Trump officially denounces KKK, Neo-Nazis, racism, etc

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Tempter

As I mentioned above, the DOJ came out and said this was a terror attack. I'm going to trust their assessment of the situation over the fantasies that get concocted over at /pol/.

And you know as well as I that the DOJ is as politicized as any other department.


I don't understand how someone goes from driving a car trying to get out of a bad situation to becoming a terrorist in 1 second.

Was he a murderer? Yes.

But a terrorist? There's no proof of that.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: lordcomac
I personally think it's pretty pathetic that people seem to need the potus to say this.

Does he need to come out and give a speech every time some yokels so something stupid, too?
Maybe he should make a speech out of the "do not try this at home" warning on the stunt movies next.

Shouldn't he be spending his time on more important things?

Huh? Hes the leader of the country. Thats kinda the point. This was an act of terrorism at a free speech rally. Its EXACTLY the type of situation he needs to comment on.

It wasn't an act of terrorism you nitwit.

Keep trying to make that the narrative, though.

A man... drove a car.... at people.... for political reasons........

If this person was muslim, would you say its terrorism?

Domestic terrorism. Plain and simple. Sad you cant see that. Oh and once again.. another name caller.

A man was trying to leave a peaceful rally, but was forced through the people trying to attack him for his beliefs. When he got frightened enough to fear for his own safety above those around him, he floored it.

He was scared.

Whats scary is the amount of folks on this site and /pol who are still trying to defend this killer.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED?

BECAUSE I HAVE EYES AND EARS

Oh and the DOJ called it terrorism. No biggie

a reply to: Tempter

As the video shows, he had plenty of opportunities to extricate himself from the situation before putting the pedal to the metal. As the video shows, he was not being attacked until his target was clear. As can be seen from the video, he never once hit the brakes. As can be seen from the video, as soon as he hits the crowd he throws it into reverse. If behind him was so safe why didn't he back up in the first place instead of barreling towards a crowd? All of his actions scream an intentional attack.

But go ahead and trust three borderline fascists and out and out fascists over the people whose job it is to investigate matters like this. I'm sure they don't have an agenda.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Wow. I spent 20 minutes writing a post to your assertion in the other thread about Obama inviting members of a "hate group" to the White House and the thread got trash binned for some reason? That's a little frustrating.

I too had a lengthy response to you.

How many of these propaganda memes are you going to repeat in this "but but but Obama" campaign? First off, "but but but" arguments are weak. They were weak when they were "but but but Bush!" and they're equally weak in defense of Trump.

Its pointing out the hypocrisy is the people criticizing Trump.

Had Trump said nothing Saturday, or praised neo nazis, ok I too am criticizing.

But I am pointing out how different people reacted in a similar situation with Obama.

Secondly, you're saying things that I don't think you can successfully argue. This meme of "BLM is a hate group" is bogus. Millions of people have shown support for BLM in thousands of rallies and protests. Anyone can do it. More importantly, it's easy to point a finger at "BLM the hate group" because the signs, banners, t-shirts are everywhere.

Oh so because millions of people like them, they can't be a hate group?

I think that any group that has a large portion of them advocating violence against some (cops) or rioting routinely is a hate group.

So as long as this racsim and hate is main stream, you are ok with it?

And here you are on ATS today talking about the alt right, Mike cernovich, some racists friend he had; painting with a broad brush yourself.

Many people call themselves alt right, yet here you are on ATS lumping them altogether.

Do you have any evidence of the founders of BLM, the national organizers or chartered chapters of BLM promoting, advocating, supporting, deliberately inciting or knowingly facilitating riots or riotous behavior or the murder of police?

The "what do we want? dead cops" chant was shown to *not* be BLM (but rather a group calling itself TMOC) — what else you got? Let me pretend to read your mind. "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon?" A couple dozen people behind a black lives matter banner in Minnesota chanting that phrase has gotten massive play in right-wing media and rhetoric.

Ridiculous standard. Do you have any evidence of Richard Spencer calling for violence, or Mike Cernovich, etc? But you still judge them.

We see riots, calls for violence, and all around hatred coming from BLM all of the time.

The whole, "BLM only does good things, so if something bad happens, it can't be BLM" trope is getting old.

Meanwhile, Daily Caller has had the organizer of this neo-Nazi fest writing for them. He wrote three articles for DC that were published in the last six months. DC has removed his articles sometime in the last 48-hours to hide their involvement but they not only gave this asshole a platform, they paid him to "report" on such things as the May rally/protest at the same Robert E Lee monument. They love that white nationalist edge.

This is hilarious.

Shall we go tit for tat on which group the MSM has paid more lip service to and celebrated more, BLM vs. white nationalists?

