Forsyth, Montana VS Dearborn, Michigan

[Spock]

Maybe people here need to worry less about the supposed anti-semitism in places like Forsyth, Montana and start thinking long-term about the actual Jew hatred in places like Dearborn, Michigan.

That might be where the real danger comes from.

[jarnon]

Not only have I heard nothing about antisemitism in Forsyth, when I Google Forsyth Montana antisemitism I get NO HITS.

OTOH Dearborn, with its Henry Ford history and large Arab population, is notorious.

[Spock]

Not only have I heard nothing about antisemitism in Forsyth, when I Google Forsyth Montana antisemitism I get NO HITS.

OTOH Dearborn, with its Henry Ford history and large Arab population, is notorious.

Kind of my point. Forsyth was a completely random example of an area with strong Trump support. It could have been 100,000 other places.

We waste hours and hours here with "This person said this" and "That person posted that" and "thus they are anti-semitic" and "You are anti-semitic if you don't support Soros" and "If you support Trump you are anti-semitic" and BLAH, BLAH BLAH.

Yet, we don't spend ONE frickin' second on the demographic (highly represented in Dearborn) with the most actual Jew hatred and the possible dangers of that over time.

[Spock]

Not only have I heard nothing about antisemitism in Forsyth, when I Google Forsyth Montana antisemitism I get NO HITS.

OTOH Dearborn, with its Henry Ford history and large Arab population, is notorious.

Kind of my point. Forsyth was a completely random example of an area with strong Trump support. It could have been 100,000 other places.

We waste hours and hours here with "This person said this" and "That person posted that" and "thus they are anti-semitic" and "You are anti-semitic if you don't support Soros" and "If you support Trump you are anti-semitic" and BLAH, BLAH BLAH.

Yet, we don't spend ONE frickin' second on the demographic (highly represented in Dearborn) with the most actual Jew hatred and the possible dangers of that over time.

Ezekiel 33: 1-6

The role of the watchman.

I can see the danger coming to Jews from a certain quarter-as described above. I have given my warning on it and I choose not to argue semantics-or "Spock is a racist" or any other blah, blah blah crap.

If you choose to ignore it and danger develops from that quarter-it is on you for ignoring it.

[silverscreenselect]

Not only have I heard nothing about antisemitism in Forsyth, when I Google Forsyth Montana antisemitism I get NO HITS.

OTOH Dearborn, with its Henry Ford history and large Arab population, is notorious.

Kind of my point. Forsyth was a completely random example of an area with strong Trump support. It could have been 100,000 other places.

[Montana] Is Home to the Most Hate Groups

A new report ranked Montana as the state with the most hate groups per capita. Montana is home to the most hate groups per capita out of all 50 states, according to a new report. The report, released by 24/7 Wall St., used data from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group specializing in civil rights, to rank states based on their number of active hate groups from 2020 per million state residents.

With 5.55 hate groups per million people, Montana came in first as the state with the most hate groups per capita with the SPLU reporting six hate groups: two ant-Muslim groups, two white nationalist groups, a skinhead group and a chapter of the Proud Boys, a group of self-described “Western chauvinists” created during the 2016 presidential election.

White Lives Matter: Small but visible in Montana

The leader of a small but highly-visible white supremacist group has touted Montana’s laws in an effort to recruit other extremists in the state.
The introduction of White Lives Matter in Montana is another reminder of the state’s turbulent history with white supremacy and white nationalist groups as well as the efforts of local activists to push back. In Montana, White Lives Matter started organizing in April 2021 and has put on small-scale demonstrations across the state in the last couple of months — including on Feb. 12 at the state Capitol building in Helena. Sebastian Campbell, known as “Cleetus” online, is the leader of the White Lives Matter Montana chapter. On a Dec. 21, 2021, episode of the “AMERIKANER” podcast from North Dakota, he talked about recruitment efforts, the framework of the group, and his affinity for Montana’s laws.

