Bump Hadley

Nazi Punching has been something people have advocated for (seriously or not) for many years.

Ask your grandfather what he thinks about punching Nazis.

Only possible in your prayers

i am not understanding the brandenburg rule

so lets say i go into a meeting of breastfeeding mothers against formula and shout - babies do best on formula!!!!

did i break the brandenburg rule? or only if the angry breastfeeding females tear me to bits

No, you didn't. The Brandenburg standard applies to advocacy of imminent lawless action. If you go to that meeting and say that, and then someone else at the meeting jumps up, points at you, and screams "Kill the heretic!" then they've arguably engaged in unprotected speech. (Context matters; it depends whether it's clear they're serious or not.)

thank you david

NOW i get it

some very fine people showed up in glendale yesterday.

has anybody here ever actually read the transcript of that specific "very fine people" response by Trump?

no spoilers, I promise - but something will surprise you, and perhaps even make you question the intellectual honesty of some of your favorite posters and pundits.

and if you have any doubts about that, note that any response here will be any combination of ad hominem personal attacks on me and herculean "whataboutism" efforts shifting focus to the plenty of legitimately objectionable things Trump actually did say that very day? and for that matter, the thousands of awful things he has said for 8 years now, at least.

so why, one might wonder, mischaracterize that very specific phrase (as Biden did as well, in his announcement of why he was running for President?)

why not post just that single paragraph here, in full, and talk just about that? not the other stuff. just that paragraph. It even has the word "neo-Nazis" in that specific response, as well as "white nationalists." I wonder if anyone at that rally should be "condemned totally."

we know why the usual suspects either won't post it, or they will go by the playbook I described above. Trump isn't the only one who never ever, concedes a point.

and no, I'm not responding to those ad hominem attacks, sorry.

release the ad hominen, 'whatabout' hounds!

some very fine people in these crowds.

and there's at least one very feckless #### in this thread.

and if you have any doubts about that, note that any response here will be any combination of ad hominem personal attacks on me

and there's at least one very feckless #### in this thread.

thoughtful readers will notice that the 'magic' doesn't work as well when the 'trick' is revealed before the magician takes the stage. but fear not, more are liable to follow - ignoring the substance of my post, because they have no choice.

I would expect the second attempt to be of the "whatabout" variety I noted, seeking to shift the focus to the thousands of awful things that Trump actually has said and has done. and you, dear reader, will notice it, I am confident of that because I have more respect for you than the bomb-throwers and bullies here (not as many left chasing me, because a bully fears nothing more than those who stand up to them whenever necessary).

and to save a step, here's the deal:

There are/were a lot of non-racist people - many of them academics, and specifically, historians - who protested that day against the removal of longstanding statues.

their stance was that, look, we can't erase history - better to leave the statues intact, and also educate youngsters about the shameful but undeniable racist history in Virginia and elsewhere.

do I agree? hell no. I see them not only as tone deaf, but sadly lacking in empathy.

the only real point worth discussing is whether they should be melted down and disappeared, or exiled to a remote place where those who wish to study Confederate history as academics can take stock of what the statues were, how long they stood, and exactly where.

but not everyone who "doesn't get it" is racist.
Neo-Nazis and white nationalists, I don't see a path to ever change those closed minds (it's kind of a human frailty, you know?). hmm, I wonder who also made that distinction?

now, what to do with the removed statues? that can be a rational discussion.

I wonder at this point, maybe most people weren't aware of this segment of those opposed to removal of the statues.

maybe that's a less-worse result, if that's what it was. but the mangling of Trump's "very fine people" response - it's not pretty, for those who vow to destroy "fake news" as long as it doesn't apply to them.

thoughtful readers will notice that the 'magic' doesn't work as well when the 'trick' is revealed before the magician takes the stage. but fear not, more are liable to follow - ignoring the substance of my post, because they have no choice.

people ignore the substance of your posts because you're a feckless #### who's trying to debate pervert your way into a discussion about whether donald trump was actually talking about the modern day klansmen who were protesting a statue removal, rather than the nazis who were openly trying to provoke a race riot.


your entire persona here is a concern troll and bad faith actor, and yeah, some of us are going to call you out on it instead of engaging with you.

and if you have any doubts about that, note that any response here will be any combination of ad hominem personal attacks on me

notice the frustration here: he can easily find the specific paragraph I noted, post it, and - in theory - address his awkward situation.

but he simply can't do that, so personal attacks (or whataboutisms) are all he has in his toolbox. and more and more of you will notice, and that will piss him off even more.

sorry, Wizard, readers will notice how desperate you are getting for people to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

it's weird, because Trump has literally said and done thousands of things worthy of disgust.

but you and many others decided that they would plant their flag, for some reason, on ultimately unfertile ground.

as they say, you reap what you sew.

why not post just that single paragraph here, in full, and talk just about that?

