Trump II

[Schewe]

Trump detractors knee-jerked this one, again.

Yep and they were correct again. Trump uses language that act as dog whistles to the alt right because they are part of his base. Then he sends his spokesmen out to say he really means Trump is anti white supremacist and anti KKK and anti alt right as long as those words don't need to come out of his mouth. Heck, Ivanka said what her father should have said and didn't.

He uses blunt and direct language against his enemies but it seems he just can't be blunt against some things like racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists and even antisemitics.

Hum, there's somebody else who Trump seems unwilling to be blunt about Putin. Hum I wonder of there's a connection?

[Schewe]

This sums it up pretty well...

Is Donald Trump stubborn, stupid, or simply racist?

By Michael A. Cohen GLOBE COLUMNNIST   AUGUST 13, 2017

In America, there are a mere handful of groups that politicians can criticize with relative impunity — members of the Islamic State, Communists, and of course Nazis.

Yesterday, however, after neo-Nazi groups marched in Charlottesville, Va., and a terrorist attack took the life of a young woman and injured 19 others, Donald Trump took the ball to the hoop — and missed an uncontested layup.

Rather than condemning these groups he took an uncharacteristically muted approach — decrying what he called “this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides,” as if those bedecked in Nazi regalia and chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans exist on the same moral plain as those protesting such hatred.

The same man who has ruthlessly attacked Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Gold Star mother, the cast of Hamilton, Meryl Streep, and the department store chain Nordstrom chose to hold his tongue when it came to singling out white supremacists.

All of this is hard to square with Trump’s campaign-era statement that he is “the least racist person you ever met.” Even racist people condemn Nazis.
To many observers this is an indication of Trump’s reluctance to upset his political base — namely the racist, xenophobic white voters who helped propel him to the White House. Surely that’s a possibility.

Maybe Trump simply is being stubborn. Like a petulant adolescent, the more people push Trump to do something, the more he gets his back up and remains silent.

But perhaps there is another more basic explanation for Trump’s reticence — he’s a racist.

So, stubborn, stupid, or simply racist?

How about some or all of the above...

[mecrox]

Yep and they were correct again. Trump uses language that act as dog whistles to the alt right because they are part of his base. Then he sends his spokesmen out to say he really means Trump is anti white supremacist and anti KKK and anti alt right as long as those words don't need to come out of his mouth. Heck, Ivanka said what her father should have said and didn't.

He uses blunt and direct language against his enemies but it seems he just can't be blunt against some things like racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists and even antisemitics.

Hum, there's somebody else who Trump seems unwilling to be blunt about Putin. Hum I wonder of there's a connection?

If a group of African Americans had turned up there one week before in paramilitary uniforms and armed to the teeth, what do people think would soon have happened? It looks as if every conclusion except for the obvious one is being entertained.

Trump has played with fire by equivocating over fascism, but I suppose if Bannon gets blamed and is kicked down the pecking order or even out then good of some kind will emerge.

[jeremyrh]

You gotta feel sorry for the Nazis - they plan one peaceful protest with automatic rifles, body armour, helmets and riot shields and one idiot turns up and gives them a bad name. He's ruined it for the rest of them.

[jeremyrh]

Yet another (nothing burger)

Probably not that much of a nothing burger for the family of the young lady that was killed.

[Robert Roaldi]

It's not "normal" but it's not unheard off. Slobodan posted an article noting that some situations allow what's called "open carry" meaning carrying weapons clearly visible. This happens in more rural areas and smaller towns and not major cities. I can tell you if a group of armed men started walking down Broadway in NYC or Michigan Ave in Chicago, there would be a large armed response and the "militia" would likely be disarmed and arrested. Most big cities have very strict laws regarding firearms.

As to the second question, as far as I can tell, the armed militia was acting as unofficial "security" for the #UniteTheRight rally. The city and state police certainly saw these militia and there was apparently considerable space between the real police and the militia.

Also note that the militia didn't actually do much of anything other than help evacuate members of the #UniteTheRight rally when the cops shut down the rally. They didn't actually keep either groups of protesters from engaging with each other so I personally think it was just for show. But if the weapons were loaded, bad stuff could have happened if people started shooting–it would have been a friggin' bloodbath.

Thanks. It would be highly unusual, to say the least, to see such a thing anywhere here in Canada. Private security is one thing, but (presumably) unauthorized citizens roaming the streets with firearms seems out of this world to me.