Bozeman man pepper-sprayed by group carrying white supremacy, anti-LGBTQ+ signs at Bozeman Pride

The Bozeman Pride Stroll was interrupted by a group of protesters wearing masks and sunglasses to protect their identities while chanting and carrying signs promoting white supremacy and condemning the LGBTQ+ community. The group walked up and down Main Street and other side streets while engaging with bystanders who shouted back at them. One bystander who engaged, Joseph Wood, ended up getting assaulted. Wood said he was walking near the group when one protester handed him a flyer. He continued walking near them and another protester tried blocking his path. They ultimately got into a verbal altercation that escalated into the man hitting Wood in the face with a shield, then another man pepper sprayed him.

Your point is that antisemitism is rampant in many areas of the country. No one is denying that. You could have used a better example than Henry Ford, a man who has been dead for over a half century. The ADL and other Jewish organizations have been well aware of the trends in this country for years and are trying to do things about them, in blue states and red.

Your point might have more validity if anyone on this Bored thought you were the slightest bit concerned about antisemitism other than as a perverse way to score points against certain liberals.

[Spock]

SSS>>>" You could have used a better example than Henry Ford, a man who has been dead for over a half century.'<<<

You know Damn well I did not mean Henry Ford when I talk about the CURRENT and FUTURE dangers to Jews coming from Dearborn and other places with the same demographic.

But you choose to see what you choose to see and I can't make you see dangers to which you are purposely blind to.

This is my last interaction with you on the topic. You 100% proved my point by arguing semantics (Henry Ford) and doing the Blah, Blah Blah Montana thing. instead of talking about the real danger.

I really don't care what Blah Blah Blah crap you Googled up in 5 seconds about Montana. Okay, Change it to Dickinson, Nd then. That should give you another Googling assignment.

[silverscreenselect]

But you choose to see what you choose to see and I can't make you see dangers to which you are purposely blind to.

I don't need a lecture on the dangers of antisemitism from you. I've lived with it my entire life. I have some holes in my family tree because of it. It's prevalent on both the left and the right, for different reasons. It's there in red states and blue states. It's not a cause that someone who has been propagating antisemitic tropes and memes their entire life ("I had no idea George Soros was Jewish") can decide to pick up for a short period of time because it gives you an opportunity to own the liberals or, in your case, because you drool over the macho image of the Israeli army.

[tlynn78]

But you choose to see what you choose to see and I can't make you see dangers to which you are purposely blind to.

I don't need a lecture on the dangers of antisemitism from you. I've lived with it my entire life. I have some holes in my family tree because of it. It's prevalent on both the left and the right, for different reasons. It's there in red states and blue states. It's not a cause that someone who has been propagating antisemitic tropes and memes their entire life ("I had no idea George Soros was Jewish") can decide to pick up for a short period of time because it gives you an opportunity to own the liberals or, in your case, because you drool over the macho image of the Israeli army.

Someone who is a fan of '..letting nature take it's course.." in relation to black inmates has ZERO grounds to lecture anyone on antisemitism or any other 'anti-'

[flockofseagulls104]

Just to make it abundantly and perfectly clear. I do not oppose George Soros, and now his son, because they are Jewish. I oppose them because I believe they are evil.

Please re-read that as many times as it takes to get it into your memory.

Don't confuse the issue again.

[Weyoun]

Insert that little girl Why not both gif?

I think the current right wing has a weird relationship with Jews - some are actual Nazis, but others are fundamentalists who apparently think we should go nuclear for Israel.

This is like the left, which has both George Soros and pro-Palestinians who through trash cans at DNC headquarters.

I think the bigger point is that democratic institutions protect Jews, and history supports me. Demagoguery can very easily throw off that balance, and demagogues like to blame certain people instead of the polity as a whole.

So, yes, eroding democratic institutions just so the orange man can get more power is more likely to impact Jews - or any isolated political group - than Joe Biden being a pants-crapper.

[flockofseagulls104]

Insert that little girl Why not both gif?

I think the current right wing has a weird relationship with Jews - some are actual Nazis, but others are fundamentalists who apparently think we should go nuclear for Israel.

This is like the left, which has both George Soros and pro-Palestinians who through trash cans at DNC headquarters.

I think the bigger point is that democratic institutions protect Jews, and history supports me. Demagoguery can very easily throw off that balance, and demagogues like to blame certain people instead of the polity as a whole.

So, yes, eroding democratic institutions just so the orange man can get more power is more likely to impact Jews - or any isolated political group - than Joe Biden being a pants-crapper.