I guess this is your thing now? I played with you before, with the CIA thing, and then over on the NBA thread. The results were a total waste of my time. Make your point, if you have one.

Howie, you are indeed a tedious concern troll and many of us don't like you--to avoid ambiguity, I'll clarify that I number myself in that group.

Also, Howie, you're full of #### about the statues: very few serious historians would equate taking down monuments with erasing history. Monuments are not about history: they are about contemporary values. If those values shift, down go the monuments. Now, if you were to Google around, look for primary sources, and find no evidence that the monuments ever existed--that might be a problem. I am confident that both the contstruction and the removal of various Confederate monuments is in fact part of the historical record! ####, if I cared about educating youngsters, I'd suggest that a children's book could be written about that process of removal....

There are/were a lot of non-racist people - many of them academics, and specifically, historians - who protested that day against the removal of longstanding statues.

their stance was that, look, we can't erase history - better to leave the statues intact, and also educate youngsters about the shameful but undeniable racist history in Virginia and elsewhere.

do I agree? hell no. I see them not only as tone deaf, but sadly lacking in empathy.

Howie, you're full of #### about the statues: very few serious historians would equate taking down monuments with erasing history. Monuments are not about history: they are about contemporary values. If those values shift, down go the monuments.

notice the response, and then my post. they don't add up, do they?

I guess this is your thing now? I played with you before, with the CIA thing, and then over on the NBA thread. The results were a total waste of my time. Make your point, if you have one.

again, note the collective refusal to post the transcript of the paragraph that includes Trump's "very fine people" - and don't kid yourself that they can't find it.

but since you insist, here it is:

"REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? 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. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too."

..........

again, if anyone wants to identify themselves as being too lazy to have ever read the transcript vs. "yeah, I know, and ok you caught me" - feel free.

and once again - look for still more ad hominems (they are really piling up now) and also a vaguely desperate attempt to deflect to some of the nonsense at the end of this exchange and to a million other offensive Trump comments.

but what you will NOT see here, or anywhere, is a confession that the transcript paragraph I listed is what was said that day.

it's utterly impossible, because "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" ruins the years-long nonsense about "very fine people" in that response supposedly meaning neo-Nazis and white nationalists. that's why, as some of you observers no doubt have noted, there is not a single substantive response to my points. people are just pissed because I "revealed the magic tricks" before the performances began.

another pre-emptive strike, if I may, will be "well, so what - he's proven to be racist on so many other on so many other occasions, so what does it matter?"

ok, but their fun "very fine people" meme is mortally wounded, and don't expect anyone here to admit it - or to stop using it. that's the beauty of group-think - gang up on whomever "attacks the hive," and hope no one else will notice.

truth and accuracy?

hey, it's 2023. get over it!

you guys have been circle-jerking for a long time, and I let it slide. maybe the 200th or whatever time, the record has to be set straight.

(reminder: when you see the next ad personal attacks and "whatabouts" - and you will - you know they have no argument to make. that's where the fury comes from. few people these days have to address legitimate pushback on anything - that's the whole point of joining a tribe, and then only inhaling 'news' that reinforces pre-existing viewpoints - no critical thought necessary! that's why personal attacks like "you are indeed a tedious concern troll and many of us don't like you--to avoid ambiguity, I'll clarify that I number myself in that group" are necessary. it adds nothing to the discussion, but it virtue-signals to the other bees that they are in solidarity, however incoherent the response may be. and that's enough, pretty much, for the hive. but what if non-members of the hive read this and catch on? the good news is they won't likely reply, because then they they know they will be swarmed. but the hive has no way of knowing who digested this discussion, learned something surprising, and takes that into their future perspective.)

it's utterly impossible, because "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" ruins the feel-good nonsense about "very fine people" supposedly meaning neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

Nope, you missed it. "Very fine people" don't march with neo-Nazis and white nationalists. "Very fine people" who march with neo-Nazis and white nationalists ARE neo-Nazis and white nationalists, they just don't think of themselves in those terms because THOSE people "should be condemned totally," but "very fine people" just, you know, care about heritage and tradition.

In fact, if we dig later into the presser -- truth and accuracy, right? -- we get to the unavoidable truth:

"Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because [Thomas Jefferson] was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to 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.

The press has treated the people in the same group with neo-Nazis and white nationalists unfairly. Even Donald Trump couldn't avoid the fact that neo-Nazis and white nationalists were there. What the #### were "very fine people" doing in the same group with neo-Nazis and white nationalists? Marching with them, chanting with them, demanding the same things with them?

The circus trick that's being argued is that neo-Nazis and white nationalists "should be condemned totally" but the "very fine people" who marched and chanted with them are different and supported their rally are different? They're not.

115. Thank you for posting it; I read it and I do not understand it; it is unintelligible (this is not an invitation for anyone to interpret it for me).