Btw, we had an interesting news item hit the cycle here last week for a day or so. It seems that several American tourists had been recently stopped at the border crossing into Canada with firearms. The majority of them were not trying to conceal them, it was just normal for them to have the guns with them and never thought anything about it, but the border guards had to confiscate the weapons, and some of the tourists were charged and fined. The department in charge seemed a little apologetic about it, since the folks involved had not intended to break any Canadian laws, it had just never occurred to them to look into this. I guess word got around though, because my brother met an American tourist in the Rockies last month who found out in time and stopped on the US side before entering Canada and arranged to mail his gun to himself somewhere on the US side to pick up on his way back home later.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks. It would be highly unusual, to say the least, to see such a thing anywhere here in Canada. Private security is one thing, but (presumably) unauthorized citizens roaming the streets with firearms seems out of this world to me.

Btw, we had an interesting news item hit the cycle here last week for a day or so. It seems that several American tourists had been recently stopped at the border crossing into Canada with firearms. The majority of them were not trying to conceal them, it was just normal for them to have the guns with them and never thought anything about it, but the border guards had to confiscate the weapons, and some of the tourists were charged and fined. The department in charge seemed a little apologetic about it, since the folks involved had not intended to break any Canadian laws, it had just never occurred to them to look into this. I guess word got around though, because my brother met an American tourist in the Rockies last month who found out in time and stopped on the US side before entering Canada and arranged to mail his gun to himself somewhere on the US side to pick up on his way back home later.

I keep a little Swiss Army knife on my keychain.  Three times I've forgotten about it when I went through airport security and they took it away from me.  They offered to allow me to leave the line and go back to mail it to myself.  But it wasn't worth the aggravation.  Plus I had to get on the plane.

Two weeks ago I had to go to court.  They sent our stuff through Xray machines.  I forgot again!  When I got to the other side, the cop said I  wasn't suppose to take a "knife" into court and told me not to bring it again.  He had a little common sense and didn't seize it as the blade was probably 1 inch (22mm). 

I don't own a gun so I won;t have similar problems with that.

[Otto Phocus]

There is no such thing as incitement of violence speech (noise pollution, maybe).  Freedom of speech should never be infringed for fear of how some may violently react to that speech.   

Banning hate speech is a short and sure road to tyranny and incompetence, because the truth often gets censored alongside the hate.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

Our commitment to the premise of freedom of political expression is never more tested then when it is applied to a group of people we may adamantly disagree with.

[Robert Roaldi]

I keep a little Swiss Army knife on my keychain.  Three times I've forgotten about it when I went through airport security and they took it away from me.  They offered to allow me to leave the line and go back to mail it to myself.  But it wasn't worth the aggravation.  Plus I had to get on the plane.

Two weeks ago I had to go to court.  They sent our stuff through Xray machines.  I forgot again!  When I got to the other side, the cop said I  wasn't suppose to take a "knife" into court and told me not to bring it again.  He had a little common sense and didn't seize it as the blade was probably 1 inch (22mm). 

I don't own a gun so I won;t have similar problems with that.

At one point in my life, I owned 4 Swiss Army knives and now can't find any of them. I bought them jic and kept them, each in turn, in my camera bags. I used one to peel an apple once.

If we ever got around to collecting all the stuff in our houses and cars, we might never have to mine for ore again.

[jeremyrh]

Thing about learning from history

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1548260861930699/

[Chris Kern]

Thing about learning from history
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1548260861930699/

There apparently were two versions of this film.  The first release was in 1943.  In 1947, after World War II was over, an updated version was produced.  This Facebook link has been edited down from the full 1947 version.  Here's a link to the complete 1947 film.  It's not clear whether it was made available for theatrical release.  (Some films produced by the U.S. Office of War Information, the War Office, and other domestic propaganda agencies were shelved after the war either because their theatrical release was no longer considered necessary or because members of Congress were concerned about the propriety of the federal government trying to influence public opinion.)

[Alan Klein]

There apparently were two versions of this film.  The first release was in 1943.  In 1947, after World War II was over, an updated version was produced.  This Facebook link has been edited down from the full 1947 version.  Here's a link to the complete 1947 film.  It's not clear whether it was made available for theatrical release.  (Some films produced by the U.S. Office of War Information, the War Office, and other domestic propaganda agencies were shelved after the war either because their theatrical release was no longer considered necessary or because members of Congress were concerned about the propriety of the federal government trying to influence public opinion.)

You can find plenty of propaganda in the NY Times and Washington Post. 

[mbaginy]

Thing about learning from history

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1548260861930699/

Since when do the majority of people learn from history?  I no longer have hope for that; people fall into the same traps, fall for the same slick-talkers again and again.