Buts its telling you are furious ofver the daily caller, and have no problem with the MSM kissing up to BLM>

Now to your specific claims. From the last thread it was the bit about Obama inviting BLM activists to the WH. You're referring to DeRay McKesson, who isn't a founder of BLM and AFAIK, isn't an organizer for any chartered chapter of BLM. His group is Campaign Zero. Check out their website here. You'll notice that nowhere under "solutions" is there "fry pigs in a blanket."

In fact, do you have any evidence of DeRay McKesson advocating for, endorsing, promoting, etc the murder of police or rioting?

So if Trump invites richard Spencer to the white house, and says Spencer hasn't engaged in violence, you would be ok with that?

I think not. You are ok with black supremacists, but not white, we got you.

In this thread, it's "Obama went to the memorial and took the time to praise BLM." Did he though? Is that what he did? This seems to be a mutated meme that started out with stories like this from Washington Times:

Obama defends Black Lives Matter protests at police memorial in Dallas

Here's his "defense" of the BLM (from the article):

“As a society, we choose to underinvest in decent schools,” Mr. Obama said. “We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment.”

The president went on, “And then we tell the police, ‘You’re the social worker, you’re the parent, you’re the teacher, you’re the drug counselor.’ We tell them to keep those neighborhoods in check at all costs, and do so without causing any political blowback or inconvenience. Don’t make a mistake that might disturb our own peace of mind. And then we feign surprise when periodically … the tensions boil over.”

Addressing Black Lives Matter activists, Mr. Obama said, “Protesters, you know it — you know how dangerous some of these communities where these police officers serve are. And then you pretend as if there’s no context.”

Incendiary for sure! (not really) Perhaps you could point out where he "praised" BLM in his address because WT couldn't even back up their headline.

Maybe you can or maybe, these are just memes that are repeated ad nauseam until people take for granted that they're true.

This is the ultimate hypocrisy.

On one hand, somehow Trumps comments condemning all violence wasn't enough.

But on the other hand, what Obama said about BLM, the group that inspired the murder of police officers at their very memorial, isn't a problem for you.

The president, who has been criticized by law enforcement officials for supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, doubled down on that theme in front of the slain officers’ colleagues and families, saying Americans “cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.”

“We can’t simply dismiss it as a symptom of political correctness or reverse racism,” he said. “We also know that centuries of racial discrimination, of slavery and subjugation and Jim Crow, they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation.”

www.washingtontimes.com...

I see you didn't post that part though.

Imagine if Trump had said "Its tragic this lady died, but many of the white nationalist there were merely peacfully protesting".

You would have went nuts.

Heck, people are going nuts when he said he condemned all violence.

I like you ante, but your double standard here is unreal.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The problem is that its taken him so long.

It was obvious that the far right white supremacists were to blame and he should have denounced them right away with out hesitation once that became clear and it was pretty darn clear as it was happening with all the racist chanting and so on.

Trump did not denounce sooner because he knows he was denouncing part of his base of support.

He is only denouncing now because the media have rightly flamed him for not condemning the actions of the far right on this.

too little too late I think.

It was obvious? did th epolice investigate it and reach a conclusion immediatly after?
Wow thats fine police work. If trump would had shot his mouth off before getting all facts they would claim he was wrong then too.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Considering he backed up for at least two blocks.... Id say he had ample room to get out if he was being attacked. He chose to turn into a crowded KNOWN gathering of antifa/blm/ civilian ( non antifa or blm) anti kkk protesters. He then CHOSE to ram people. And then CHOSE to reverse as fast as he could and make a getaway.

Motive.. check Intent.check...

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Considering he backed up for at least two blocks.... Id say he had ample room to get out if he was being attacked. He chose to turn into a crowded KNOWN gathering of antifa/blm/ civilian ( non antifa or blm) anti kkk protesters. He then CHOSE to ram people. And then CHOSE to reverse as fast as he could and make a getaway.

Motive.. check Intent.check...

What intent? What motive?


As the Defense, I could easy argue he feared for his life and did what he thought best at the time.

I don't think this is as cut and dry as you want to believe.

a reply to: bknapple32

You are a convict them before evidence kind of guy aren't you. Man, I am sure the KKK could have used you in the 50's. Probably would have been a Grand Wizard!

a reply to: Tempter
And to make that claim as a lawyer, youd need evidence. Of which, none exists.
It is cut and dry. Despite a fringe element on the internet trying to debate this.

He SPED UP after turning onto the street. As cut and dry as a member of ISIS mowing down civilians in a car.

a reply to: bknapple32

Another aspect I'm a bit confused about are the plates on the car. I know right after it happened people were claiming he had removed the plates. Once video and photos were released however it was shown that he at least had a tag on the back.