More importantly, what does it matter? When people debate these cultural issues, or what is disgusting about President T (or not), please keep in mind the signature, indeed the sole significant piece of legislation passed when his party had control of both houses of congress: tax cuts for billionaires. Everything else is window dressing to get the non-billionaires (every one of you reading this regardless of how you identify politically) to fight over what's left or amongst themselves.

Interesting piece about stock buybacks by Professor William Lazonick, "Profits without Prosperity" in the Harvard Business Review. Heard him discussing it on Ralph Nader last week; never thought about it. Of course, one is less likely to think about stock buybacks and the use of corporate profits (to enrich the super rich) if the significant debate involves what naughty thing President T said (today).

So guilt by association is all good these days? For everyone?

Here is a transcript of the whole interview on Politifact:

link

Nope, you missed it. "Very fine people" don't march with neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

and "very fine people" don't march with violent criminals who firebomb small businesses to the ground - most of them minority-owned.

many of the objectors to the taking down of Confederate statues - while I have expressed my disagreement with their claims - were not violent.

and neither were the countless genuine protestors for racial justice whose acts of classic American protests had their ideals co-opted by violent extremists.

"The circus trick that's being argued is that neo-Nazis and white nationalists "should be condemned totally" but the "very fine people" who marched and chanted with them are different and supported their rally are different? They're not."

..........

ok, if you want to criticize genuine protestors in 2020 from not walking away from their own peaceful protests when violent intruders infiltrated their midst - hmm, we have to agree to disagree there.

I don't think genuine, non-racist and non-violent protesters for any cause should be forced to walk away even if their event is partially co-opted by hateful people. that's what makes this response feel vaguely - well, fascist.

and thanks to rr for having the courage (hey, in this threat, it takes courage) to post the entire trancript.

more information is better, and Trump provided countless pieces of ammo throughout.

but if we can't even come to an honest conclusion on what Trump did and did not say about "fine people" in that speech - then what is the point anymore?

Trump was always a hopeless cause on conceding anything.

I did not anticipate that the left would adopt the same stance.

but if we can't even come to an honest conclusion on what Trump did and did not say about "fine people" in that speech - then what is the point anymore?

The honest conclusion is that's been spelled out here, and in other places, and you just don't like it. I quote Trump directly from his PR, but I guess that counts for nothing. He said what he said, and you decided the people who listened to what he said got things wrong.

“Now, if Trump does win, OK, it’s going to be a real opportunity for people like white nationalists, acting intelligently to build upon that. You know how you have the black political caucus and whatnot in Congress and everything, to start building on something like that, OK.

“It doesn’t have to be anti, like the movement’s been for decades, so much as it has to be pro-white. It’s kinda hard to go and call us bigots, if we don’t go around and act like a bigot. That’s what the movement should contemplate.” -- Rocky Suhayda, Chairman, American Nazi Party

You can vote along with him, or against him. If you vote with the nazis, you can't be mad when people say you voted with nazis. And really, these are ####### NAZIS, not just some random harmless wannabe politicos. THEY'RE ####### NAZIS. If you march with nazis, if you protest with nazis, if you work for common social and political goals with nazis, then you can't just claim some harmless, blameless random association. Those people decided to bring nazis into their political family. That's just facts.

I don't think genuine, non-racist and non-violent protesters for any cause should be forced to walk away even if their event is partially co-opted by hateful people.

Fact: This was an event organized and headlined by white supremacists. The percentage of non-racists who show up in support of white supremacists at a white supremacist rally is zero.

It's so terrible that the bad people interrupted Richard Spencer's symposium of academics from heralded institutions like the National Policy Institute.

(reminder: when you see the next ad personal attacks and "whatabouts" - and you will - you know they have no argument to make.

...

and "very fine people" don't march with violent criminals who firebomb small businesses to the ground

Impressive.

What do you call it when ten good Germans sit down to a meal with one Nazi? Eleven Nazis.

I live in the Charlottesville area, and I was in town that morning and saw some of the fascists. The violence was not a bug with those people, it was a feature. They came to what some people want to compare to a peaceful protest with weapons and riot gear. Any attempt to defend those people is, put simply, a defense of evil.

I live in the Charlottesville area, and I was in town that morning and saw some of the fascists. The violence was not a bug with those people, it was a feature. They came to what some people want to compare to a peaceful protest with weapons and riot gear. Any attempt to defend those people is, put simply, a defense of evil.

Do you have a transcript of your experience? Because without a transcript...

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what?

This is a childish argument made by a simpleton who thinks he is clever. Don’t be like that. Or better yet, don’t assume we are dumb enough to fall for it. You know darned well that Washington and Jefferson were honored despite the fact that they were slave owners. Their good far outweighed their bad. The same cannot be said for the Confederates who’s sole reason for being honored was that they supported and defended the vile institution.

There are very fine people on both sides, many sides, of this trans debate.

I'm not anti-transcription, but now that children have been brought into it? It feels like trans grooming to me.