No disrespect intended... Can someone interpret that for me?

[Beebs52]

Insert that little girl Why not both gif?

I think the current right wing has a weird relationship with Jews - some are actual Nazis, but others are fundamentalists who apparently think we should go nuclear for Israel.

This is like the left, which has both George Soros and pro-Palestinians who through trash cans at DNC headquarters.

I think the bigger point is that democratic institutions protect Jews, and history supports me. Demagoguery can very easily throw off that balance, and demagogues like to blame certain people instead of the polity as a whole.

So, yes, eroding democratic institutions just so the orange man can get more power is more likely to impact Jews - or any isolated political group - than Joe Biden being a pants-crapper.

No disrespect intended... Can someone interpret that for me?

Um, I'll pass.

[Weyoun]

Insert that little girl Why not both gif?

I think the current right wing has a weird relationship with Jews - some are actual Nazis, but others are fundamentalists who apparently think we should go nuclear for Israel.

This is like the left, which has both George Soros and pro-Palestinians who through trash cans at DNC headquarters.

I think the bigger point is that democratic institutions protect Jews, and history supports me. Demagoguery can very easily throw off that balance, and demagogues like to blame certain people instead of the polity as a whole.

So, yes, eroding democratic institutions just so the orange man can get more power is more likely to impact Jews - or any isolated political group - than Joe Biden being a pants-crapper.

No disrespect intended... Can someone interpret that for me?

Give me a bit. I will post it on some random looney right wing blog with a bunch of pop-up ads. Maybe that will work for you.

[silverscreenselect]

Someone who is a fan of '..letting nature take it's course.." in relation to black inmates has ZERO grounds to lecture anyone on antisemitism or any other 'anti-'

Here is the link to the original thread in which I made this statement. It involved the case of Michael Dunn, a Florida man convicted of murdering a 17-year-old black teenager following an argument about loud music. Dunn claimed he thought the teenager, who was actually unarmed, had a gun and intended to use it. The jury disagreed. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48570&p=488626&hili ... ke#p488626

My comment about "let nature take its course" was an attempt at jest not based on the idea that blacks are inherently more violent than whites but that black prisoners wouldn't react well to a white man shooting an unarmed black teenager in that manner. There appears to be at least some basis to my statement, since Dunn has been transferred to a prison in Oregon to serve out his sentence, which will undoubtedly result in his death in prison one way or another. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have made a blanket statement as I did and I certainly shouldn't have phrased it the way I did, intended joke or not.

Of all the people who commented on the original thread, lb seemed best to understand this, when he replied to Flock:

Well, I would imagine you are at least the bare minimum amount of racist that every single person who has lived their life in this country is... which would be racist on the subconscious level. With the way we go on and on and on and on and on about racial differences (while striving for equality, go fig),. it's impossible for anyone not to have their views affected by it on some level. Until we can eliminate all talk of racial differences, including the mere discussion of this incident (or the Ferguson incident, or the OJ Simpson case) on racial terms, we will perpetuate the very racism that we are trying so hard to eliminate...So I would guess you are just as racist as SSS is... and quite likely, in the same ways even.

I didn't intend my comment to be racist when I made it, and I didn't realize how it sounded, but it did reflect an unconscious degree of racism on my part. I apologize for that. As lb noted, we're all guilty of that to some degree or another. Some of us just deny it more fervently than others.

[flockofseagulls104]

Someone who is a fan of '..letting nature take it's course.." in relation to black inmates has ZERO grounds to lecture anyone on antisemitism or any other 'anti-'

Here is the link to the original thread in which I made this statement. It involved the case of Michael Dunn, a Florida man convicted of murdering a 17-year-old black teenager following an argument about loud music. Dunn claimed he thought the teenager, who was actually unarmed, had a gun and intended to use it. The jury disagreed. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48570&p=488626&hili ... ke#p488626

My comment about "let nature take its course" was an attempt at jest not based on the idea that blacks are inherently more violent than whites but that black prisoners wouldn't react well to a white man shooting an unarmed black teenager in that manner. There appears to be at least some basis to my statement, since Dunn has been transferred to a prison in Oregon to serve out his sentence, which will undoubtedly result in his death in prison one way or another. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have made a blanket statement as I did and I certainly shouldn't have phrased it the way I did, intended joke or not.