The part I'm interested in is the fact that the visible plate was from Virginia. Was it ever determined if this was a rental car or did Fields own it? And if it belonged to Fields why did it have a Virginia tag?

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Grambler

His words are chosen carefully.. Are they not?

As they should be. On Saturday we didn't know much about the driver. All we had were two sides, representing hate groups, mixed in with other people, committing violent acts and a lunatic in a car mixed up in it.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: UKTruth

Or maybe if the leader of the free world would have said something that night, we wouldnt have had saturday? I dont know...


I would say that video shows who was doing what Friday night. Which brought Saturday and the violence

Really? If that is what you think, then you have a misconception about what is going on. The hatred amongst far left and right groups is ingrained and has been for years. Trump could not more stop Nazi's as Obama could stop hate groups like BLM.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Considering he backed up for at least two blocks.... Id say he had ample room to get out if he was being attacked. He chose to turn into a crowded KNOWN gathering of antifa/blm/ civilian ( non antifa or blm) anti kkk protesters. He then CHOSE to ram people. And then CHOSE to reverse as fast as he could and make a getaway.

Motive.. check Intent.check...

I just watched a few videos for the first time. It appeared he had ample room both before and after driving into the crowd. It appears it was purposeful, or at least 2nd degree murder. If done for racist or political reasons, it should be terrorism.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I find it strange how selective people have become. It's like there's this massive number of people who do not care about anything... anything, not lives, not the country, not peace, not even their own well-being... as long as they can find a dig at the President.

This ^

It's EXACTLY right and what this is ALL about.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Tempter
And to make that claim as a lawyer, youd need evidence. Of which, none exists.
It is cut and dry. Despite a fringe element on the internet trying to debate this.

He SPED UP after turning onto the street. As cut and dry as a member of ISIS mowing down civilians in a car.

Except in those cases there was a plan.

Now, if it comes out that he texted someone that he was going to do this, said his goodbyes in some way, then sure. I'd call it terrorism.

But there's no proof this was planned, is there? There's no proof he did this to achieve some political goal, is there?

Correct me if I'm wrong but goddammit man, you want to lock him up before his due process.

a reply to: bknapple32

You have NO proof he turned onto the street and sped up. None. All the videos from behind show someone driving down a street that and he hits 2 cars that should not have been stopped. Then when it happened he was attacked by more than a dozen people with bats and sticks.

Not as cut and dry as ISIS either. In those cases they jump out and kill people. They do not go two blocks away to safety and stop. I mean, why did he not try to run from the cops? Try to hide? I mean, there is no good end for a White Supremacist in jail unless you come an AB bitch and even then you will be killed eventually.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: lordcomac
I personally think it's pretty pathetic that people seem to need the potus to say this.

Does he need to come out and give a speech every time some yokels so something stupid, too?
Maybe he should make a speech out of the "do not try this at home" warning on the stunt movies next.

Shouldn't he be spending his time on more important things?

Huh? Hes the leader of the country. Thats kinda the point. This was an act of terrorism at a free speech rally. Its EXACTLY the type of situation he needs to comment on.

It wasn't an act of terrorism you nitwit.

Keep trying to make that the narrative, though.

right.....because it CAN ONLY BE an act of terrorism...if...a radical Muslim terrorist mows down 20 people with a vehicle, instead of a radical white nationalist terrorist.....got it

originally posted by: lordcomac
I personally think it's pretty pathetic that people seem to need the potus to say this.

Does he need to come out and give a speech every time some yokels so something stupid, too?
Maybe he should make a speech out of the "do not try this at home" warning on the stunt movies next.

Shouldn't he be spending his time on more important things?

Like tweeting?

Oh you're trolling I see that now...

only took over 24 hours and global condemnation for him to change his tune.

no doubt this will be viewed as a win by his supporters and a sign he is learning on the job.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: lordcomac
I personally think it's pretty pathetic that people seem to need the potus to say this.

Does he need to come out and give a speech every time some yokels so something stupid, too?
Maybe he should make a speech out of the "do not try this at home" warning on the stunt movies next.

Shouldn't he be spending his time on more important things?

Huh? Hes the leader of the country. Thats kinda the point. This was an act of terrorism at a free speech rally. Its EXACTLY the type of situation he needs to comment on.

It wasn't an act of terrorism you nitwit.

Keep trying to make that the narrative, though.

right.....because it CAN ONLY BE an act of terrorism...if...a radical Muslim terrorist mows down 20 people with a vehicle, instead of a radical white nationalist terrorist.....got it

You like putting words in people's mouths?