There are/were a lot of non-racist people - many of them academics, and specifically, historians - who protested that day against the removal of longstanding statues.

their stance was that, look, we can't erase history - better to leave the statues intact, and also educate youngsters about the shameful but undeniable racist history in Virginia and elsewhere.

No, Howie, there were not. There was a grand total of zero non-racist people who protested that day against the removal of longstanding statues. There may, hypothetically, have been a historian with truly unimpeccable woke credentials somewhere in the United States — maybe even enough of them to fill a single booth at a Denny's — who believed that the statues should remain. But if so, s/he was not there protesting that day. This was not a generic Historic Preservationists for Statues event. This was expressly a neo-nazi rally. Every single person there protesting on behalf of the statues was there attending that rally.



Your "look at what Trump said" — which I have done — founders on the fact that he was lying. There were only neo-Nazis there. So when he said, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis," he was talking about the neo-Nazis.

It is simply not true that there were only neo-Nazis there.

Like Howie and Clapper, my only wish is that people would be more accurate in their descriptions and stop with the guilt by association stuff.

The usual suspects with their homina hominas think they can just say the magic words "neo Nazi" and fool the careful readers and objective pro-transcript people like me into falsely tarring all sorts of militias, neo-confederates, and klansmen with their overly broad brush.

Unfortunately, some here will sink to any level to avoid admitting that Trump was right. As he said in the transcript: But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me.

can we appreciate for a moment the fact that this only happened because howie thought he had the chance to dunk on me.

this guy really thought he had staked out the moral highground here, and that everyone else was going to have his back on it.


oof. that's a real "stand back and stand by" moment.

but getting back to the topic of pride:

pat robertson died. good. #### him.

There are/were a lot of non-racist people - many of them academics, and specifically, historians - who protested that day against the removal of longstanding statues.

The history can still be preserved for people in what a lot of former soviet countries have done with their "Soviet graveyards". It preserves history without honoring it.

Seems rather odd to me to be so triggered by someone using the phrase "very fine people", but ultimately - David is correct.

Snark aside, unless one is going for some pedantic sillines that they weren't all "neo-nazis" at Charlottesville - and hey, yeah. Some of them were "neo-confederates".

However, if there were "There are/were a lot of non-racist people - many of them academics, and specifically, historians - who protested that day against the removal of longstanding statues" -- then name one.

Just one.

The "Unite the Right" rally was organized by Jason Kessler (you're free to google him) with assistance by Richard Spencer (ditto). The list of featured speakers included Tim Gionet/"Baked Alaska", Augustus Invictus, Mike Enoch, Matt Heimbach, Chris Cantwell, Nick Fuentes, David Duke, Nathan Damigo, Faith Goldy, Daniel Friberg, Henrik Palmgren, and on and on.

The groups attending include the Stormers Book Club, Nationalist Front, Identity Evropa, League of the South, Identity Dixie, Vanguard America, Hammer Brothers, Loyal White Knights, etc.

If the... IDK... Historians of 1920s Statues Consortium... who were also there, well...

this guy really thought he had staked out the moral highground here, and that everyone else was going to have his back on it.

Yeah, what were the odds a bunch of authoritarian leftists and a pseudo-libertarian would dispute Howie's take?

Maybe there were neo-Vichys there, but I don't find them documented.

The "Unite the Right" rally was organized by Jason Kessler (you're free to google him) with assistance by Richard Spencer (ditto). The list of featured speakers included Tim Gionet/"Baked Alaska", Augustus Invictus, Mike Enoch, Matt Heimbach, Chris Cantwell, Nick Fuentes, David Duke, Nathan Damigo, Faith Goldy, Daniel Friberg, Henrik Palmgren, and on and on.

Per Clapper's earlier comment, please remind us who called for and took the lead in organizing the Million Man March? Should everyone who showed up be condemned and silenced as a Jew-hating bigot?

I mean, your rules...

Or is that just so totally different because... STFU?

You're free to PH for Howie and name one yourself.

Just one.

Per Clapper's earlier comment, please remind us who called for and took the lead in organizing the Million Man March? Should everyone who showed up be condemned and silenced as a Jew-hating bigot?

Whatabout indeed. Anyway, Rosa Parks and Maya Angelou were at the million man march, despite not being ... well ... men.

Your turn.

No one is saying that at any event associated with a bigot that means everyone associated with that event is a bigot. We are saying that ONE PARTICULAR EVENT seems to have no one but horrible bigots associated with it.

There is a tiny little itty bitty difference.

You know darned well that Washington and Jefferson were honored despite the fact that they were slave owners. Their good far outweighed their bad. The same cannot be said for the Confederates who’s sole reason for being honored was that they supported and defended the vile institution.

Oh dear, oh dear, it appears Misirlou *again* didn't get a copy of the memo.

