2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
the answer to all this angst is to vote in the ****ing primaries. every time. all the time. even if it's to show up and vote uncommitted or whatever.
lauren boebert is all but guaranteed to return to congress when SEVEN PERCENT of the district voted for her. SEVEN. 7%.
It isn't though. The primary system excludes anyone who isn't registered as a member of the party.
i never realized how obsessed the magas are about the "very fine people" thing.
it's like 1/3rd of the replies to every single political tweet that i've seen. he literally said it. sure he now says he didnt mean it like that because of course he does.
He also literally said : "And I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists as they should be condemned totally".
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-...
Trump: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did — you had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status, are we gonna take down — excuse me — are we gonna take down statues of George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay good. Are we gonna take down the statue? Cause he was a major slaveowner. Now are we gonna take down his statue? So you know what? It's fine. You're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
Lots of legit things to criticise Trump on. This isn't one of them. You really don't need to engage in falsehoods to criticise a guy convicted of 34 felonies and who brags of sexually assaulting women.
He also literally said : "And I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists as they should be condemned totally".
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-...
Lots of legit things to criticise Trump on. This isn't one of them. You really don't need to engage in falsehoods to criticise a guy convicted of 34 felonies and who brags of sexually assaulting women.
Any person who doesn't criticize the folks who did what they did at the "Unite the Right" rally is a part of the problem and should be criticized. It was a white supremacist gathering acc...
He literally referred to a gathering of explicitly white supremacist organizations as very fine people. If he wasn't talking about the white supremacists, he referred to the counter protesters who were beaten and murdered as "very fine" (he didn't).
I forgot he explicitly said there were very bad and very fine people on both sides, so he definitely should be criticized. The one side was entirely white supremacists.
No he didn't, here's the actual press conference where he condemns the neo nazis @ 1:59
I also in that very post you quoted provided Trump's verbatim quotes re his condemnation. This has been debunked before on this forum and I'm not getting into it again. Like I said, bunch of legit things to criticise Trump about without resorting to false claims.
Any person who doesn't criticize the folks who did what they did at the "Unite the Right" rally is a part of the problem and should be criticized. It was a white supremacist gathering acc...
He literally referred to a gathering of explicitly white supremacist organizations as very fine people. If he wasn't talking about the white supremacists, he referred to the counter protesters who were beaten a
Just caught your quite late edit- your last sentence is utterly false.
It isn't though. The primary system excludes anyone who isn't registered as a member of the party.
Afaik it depends on the state. Boebert won primaries in Colorado where it's a pseudo-open primary, registered members of the party + everyone who isn't registered to any party can participate.
He's attempting to create a distinction that doesn't exist. A false dichotomy. "Unite the Right" was a gathering of white supremacists. Being in those groups makes you very bad, not very fine. He implicitly affirms support for white power with this technique. Yes, he technically gave himself some layer of deniability with the qualification, but the general idea is: "I support you white bros". Same with the, "stand up and stand by".
It's a part the word game nonsense the right plays attempting to erase all meaning, standards, and norms. It should be rejected.
His last sentence isn't entirely false. As I said before, even if you somehow ended up at that rally without realizing that Richard Spencer and his ilk had organized the rally, it would have been immediately obvious to you after you arrived. At the point, you have two choices. Option 1 is to leave. Option 2 is to participate in a rally organized and led by white supremacists.
I'm not terribly concerned about the distinction between white supremacists and people who make a knowing decision to participate in a rally led and organized by white supremacists.
His last sentence isn't entirely false. As I said before, even if you someone ended up at that rally without realizing that Richard Spencer and his ilk had organized the rally, it would have been immediately obvious to you after you arrived. At the point, you have two choices. Option 1 is to leave. Option 2 is to participate in a rally organized and led by white supremacists.
I'm not terribly concerned about the distinction between white
I understand that under the current narrative racism and white supremacy are "the absolute evil" according to the "very intelligent people", but people can consider them far less dangerous evil than various forms of radical leftism including the "history should be canceled" radical leftist current, which was what the protest was against.
If you don't see how fine people could associate with white supremacists against even worse members of society, fine. But other people do see that.
It wasn't a rally to ask for the deportation of american citizens of color or for the repeal of 13th amendment or anything else *explicitly* white supremacist.
It was a rally against the horrific attempt of leftists to rewrite history, a topic against which fine people should actually all be against.
So i agree with you and Trump should be criticized, because among the counter protestors, definitionally, there can't actually be fine people.