Of all the people who commented on the original thread, lb seemed best to understand this, when he replied to Flock:

Well, I would imagine you are at least the bare minimum amount of racist that every single person who has lived their life in this country is... which would be racist on the subconscious level. With the way we go on and on and on and on and on about racial differences (while striving for equality, go fig),. it's impossible for anyone not to have their views affected by it on some level. Until we can eliminate all talk of racial differences, including the mere discussion of this incident (or the Ferguson incident, or the OJ Simpson case) on racial terms, we will perpetuate the very racism that we are trying so hard to eliminate...So I would guess you are just as racist as SSS is... and quite likely, in the same ways even.

I didn't intend my comment to be racist when I made it, and I didn't realize how it sounded, but it did reflect an unconscious degree of racism on my part. I apologize for that. As lb noted, we're all guilty of that to some degree or another. Some of us just deny it more fervently than others.

You are very defensive about that, and hope everyone will take your comment as a mistake in the words you used, or as a joke taken out of context, because you really didn't mean it as it sounded.

But you are thoroughly wedded to the idea that the 'fine people on both sides' bullshit should be used to paint someone's entire character. Without any regard to context, and ignoring the many complete and unambiguous condemnations of the 'not very fine' people who committed that heinous crime in Charlottesville that came after. No slack for this and many other things that were taken out of context and used as a weapon against this particular guy. I wonder what other gems we would find if YOUR every word was recorded in print for posterity.

It seems only you and Joe Biden deserve any benefit of the doubt when it comes to your utterances, even though yours was in writing.

You can't have it both ways.

[silverscreenselect]

But you are thoroughly wedded to the idea that the 'fine people on both sides' bullshit should be used to paint someone's entire character. Without any regard to context, and ignoring the many complete and unambiguous condemnations of the 'not very fine' people who committed that heinous crime in Charlottesville that came after.

Other than the facts that (a) neither you, Dennis Prager, or Donald Trump have produced any evidence of "very fine people" at Charlottesville and (b) the latter of them has invited white nationalists like Nick Fuentes to dinner, you and Spock and others like you seem to believe that if you condemn especially heinous acts of racism or antisemitism like Charlottesville or the Hamas killings, that somehow serves as a "get out of jail free" card for everything else. It overlooks the many antisemitic tropes that you parrot all the time without realizing them. It overlooks the countless instances of police profiling, redlining, refusal to interview job candidates with "black sounding" names and other instances of antisemitism and racism that a lot more people are guilty of because they aren't somehow bad enough. Or that they just don't exist. Or that you don't ever engage in them.

As I pointed out, antisemitism has been on the rise in this country since 2016, long before the Hamas attacks. It's easy to see what domestic events coincided with that rise. But rather than acknowledge that, you view condemnations of the Charlottesville Nazis and Hamas as "proof" of your racial and religious tolerance while at the same time assailing people like Joe Biden and me for a single comment.

Since I was called out about my comment about Michael Dunn, I've tried to be more careful in what I post here (and what I say in general), and my guess is that Joe Biden has had a similar reaction to his statement. But you and Spock plow merrily along and some of the other right-wingers on this Bored throw my comment in my face every chance they get and use it as an excuse to ignore every valid point I make about racism or antisemitism.

You can't have it both ways.

I still remember an incident in elementary school when one of the guys I hung out with and played backyard football with (back in the days when elementary school parents thought nothing of their kids playing unsupervised backyard tackle football every afternoon) made a comment to a group of us about some financial transaction that he felt was unfair. He said, "I was Jewed." Then he looked at me and realized what he had said and added, "Sorry, Steve, I was Catholicked." I don't remember the details of his grievance, but I do remember what he said. Because it reflects a casual degree of antisemitism in the 1960s that's still there today that didn't coincide with his feelings about me personally. What's changed in 50+ years is a realization that using phrases like "I was Jewed," like using the N-word, isn't acceptable in public. But the antisemitic myth that lies behind them (that Jews will try to cheat people in commerce), hasn't changed.