Oh dear, oh dear, it appears Misirlou *again* didn't get a copy of the memo

I suspect you think that is a devastating retort, but um, not so much. You do agree that "Washington and Jefferson were honored despite the fact that they were slave owners", right? Or do you think they are honored because they were slave owners?

How about "Their good far outweighed their bad", do you agree with that?

How about "The same cannot be said for the Confederates who’s sole reason for being honored was that they supported and defended the vile institution." Do you think the Confederate statues are in place for some reason other than as described?

What exactly do you disagree with? I mean because some random people did some random thing that you don't agree with and likely Misirlou doesn't agree with means what exactly?

We are saying that ONE PARTICULAR EVENT seems to have no one but horrible bigots associated with it.

"Seems to have." So it's still up to those who showed up to prove they're not bigots? Is that it really how the game is played?

Also, that's not what others are saying.

Hey, I'm not even demanding *proof* --

Name one person who showed up to the Unite the Right rally that you would like to defend as even just "probably not racist".

Just one.

Why is that so hard?

For the record the statue status ... Thomas Jefferson statue to be moved from City Council chambers to New-York Historical Society.

I mean the disrespect. Moving a statue to a new place, and the lowly New-York Historical Society. Gasp!

"Seems to have." So it's still up to those who showed up to prove they're not bigots? Is that it really how the game is played?

I mean Zonk gave a huge list of people and organizations up thread who are involved and are ... of questionable character. I mean if you want you can take his list and clear the good name of one of those people. I mean at some point, once you have so many people and so many organizations that are bad, then yes, that rally can be characterized as bad.

I mean in theory, there were "very fine people" at the Nuremberg rallies too, but I am pretty confident in suggesting not so much, because you know, the weight of evidence.

I suspect you think that is a devastating retort, but um, not so much.

Was the statue of Jefferson removed from where it had stood, much as was done with Lee in Charlottesville? You know where it is now, Mouse? It's not on display but locked away in the city's art storage repository. (Hint: It wasn't a trick question.)

And of course, the wack jobs in New York also removed noted slave owner Teddy Roosevelt from his perch outside the Museum of Natural History.

Sorry, but Misirlou's attempted retort was flawed. Trump observed that a mob would eventually come for Jefferson's legacy and, on this at least, he was correct.

Still waiting...

For that *one* -- Just one -- attendee at the Unite the Right rally you'd like to defend.

Just one.

Name one person who showed up to the Unite the Right rally that you would like to defend as even just "probably not racist".

Is that kind of like the good ol' "Nothing in the Steele Dossier has been disproven" line?

Despite your valiant efforts, neck-stabber wannabe, most folks in this country don't play by this you-must-prove-your-innocence standard. Show us how pretty much everyone who showed up was a card-carrying racist.

EDIT: And of course you refuse to say #### about the Million Man March.
Or the "mostly peaceful protests" that Howie referenced.
Or the attempt by a mob to storm the White House grounds seven months before J6.

Because we get it now, the hypocrisy is the point.

Odd, I could have sworn I said 'even just "probably not racist"'.

Still waiting... for that *one* name.

Sorry, but Misirlou's attempted retort was flawed.

You never answered my questions. Weird. Because he thinks Jefferson is still celebrated (You might not have noticed, but he still is, despite the crime of moving his statue).

Are you claiming Jefferson is no longer celebrated? Jefferson's star has decreased because he was a slave owner and rapist, and we as a society have decided maybe to ease up on celebrating those things. But he is still a founding father and appears in all the history books (well except in Florida, of course - note: the parenthetical is SNARK).

Do you think we should ignore the raping and slave holding? Because those are kind of bad things, even when a great man of history - who did many great things - does them.

But yes, I know you are going to scurry about and Google up a WhatAbout and never answer any of these questions.

And of course you refuse to say #### about the Million Man March

Umm, are you reading impaired? It took me five seconds for me to surpass the Zonk threshold of finding an attendee who was pretty solidly not a terrible bigot. I found two even. Was there something else I need to say about your WhatAbout?

EDIT: Excuse me. Multiple WhatAbouts. What exactly are you even doing? You think every event ever must be litigated before a Nazi Rally canbe castigated?

Double post.

I mean the disrespect. Moving a statue to a new place, and the lowly New-York Historical Society. Gasp!

Um, no. It's in the art storage repository.

Um, no.

LOCATION
2nd floor, Patricia D. Klingenstein Library Reading Room

Um, no. It's in the art storage repository.

GASP! (Edit: Heh - Well done Salt)

I mean not according to my 5 second Google, but honestly, who cares? You don't even care, at best you are pretending to, to avoid resuming your defense of the Pseudo-Nazi rally full of Very Fine People (none of whom you are willing to defend as actually being very fine).

And of course you refuse to say #### about the Million Man March.

I have a 28 year streak of not saying #### about the Million Man March. Consequently, I'm not entirely sure why I'm suddenly required to say *anything* about it.