It's true that DT did try to condemn white supremacy in the same speech. This also doesn't disprove that he said he likes the white power guys. I'd challenge you to find a speech of his more than 200 words where he doesn't contradict himself or lie.
To note i do associate in attempts to legalize cannabis in italy with some people who i think should be all in prison for eversion against the state (for other topics).
But i am a pragmatist and if they agree with something i know is correct i am not blinded by the fact they are monsters, if they can help achieve an outcome i like, that's it, that's what politics is about.
What history is being erased and how did you find out about it before it was erased?
Maybe Jill is actually running the country
Broken YouTube LinkI understand that under the current narrative racism and white supremacy are "the absolute evil" according to the "very intelligent people", but people can consider them far less dangerous evil than various forms of radical leftism including the "history should be canceled" radical leftist current, which was what the protest was against.
If you don't see how fine people could associate with white supremacists against even worse members of so
Marching with Tiki torches while chanting "jews will not replace us" was a rally against the horrific attempts of leftists to re-write history and nothing about that was explicitly white supremacist. Got it.
You sure this is a hill you want to die on?
He is sure
Like at least with the MAGAts in this forum it’s for the most part some gimmick they like cuz it oWnS tHe LiBz
That guy on the other hand is bummed the allies won WW2
If you don't see how fine people could associate with white supremacists against even worse members of society, fine. But other people do see that.
It wasn't a rally to ask for the deportation of american citizens of color or for the repeal of 13th amendment or anything else *explicitly* white supremacist.
This point of view reflects a lot of ignorance about the American context. This wasn't a rally about fishing regulations in the Gulf of Mexico, logging in the Northwest, or legalizing weed. The stated focus of this rally was preserving Confederate statues. That topic is, to put in mildly, highly adjacent to historical notions of racial superiority in the United States.
If you knowingly participate in a rally organized by white supremacists, and the focus of the rally is closely related (if not explicitly related) to historical notions of racial superiority, then you are what you are.
I also in that very post you quoted provided Trump's verbatim quotes re his condemnation. This has been debunked before on this forum and I'm not getting into it again. Like I said, bunch of legit things to criticise Trump about without resorting to false claims.
there's no debunking. he said it and then he tried to change what he said later down the line.
there were also NO GOOD PEOPLE at the unite the right rally. not a single person that goes to a confederate statue protest on the side of the statue is a good person.
This point of view reflects a lot of ignorance about the American context. This wasn't a rally about fishing regulations in the Gulf of Mexico, logging in the Northwest, or legalizing weed. The stated focus of this rally was preserving Confederate statues. That topic is, to put in mildly, highly adjacent to historical notions of racial superiority in the United States.
If you knowingly participate in a rally organized by white supremaci
I mean JFC look at the ****ing poster:
How is this even a discussion?
there's no debunking. he said it and then he tried to change what he said later down the line.
there were also NO GOOD PEOPLE at the unite the right rally. not a single person that goes to a confederate statue protest on the side of the statue is a good person.
This is honestly what blows my ****ing mind
The confederacy fought to secede from the United States and engaged in civil war for the explicit right to keep slavery legal. This is not disputable. That was the point
Taking down monuments to these people is the easiest bipartisan win imaginable by a side that wants to give nothing to liberals. At the very least they can say ‘ok look, this was put up at a different time, we know what we know now, let’s make it right
Instead people got uppity and decided hey wait a second how dare you. Blah blah blah states rights. And an explicitly racist rally took place in the name of preservation of monuments to ‘icons’ who believed in fighting to the death to allow black people to forever exist as property. Even ignoring the cause the people who attended were far right clowns who chanted, as was said, ‘Jews will not replace us’
I mean if you even for a second find yourself: 1. At that rally or 2. Emphasizing with or defending the people at that rally you are, without exception, a colossal piece of **** and an irredeemable human being
there weren't a bunch of history majors that were very concerned about this one statute that was put up in 1924. the only people there are at best leaning into white supremacy, so when the President of the United States says "there are very fine people on both sides" and then later tries to retcon it and say "not the neo-nazis or white supremacists" it's just giving cover to the white supremacists because again THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE on that side.
because i live in the real world and it was a statue put up by a random investment banker 60 years after the war featuring a combined work of two sculptors with no real historical significance. it also was eventually melted down, but this was just a rally to try and stop its removal. there is no historical significance to a statue being in a specific public owned space, there is also no "removing of history" for taking a statue down and putting it somewhere that it isn't an object meant to intimidate.