[tlynn78]

But you are thoroughly wedded to the idea that the 'fine people on both sides' bullshit should be used to paint someone's entire character. Without any regard to context, and ignoring the many complete and unambiguous condemnations of the 'not very fine' people who committed that heinous crime in Charlottesville that came after.

Other than the facts that (a) neither you, Dennis Prager, or Donald Trump have produced any evidence of "very fine people" at Charlottesville and (b) the latter of them has invited white nationalists like Nick Fuentes to dinner, you and Spock and others like you seem to believe that if you condemn especially heinous acts of racism or antisemitism like Charlottesville or the Hamas killings, that somehow serves as a "get out of jail free" card for everything else. It overlooks the many antisemitic tropes that you parrot all the time without realizing them. It overlooks the countless instances of police profiling, redlining, refusal to interview job candidates with "black sounding" names and other instances of antisemitism and racism that a lot more people are guilty of because they aren't somehow bad enough. Or that they just don't exist. Or that you don't ever engage in them.

As I pointed out, antisemitism has been on the rise in this country since 2016, long before the Hamas attacks. It's easy to see what domestic events coincided with that rise. But rather than acknowledge that, you view condemnations of the Charlottesville Nazis and Hamas as "proof" of your racial and religious tolerance while at the same time assailing people like Joe Biden and me for a single comment.

Since I was called out about my comment about Michael Dunn, I've tried to be more careful in what I post here (and what I say in general), and my guess is that Joe Biden has had a similar reaction to his statement. But you and Spock plow merrily along and some of the other right-wingers on this Bored throw my comment in my face every chance they get and use it as an excuse to ignore every valid point I make about racism or antisemitism.

You can't have it both ways.

I still remember an incident in elementary school when one of the guys I hung out with and played backyard football with (back in the days when elementary school parents thought nothing of their kids playing unsupervised backyard tackle football every afternoon) made a comment to a group of us about some financial transaction that he felt was unfair. He said, "I was Jewed." Then he looked at me and realized what he had said and added, "Sorry, Steve, I was Catholicked." I don't remember the details of his grievance, but I do remember what he said. Because it reflects a casual degree of antisemitism in the 1960s that's still there today that didn't coincide with his feelings about me personally. What's changed in 50+ years is a realization that using phrases like "I was Jewed," like using the N-word, isn't acceptable in public. But the antisemitic myth that lies behind them (that Jews will try to cheat people in commerce), hasn't changed.

What you mean is, YOU haven't changed. I 100% guarantee you not one of my grown sons would know what you're talking about if you used that phrase - at least, they wouldn't have a clue as to that context. They'd be far more likely to think you're referencing what happened in Israel six weeks ago, or maybe the Holocaust.

[silverscreenselect]

What you mean is, YOU haven't changed. I 100% guarantee you not one of my grown sons would know what you're talking about if you used that phrase - at least, they wouldn't have a clue as to that context. They'd be far more likely to think you're referencing what happened in Israel six weeks ago, or maybe the Holocaust.

The phrase may have fallen out of usage, but the myths behind it remain. In case you missed it, here's the results of a recent poll on the prevalence of antisemitic myths in the United States:

Here are the results of a recent survey from the ADL about beliefs in the United States about Jews:

Jews stick together more than other Americans 70% say its mostly or somewhat true
Jews in business go out of their way to hire other Jews 53% true
Jews are more loyal to Israel than America 39% true
Jews always like to be at the head of things 38% true
Jews do not share my values 36% true
Jews have too much power in the business world 26% true
Jews in business are so shrewd other people don't have a chance 24% true
Jews have too much control and influence over Wall Street 24% true
Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind 21% true
Jews have too much power in the United States today 20%
Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want 20%
Jews have a lot of irritating faults 19%
Jews are not warm and friendly 17%
Jews are not as honest as other businesspeople 16%

More than 85% of the public believes at least one anti-Jewish trope (that's up from 61% in 2019). 20% believe six or more of these (up from 11% in 2019).

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/an ... e-findings

So you have one-third of the public believing that Jews don't share their values, and one-quarter who believe that Jews have too much power in the business world, are too shrewd for others to have a chance in business, or have too much control over Wall Street, and one-fifth who believe that they have too much power in general or use shady practices to get what they want, and one-sixth that they aren't as honest as other businesspeople. In other words, a lot of the rationales behind my friend's statement that he had been Jewed.