You see, Howie - and now you - have this odd need to defend some (still unnamed) elements of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, so - per the request that we don't do whatabouts and the sincere desire to "discuss" it, I'm asking you to do so.

I don't quite get why this is so confusing to you.

EDIT: Excuse me. Multiple WhatAbouts. What exactly are you even doing? You think every event ever must be litigated before a Nazi Rally canbe castigated?

Obtuse Mouse is still obtuse. The issue was whether everyone who attended a protest against the removal of a statue was a Nazi and the clown-in-chief here demanding that folks prove their innocence.

As for so-called whatabouts, when folks here give 1/100th the oxygen to the reams of bigotry and authoritarian behavior taking place on the left, then the reminders that they are real and growing will taper off.

But folks here won't so the reminders won't.

The issue was whether everyone who attended was a Nazi.

As previously noted, unless your point is a pedantic one - some of the folks mentioned would be more properly styled as "neo-confederates", I remain puzzled about then, it remains so difficult to name one.

Just one.

It really should be easy.

I mean not according to my 5 second Google, but honestly, who cares? You don't even care, at best you are pretending to, to avoid resuming your defense of the Pseudo-Nazi rally full of Very Fine People (none of whom you are willing to defend as actually being very fine).

Because again, you and others won't think for a nanosecond of not associating with antisemites, provided these bigots occasionally put in a good word about irreversible trans surgery for minors or open borders or whatever is the left's issue flavor of the month.

Is that a veiled reference to Nick Fuentes as the one to defend?

I suppose he *was* respectable enough to be invited to a recent President's dinner table. And he can't be racist because he came with Kanye West!

Because again, you and others won't think for a nanosecond of not associating with antisemites, provided these bigots occasionally put in a good word about irreversible trans surgery for minors or open borders or whatever is the left's issue flavor of the month.

Rosa Parks is an anti-Semite? I mean I wasn't at the Million Man March, but whatever. And trans and open borders ... huh?

Dude the topic is simple. So simple you shouldn't have to have such a WhatAbout problem with it. The Unite the Right rally was full of horrible bigots. Like legit Nazis and their ilk. They are not on trial, they don't have to prove their innocence. But if you are going to claim they (or at least some of them) are fine people, then maybe step up to the plate and give an example of one such fine person.

Again, I am not going to put everyone at the Nuremberg Rallies on trial (not just because they are likely all dead or close to it), but I feel really comfortable suggesting that "fine people" were pretty scant there. It was a Nazi rally. They are not on trial, but I feel comfortable calling them all Nazis. Because, you know, they went to a Nazi rally.

Now, what all that has to do with the Million Man March (which for the record some fine people did attend) or Trans surgery is really best left to your vivid imagination.

One such fine person?

At around 1:45 p.m., self-identified white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters about 1⁄2 mile (800 m) away from the rally site, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 35 people. Fields fled the scene in his car but was arrested soon afterward. He was tried and convicted in Virginia state court of first-degree murder, malicious wounding, and other crimes in 2018, with the jury recommending a sentence of life imprisonment plus 419 years.[2][29][30] The following year, Fields pleaded guilty to 29 federal hate crimes in a plea agreement to avoid the death penalty in this trial.[31]

Rosa Parks is an anti-Semite? I mean I wasn't at the Million Man March, but whatever. And trans and open borders ... huh?

Thanks for making my point. Being present at a rally organized by bigots didn't make her an antisemite.

Thanks for making my point. Being present at a rally organized by bigots didn't make her an antisemite.

No, that was my point. I don't think attending the Unite the Right rally made anyone a racist bigot. I think they were all racist bigots and that is why they attended the rally. Just like attending the Nuremberg rallies didn't make people Nazis, instead, it was attended by Nazis because they were Nazis.

EDIT: I guess causality just confuses you, which explains much.

Circling back to the topic that started this thread, for another voice, per "Red Sox address past, now-deleted homophobic tweet from pitcher Matt Dermody"

Dermody's 2021 tweet read: "#PrideMonth. Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. They will go to hell. That is not my opinion, but the #Truth. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9. May we all examine our hearts, ask Jesus to forgive us, and repent for our sins. I love you all in Christ Jesus!"

God Bless Twitter.

For the curious, 1 Corinthians 6:9, from the RSV:

[9] Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

Oh, and fine fellow Trump has been indicted.

Again.

If this is not enough to shut this thread down, I will just have to try harder.

Jesus, Jason, get some new material. At least talk about Linda Sarsour and the Women's March, instead of desperately reaching for a 30-year old whatabout. At least that one would be in the same millennium as the events we're talking about.

The difference between the Nuremberg rallies and the Unite the Right rallies is that the attendance at the Nuremberg rallies was a lot less voluntary.

I spent a good 5 minutes trying to find if Biden has ever commented on Farrakhan.

There's some oblique comments about the presence of anti-Semitism on the left, which I guess could sort of maybe count? But I don't think Farrakhan really maps to a left/right axis.

