removal of Confederate statues “fine people”. Do you call people who wave the Confederate flag “fine people”? Come on.

We now watch the goalposts widen. They had a permit to do so and we’re in their legal right to protest. Clearly Trump differentiated between those exercising their rights peacefully and the violent and hateful mobs .

The goalposts haven’t widened. Those WERE the people chanting “Jews will not replace us”. Those WERE the people with the permit. And, no, there is nothing “peaceful” about supporting the Confederacy.

The word-policing remark actually harkens back to Orwell’s “thought policing”, — NOS4A2

It’s never a good sign when someone tries substantiate a remark with a work of fiction.

I think it describes your finger-wagging quite aptly.

You suspect that I’m part of the forum secret police and that I’m silencing your subversive thoughts against the forum status quo?

It appears to me that you’re entirely free to regurgitate any piece of political narrative that’s been fed to you. Something more original would be nice though, if you’re capable of generating you own criticisms.

You mean the neo-Nazis and white nationalists Trump explicitly said he wasn’t talking about and condemned? Now we have to go in circles.

One can peacefully oppose the destruction of history without supporting a confederacy that no longer exists.

What narrative have I regurgitated? Perhaps you can share an example.

He said he didn’t support Neo-Nazis by supporting Neo-Nazis. THOSE WERE THE PEOPLE WITH THE PERMIT! Statues are monuments celebrating history. It’s not destruction of history to take down hateful monuments. Come on.

No, he condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis. He condemned the violence.

It is literally the destruction of history.

It is literally the destruction of history. — NOS4A2

Now you sound like a Neo-Nazi. It is the destruction of a hateful monument. The history can be read about in books.

What if the government of Germany kept statues of Hitler in Berlin?

Now I’m a neo Nazi and a Russian Troll. But these soporific pieces of slander can only offer you solace from cognitive dissonance, not are any statement of reality.

Now I’m a neo Nazi and a Russian Troll. But these soporific pieces of slander can only offer you solace from cognitive dissonance, not are any statement of reality. — NOS4A2

Should Germany keep statues of Hitler to remember history? I’m just calling a spade a spade.

The Nazis loved destroying statues.

That doesn’t even make sense as a response to my question.

ISIS also.

But ISIS wouldn’t tear down mosques. And Nazis wouldn’t tear down white supremacy symbols. That’s the point!

ISIS has destroyed mosques.

The confederate statues have been a part of civic life for a long time, long after any need for “de-confederation” was necessary. As history has proven, Americans have long since moved on without the need for the destruction of statues.

Ain’t no one can consume more Trump or think about Trumpism more than me without being in the news industry. Sorry. You lose. Try again.

Ain’t no one can consume more Trump or think about Trumpism more than me without being in the news industry. Sorry. You lose. Try again.

If you have to say you are, you probably ain’t.

The Confederate statues were erected long after the Civil War to intimidate the black community and celebrate white supremacy. It is still ongoing as evidenced by the very protests we are talking about. Sorry.

The Robert E Lee statue is listed on the National Register of Historic sites. Doesn’t matter what it was built for unless you submit to presentism.

It was built in 1924.

I just exposed you for what you really are, viz. a Neo-Nazi sympathizing bigot. How does it feel?

The vast majority of the monuments were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.

The vast majority of the monuments were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation. — praxis

Exactly.

The Russian influence canard is mostly an anti-Trump hoax. — NOS4A2

A canard is "a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report: a groundless rumor or belief."

Your statement is categorical. Make your case or recant within three days, lacking that I request you be banned. The world is too full of liars and and their lies.

That’s unjust, but what I’m speaking about is the notion of “Russian influence” on social media, as if meddling on Twitter is akin to meddling in an election. According to the Mueller report, the IRA is a private company, and not an arm of the Russian government.

There are no true private companies in Russia that aren’t also controlled by Russian oligarchs and tied to the GRU as is the case with the IRA. Putin is actually thought to be the richest man in the world for his control of portions of all the oligarchs’ mob businesses. Those oligarchs are all former Communist Party members like Putin.

What narrative have I regurgitated? Perhaps you can share an example. — NOS4A2

This should be sufficiently hyperbolic for you to appreciate:



That’s all the libtards got, right?

I like it, but I’ve never expressed any such sentiment. Any examples of the supposed narrative i’ve been regurgitating?

I’ve never expressed any such sentiment. — NOS4A2

How-z-bout your Orwellian thought policing? That has a similar stench to it, yes?