Your sons probably don't use that phrase, and they may be unfamiliar with its usage, just like a lot of other derogatory slang expressions for various racial and ethnic groups have become outdated. But the myths behind the expression remain. And a lot of people believe them. And more believe them now than they did even a few years ago. And a lot more people believe them than the ones who showed up waving Tiki torches in Charlottesville. And I'd bet that a bunch of people in your little neck of the woods in Montana believe some of these myths as well, a lot more than the ones who show up at the white supremacist rallies.

[BackInTex]

Your sons probably don't use that phrase, and they may be unfamiliar with its usage, just like a lot of other derogatory slang expressions for various racial and ethnic groups have become outdated. But the myths behind the expression remain. And a lot of people believe them. And more believe them now than they did even a few years ago. And a lot more people believe them than the ones who showed up waving Tiki torches in Charlottesville. And I'd bet that a bunch of people in your little neck of the woods in Montana believe some of these myths as well, a lot more than the ones who show up at the white supremacist rallies.

Forget Charlottesville. Let's talk Cooper Union, Columbia University, Binghamton University, George Washington University, Harvard, and many other bastions of convervative views.

[flockofseagulls104]

But you are thoroughly wedded to the idea that the 'fine people on both sides' bullshit should be used to paint someone's entire character. Without any regard to context, and ignoring the many complete and unambiguous condemnations of the 'not very fine' people who committed that heinous crime in Charlottesville that came after.

Other than the facts that (a) neither you, Dennis Prager, or Donald Trump have produced any evidence of "very fine people" at Charlottesville and (b) the latter of them has invited white nationalists like Nick Fuentes to dinner, you and Spock and others like you seem to believe that if you condemn especially heinous acts of racism or antisemitism like Charlottesville or the Hamas killings, that somehow serves as a "get out of jail free" card for everything else. It overlooks the many antisemitic tropes that you parrot all the time without realizing them. It overlooks the countless instances of police profiling, redlining, refusal to interview job candidates with "black sounding" names and other instances of antisemitism and racism that a lot more people are guilty of because they aren't somehow bad enough. Or that they just don't exist. Or that you don't ever engage in them.

As I pointed out, antisemitism has been on the rise in this country since 2016, long before the Hamas attacks. It's easy to see what domestic events coincided with that rise. But rather than acknowledge that, you view condemnations of the Charlottesville Nazis and Hamas as "proof" of your racial and religious tolerance while at the same time assailing people like Joe Biden and me for a single comment.

Since I was called out about my comment about Michael Dunn, I've tried to be more careful in what I post here (and what I say in general), and my guess is that Joe Biden has had a similar reaction to his statement. But you and Spock plow merrily along and some of the other right-wingers on this Bored throw my comment in my face every chance they get and use it as an excuse to ignore every valid point I make about racism or antisemitism.

You can't have it both ways.

I still remember an incident in elementary school when one of the guys I hung out with and played backyard football with (back in the days when elementary school parents thought nothing of their kids playing unsupervised backyard tackle football every afternoon) made a comment to a group of us about some financial transaction that he felt was unfair. He said, "I was Jewed." Then he looked at me and realized what he had said and added, "Sorry, Steve, I was Catholicked." I don't remember the details of his grievance, but I do remember what he said. Because it reflects a casual degree of antisemitism in the 1960s that's still there today that didn't coincide with his feelings about me personally. What's changed in 50+ years is a realization that using phrases like "I was Jewed," like using the N-word, isn't acceptable in public. But the antisemitic myth that lies behind them (that Jews will try to cheat people in commerce), hasn't changed.

Wow, you are defensive, aren't you?

You didn't think about what I said for even one second, did you? Amazing how much hypocrisy you are capable of to avoid looking at your own actions. No introspection for you. Not no way, not no how. You need to judge yourself long before you pretend to judge others. I suppose we are supposed to excuse your bigotry because you 'admit' you are a bigot, and that gives you free rein to accuse others.