I'm modestly surprised that Biden never did a drive-by dunking on Farrakhan in 50 years, but at least I couldn't find it.

I also couldn't find any quotes from Biden on the Million Man March, even using several tools to help find anything.

I rate this whatabout 1 star only.

I think about the fact the obvious first question in a GOP primary debate will the stance of each candidate on pardoning one of them and just start laughing... Then, I imagine the answers and get sad.

Multiple WhatAbouts

I am reasonably informed that nobody on the planet except Jason knows what a whatabout actually is.

Spin off time?

The celebrity apprentice has become the master!

Oh dear, what’s Jasón on about now? Was the Jefferson Memorial torn down? Was Ft Jefferson National Park renamed Ft Pride? Was his face on Mt Rushmore replaced with Dylan Mulvaney’s? Was the capital of MO renamed LBGTQ Junction? Was his profile on the 5 cent piece replaced with Gloria Steinem’s? Was a statue in NYC moved to a different location?

121. Hombre Brotani Posted: June 08, 2023 at 04:37 AM (#6131973)

“It doesn’t have to be anti, like the movement’s been for decades, so much as it has to be pro-white. It’s kinda hard to go and call us bigots, if we don’t go around and act like a bigot. That’s what the movement should contemplate.” -- Rocky Suhayda, Chairman, American Nazi Party

- "pro-white" is being defined by the actual freaking NAZI PARTY

If you vote with the nazis, you can't be mad when people say you voted with nazis. And really, these are ####### NAZIS, not just some random harmless wannabe politicos. THEY'RE ####### NAZIS. If you march with nazis, if you protest with nazis, if you work for common social and political goals with nazis, then you can't just claim some harmless, blameless random association

- so like WHY would someone march with a march organized by the american NAZI party if they were against nazis? or not FOR nazi/white power organizations?

onec more - WHO are the people who marched at charlottesville who were non-White, or were not rightists but just for whatever reason, wanted the confederate statues left in place?

it's like some 1930s non-jewish, non-Gypsy, non-homosexual, non-whatever else is not ok, decided to go to the nuremberg thingy explaining - well, i am not a nazi, i just want trains that run on time so i'm here to support that

what i do NOT get is anyone who is jewish who is pro anything about "white" power. they haven't yet figured out that the "white power" individuals do not consider Jews as "white people" (or hispanics or asians)

if everyone in this country who wasn't White just vanished there wouldn't be real too much left of it

i personally oppose any Black power organizer who is anti-Jew.

I think BBC gets it exactly right -- and I think it's the root pathology of this truly we've seen on display this page, but of course, is much broader.

Her first quote is especially prescient - and it's hardly a strategy limited to pedantically pure "nazis" but has been embraced by virtually every other adjacent sort in the last decade or two. Explicitly saying "kill/enslave" was a failure. "Moderating" to "deport or separate" was only marginally more successful. But - reframing in that manner of "just" being 'pro-white'?

Specific to the statues imbroglio - and some here being triggered by someone else typing "Very Fine People" speaks to that - I think it *is* important to remember that were about 'preserving history' to a very limited extent, and that historical preservation was most definitely *NOT* about benign 'heritage' or whatnot.

The knock-on effects are both tragic and obvious:

1. It has made stars about out of the *worst* sort of people (see people like Tim Pool, Nick Fuentes, et al)
2. It has made a hella lot of Marge Schotts - successful people (Elon Musk, Donald Trump, etc) a lot more free to basically say the equivalent of "some good things at first, but went too far"
3. It has made Akshally run amok - people who don't really have any kind of vested interest in "history" suddenly pretend to be stalwarts of "historical preservation" not because they value history, but because the rebranding of "pro-white" has convinced them that their identity is tied to silly stuff like statues they probably never considered or cared about before.

Original subject of the post DFA'd FWIW...

178 - And he was scheduled to catch the ceremonial first pitch tonight, as part of the Pride celebration.

178 - And he was scheduled to catch the ceremonial first pitch tonight, as part of the Pride celebration.

I didn't follow it closely, but I saw some brief snips from the Jays FO (or maybe it was Schneider? Wasn't following closely) that basically said "Bass has grown from this and yada yada" followed almost immediately by what amounts to \"#### you, no I haven't!"

A 35 yo definition of fungible middle reliever having a bad season anyway doesn't really get to do that... and keep his roster spot.

I mean, Marcus Stroman *could* layer onto his previous comments regarding Bass and go full-on "I'll pretend to be a trog delusion!" and say something like "He ought to be sent to a FEMA reeducation camp, where he'll be forced to perform fellatio on other men in order to make him woke enough and if that doesn't work..." -- and maybe he'd get a suspension.

But whatever...

The Blue Jays can probably count on now joining Anheuser-Busch, Target, Kohls, Chick-a-fil-a, Cracker Barrel, Disney, Mattel, Blizzard, and everyone else in the grand Woke Mind Virus Plot to force people to self-identify as loopy cranks by making them naked, hungry, thirsty and without any toys.