[BobShaw]

There is no such thing as incitement of violence speech (noise pollution, maybe).  Freedom of speech should never be infringed for fear of how some may violently react to that speech.   
Banning hate speech is a short and sure road to tyranny and incompetence, because the truth often gets censored alongside the hate.

I think that most people in most countries just shake their heads with this sort of talk.

Inciting a crime IS a crime in most countries, even if the people being incited do not actually commit the crime.
Free speech and freedom and liberty are enjoyed in most countries. Nothing special there. It is not an excuse for violence.

A few weeks ago I stood in the place where the Liberty Bell is housed. On a building next door are the words of George Washington talking of Liberty and Freedom. For a 100 years after that there were slaves. When Lincoln freed the slaves then for a 100 years after that there was segregation. The Germans do not like the Nazi symbol because it is a symbol of a bad past and they have moved on. Yet if you wander around the US you will see Confederate flags on houses and baseball caps and you say that is pride?

The first step in fixing a problem is to realise that you have a problem.

Please explain your version of liberty and freedom?

[Chris Kern]

Inciting a crime IS a crime in most countries, even if the people being incited do not actually commit the crime.

The law here is similar, but with a presumption favoring free expression.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the enforcement of any statute abridging speech (or any other form of expression) unless the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969.)

(Edited to clarify a technical point.  I originally wrote that "the U.S. Constitution prohibits the enactment of a statute . . . ", but obviously there is no way to prevent Congress or a state legislature from passing an unconstitutional law.  However if they do, the courts will not enforce it.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Did Germans change their national flag?

[Farmer]

Australia has already started to ban synagogues in Sydney out of fear of Islamic attacks.  I guess being Jewish qualifies as hate speech ( a.k.a. "incitement of violence") nowaday.  I'm sure the Left in America laud Australia's crackdown on free speech as "progressive."

Sources?

[BobShaw]

Australia has already started to ban synagogues in Sydney out of fear of Islamic attacks.  I guess being Jewish qualifies as hate speech ( a.k.a. "incitement of violence") nowaday.  I'm sure the Left in America laud Australia's crackdown on free speech as "progressive."

Bullshit.

[Schewe]

Bullshit.

Sadly, it's true...a local council decided to prevent the construction of a new synagogue because of the possibility of it becoming the target of a radical Islamist attack.

AUSTRALIA BANS SYDNEY SYNAGOGUE OVER ISLAMIST ATTACK FEARS, PROMPTING OUTRAGE AMONG JEWISH COMMUNITY

Australia's Jewish community has expressed dismay after a local council's decision to prevent the construction of a new synagogue because of the possibility of it becoming the target of a radical Islamist attack.

The New South Wales Land and Environment Court supported the decision of the local council to prevent the building of the place of worship in the Sydney suburb of Bondi, near the country's most famous beach. It said the risk assessment at the site was "inadequate" and that a "more sophisticated risk assessment process" may be required for the extremist threat that would face the site.

However, a statement that "Australia has already started to ban synagogues in Sydney out of fear of Islamic attacks" would be incorrect...construction of one proposed synagogue has been held up pending a security review. And, the outcry is pretty strong.

But hey, why let actual facts interfere with a good fake news story and cartoon?

[Schewe]

Man in Hostage Video Forced to Recite Words Not His Own

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A disturbing hostage video surfaced on Monday showing an American man woodenly reciting words that were not his own.

The video, which was broadcast on all the major news networks, raised concerns for the man, whose robotic performance indicated that he was reading a prepared statement under duress.

While the man appeared well fed and, to a certain extent, healthy, his facial expressions and body language convinced experts that the act of reciting the prepared text was an extraordinary ordeal for him.

Harland Dorrinson, a forensic psychologist, compared the man’s performance with hours of earlier footage of him and said that the man had “never expressed these sentiments before.”

“He did not seem to understand what he was saying,” the psychologist said. “At times, he appeared to be reading these words phonetically.”

Additionally, Dorrinson said, the man’s speech patterns in the hostage video were strikingly different from those in earlier videos of him. “From the moment he began speaking, the subjects in his sentences agreed with the verbs,” he said. “That set off alarm bells.”

The way Trump ran from the room yelling Fake News at Jim Acosta of CNN only gives more credence that Trump was forced into his statement.

By the late afternoon, President Snowflake was whining that nothing is ever enough...

Donald J. Trump‏ Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!
3:29 PM - 14 Aug 2017

Very, very bad people...