Your argument that there was no one there who objected to the removal of the statue

The argument that it is difficult to find footage of someone that was there that wasn't a Nazi is irrelevant to any normal, rational person that doesn't suffer from TDS. Perhaps, some of the thousands of videos of the scene were taken by people who didn't want to identify themselves as having been there, knowing what antifa is capable of. But that is out of the question for you. You have your narrative to stick to. Trump was pointing out, in the haze of the situation, that there were peaceful people protesting both for and against the removal of the statue. He was not referring to the Nazis and the antifa groups, who both showed up looking for trouble. He then completely clarified his off-the-cuff remarks by unconditionally condemning the lunatic actual white racists that took over the event. But that was completely ignored by the press, and so, by you, who lives and breathes by what they tell you to think.

So get off it. You can't have it both ways.

[silverscreenselect]

The argument that it is difficult to find footage of someone that was there that wasn't a Nazi is irrelevant to any normal, rational person that doesn't suffer from TDS. Perhaps, some of the thousands of videos of the scene were taken by people who didn't want to identify themselves as having been there, knowing what antifa is capable of.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. No evidence but a lot of excuses. You might just as well claim that Santa Claus exists even though there's no evidence of that either, other than what lots of people have said. At least the people who claim Santa Claus are real are more trustworthy than you and convicted fraudster Donald Trump.

We live in a social media crazy world. People love posting selfies and videos of themselves anytime they go anywhere. The police identified and caught a number of January 6 insurrectionists because of pictures and videos they themselves posted. But not a single "very fine person" took a picture of them and the grandkids standing next to Robert E. Lee that day and posted it on their Facebook page or tweeted it out. You would especially think that after all the very fine people controversy that some of them would do that just to prove Donald Trump's point. But they didn't. And they haven't. In six years.

Your narrative is that there were very fine people there because Donald Trump, Dennis Prager, and you say so, even though there's no evidence. You can't have it both ways.

[jarnon]

The argument that it is difficult to find footage of someone that was there that wasn't a Nazi is irrelevant to any normal, rational person that doesn't suffer from TDS. Perhaps, some of the thousands of videos of the scene were taken by people who didn't want to identify themselves as having been there, knowing what antifa is capable of.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. No evidence but a lot of excuses. You might just as well claim that Santa Claus exists even though there's no evidence of that either, other than what lots of people have said. At least the people who claim Santa Claus are real are more trustworthy than you and convicted fraudster Donald Trump.

We live in a social media crazy world. People love posting selfies and videos of themselves anytime they go anywhere. The police identified and caught a number of January 6 insurrectionists because of pictures and videos they themselves posted. But not a single "very fine person" took a picture of them and the grandkids standing next to Robert E. Lee that day and posted it on their Facebook page or tweeted it out. You would especially think that after all the very fine people controversy that some of them would do that just to prove Donald Trump's point. But they didn't. And they haven't. In six years.

Your narrative is that there were very fine people there because Donald Trump, Dennis Prager, and you say so, even though there's no evidence. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think it makes much difference. Trump heard a news report that some fine people were in favor of keeping the statue, and he believed it.

The same thing happened repeatedly in his career: Arabs in New Jersey cheering the World Trade Center attack, dangerous Mexican migrants, riots in the U.S. and Europe, and so on. Trump found these stories more credible than his intelligence briefings. His followers get their news from the same sources, so to them Trump is the most truthful candidate.

In a second term, he'll probably rely on Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, the MyPillow guy, and other authorities that even Fox News rejects. That's a disastrous prospect.

[flockofseagulls104]

The argument that it is difficult to find footage of someone that was there that wasn't a Nazi is irrelevant to any normal, rational person that doesn't suffer from TDS. Perhaps, some of the thousands of videos of the scene were taken by people who didn't want to identify themselves as having been there, knowing what antifa is capable of.

Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. No evidence but a lot of excuses. You might just as well claim that Santa Claus exists even though there's no evidence of that either, other than what lots of people have said. At least the people who claim Santa Claus are real are more trustworthy than you and convicted fraudster Donald Trump.

We live in a social media crazy world. People love posting selfies and videos of themselves anytime they go anywhere. The police identified and caught a number of January 6 insurrectionists because of pictures and videos they themselves posted. But not a single "very fine person" took a picture of them and the grandkids standing next to Robert E. Lee that day and posted it on their Facebook page or tweeted it out. You would especially think that after all the very fine people controversy that some of them would do that just to prove Donald Trump's point. But they didn't. And they haven't. In six years.

Your narrative is that there were very fine people there because Donald Trump, Dennis Prager, and you say so, even though there's no evidence. You can't have it both ways.

I don't think it makes much difference. Trump heard a news report that some fine people were in favor of keeping the statue, and he believed it.

The same thing happened repeatedly in his career: Arabs in New Jersey cheering the World Trade Center attack, dangerous Mexican migrants, riots in the U.S. and Europe, and so on. Trump found these stories more credible than his intelligence briefings. His followers get their news from the same sources, so to them Trump is the most truthful candidate.

In a second term, he'll probably rely on Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, the MyPillow guy, and other authorities that even Fox News rejects. That's a disastrous prospect.

No. I believe that Trump spoke his mind on the situation when asked for his opinion on the situation, trying to be fair by pointing out there were normal civilized people who had opinions on both sides of the issue in question. And that these people had nothing to do with the violence that ensued. It came out wrong. You know the feeling, don't you, SSS? You have no proof that his statement was false except for the ABSENCE of information. Do you have a list of every person that was there? Do you know the motives of every person who showed up that day? Of course, you don't. Neither did Trump. But he made an assumption based on the situation that NOBODY CAN PROVE was correct or incorrect. At best it was a throwaway comment. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? And also, of course, you know the mind and motives of everyone, so you use your unique skill on Trump, just like you do everyone on this bored.

And it's the fact that you can't look at any situation that has to do with this one guy that you hate with any kind of rational thought, even to the point of incredible hypocrisy on your part, that makes what you post here have no credibility.

When the ubiquitous media rampage erupted, he clarified his statement succinctly and categorically. But diehard TDS sufferers didn't care. Neither do you. You have a narrative to uphold.

[silverscreenselect]

No. I believe that Trump spoke his mind on the situation when asked for his opinion on the situation, trying to be fair by pointing out there were normal civilized people who had opinions on both sides of the issue in question. And that these people had nothing to do with the violence that ensued. It came out wrong. You know the feeling, don't you, SSS? You have no proof that his statement was false except for the ABSENCE of information. Do you have a list of every person that was there? Do you know the motives of every person who showed up that day? Of course, you don't. Neither did Trump. But he made an assumption based on the situation that NOBODY CAN PROVE was correct or incorrect. At best it was a throwaway comment. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? And also, of course, you know the mind and motives of everyone, so you use your unique skill on Trump, just like you do everyone on this bored.

And it's the fact that you can't look at any situation that has to do with this one guy that you hate with any kind of rational thought, even to the point of incredible hypocrisy on your part, that makes what you post here have no credibility.

When the ubiquitous media rampage erupted, he clarified his statement succinctly and categorically. But diehard TDS sufferers didn't care. Neither do you. You have a narrative to uphold.

It's funny how the only person who sounds deranged in these threads is Flock.

[tlynn78]

No. I believe that Trump spoke his mind on the situation when asked for his opinion on the situation, trying to be fair by pointing out there were normal civilized people who had opinions on both sides of the issue in question. And that these people had nothing to do with the violence that ensued. It came out wrong. You know the feeling, don't you, SSS? You have no proof that his statement was false except for the ABSENCE of information. Do you have a list of every person that was there? Do you know the motives of every person who showed up that day? Of course, you don't. Neither did Trump. But he made an assumption based on the situation that NOBODY CAN PROVE was correct or incorrect. At best it was a throwaway comment. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? And also, of course, you know the mind and motives of everyone, so you use your unique skill on Trump, just like you do everyone on this bored.

And it's the fact that you can't look at any situation that has to do with this one guy that you hate with any kind of rational thought, even to the point of incredible hypocrisy on your part, that makes what you post here have no credibility.

When the ubiquitous media rampage erupted, he clarified his statement succinctly and categorically. But diehard TDS sufferers didn't care. Neither do you. You have a narrative to uphold.

It's funny how the only person who sounds deranged in these threads is Flock.

Your capacity for self-delusion is impressive.