This Trump indictment is absolutely *bonkers*...

This Trump indictment is absolutely *bonkers*...

at least it's being handled by a competent judici... ah, ####...

The federal criminal case against Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents will be overseen, at least initially, by Judge Aileen Cannon, according the New York Times. This is excellent news for Trump and exceedingly bad news for Special Counsel Jack Smith. Cannon’s total lack of principle, combined with her evident incapacity to experience shame, renders her a uniquely favorable jurist for the former president. Indeed, if she maintains her grasp on this case, it is nearly impossible to envision Smith securing a conviction in her courtroom.

at least it's being handled by a competent judici... ah, ####...

First, it's a mistake to lean on something Mark Joseph Stern says.

But beyond that?

Either you believe in guardrails, norms, and the "system" -- or you're just being bizarro Trump.

Cannon already, previously, had some overturns stapled to her forehead by the appellate court. If she goes to the well again, she'll probably experience the same.

I'm not at all particularly worried about this and indeed, in a way? It's potentially even better... Even *if* you fear that she'll be overly deferential, there are guardrails to review and if necessary, remedy that.

Either you believe in guardrails, norms, and the "system" -- or you're just being bizarro Trump.

Cannon already, previously, had some overturns stapled to her forehead by the appellate court. If she goes to the well again, she'll probably experience the same.

I'm not at all particularly worried about this and indeed, in a way? It's potentially even better... Even *if* you fear that she'll be overly deferential, there are guardrails to review and if necessary, remedy that.

you're a naive ####### mark if that's your initial reaction.


this is a ticking clock scenario, and even beyond cannon's ability derail the case itself, she also has the ability (and she has shown the inclination) to just run out that ticking clock.

First, it's a mistake to lean on something Mark Joseph Stern says.

btw, i did try to link the new york times, but that site is unnavigable, so you got what you got.

Then, sorry Stiggles, but you're just wearing a different jersey than Trumpworld.

Either the system works or it doesn't.

From a Desantis-supporting, NR-adjacent sort I tend to at least consider (even if I normally disagree... imagine a Juannity with some modicum of honesty and a shred of principle) --

Sorry, but reading how much they have on Trump. I don't see how a conviction is avoidable. He should be begging for a deal.

Republicans really should have waited to react. Some of this stuff is as clear cut as it gets and. like it or not, it will be the focus moving forward.

There's a point where no amount of deferential treatment can get over that... and even if you do? The system will correct.

This will likely take a good year to play out, so it's simply not worthwhile to wring one's hands at this point.

The indictment - and it's just an indictment - is utterly jaw-dropping and damning. I'm all good with letting the system be the system

Then, sorry Stiggles, but you're just wearing a different jersey than Trumpworld.

Either the system works or it doesn't.

i don't know how you can watch roe v. wade get overturned, and the circumstances that led up to it, and still think the system is working as intended.

this #### isn't a ####### fairy tale.

Republicans really should have waited to react. Some of this stuff is as clear cut as it gets and. like it or not, it will be the focus moving forward.

republicans have had innumerable offramps if they wanted to take one. aside from christie, they've all made their plan of action quite clear:

If you are DeSantis, here’s what you want to see happen:

-- Trump is indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and thereby banished from public life.
-- You champion Trump every step of the way, acting as his fiercest and loudest ally.
-- To your pretend regret, your Trump advocacy fails to shield Trump from the law.
-- Trump is removed from the path to office; you inherit all of Trump’s supporters.

Kevin McCarthy and the Fox News talkers share similar interests and goals.

But here’s the intractable collective-action problem: These plans depend on the non-Trump political actors performing just convincingly enough that their audience is deceived, but not so convincingly that their audience is mobilized to actually do something inconvenient about it.

No one has taken Slate’s legal coverage seriously for decades. It could be written by stiggles himself.

i don't know how you can watch roe v. wade get overturned, and the circumstances that allowed that ruling to happen, and still think the system is working as intended.

this #### isn't a ####### fairy tale.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Either you accept that no "system" will *ever* lead to outcomes that always align with your views, or, you decide you just want a "system" that just leads to your preferred outcomes, damn the construct of the system.

For better or worse? I believe in our "system". There are things I would like to change within it, but the "system" provides mechanisms to do that and I prefer to work within it.

We have more than enough Burn It Down! sorts, nihilists, anarchists, et al coming from the MAGA realm. I absolutely, utterly, and completely refuse to join them.

I readily concede my 'privilege' in prevailing flashpoints like Roe v Wade among others. I do - really do - sympathize to the greatest extent I possibly can with preferred outcomes.

Put me down for court reform (I wholeheartedly changing lifetime appointments to courts to be terms), put me down for eliminating the EC (it no longer does what it was supposed to do anyway), et al. But - the system provides ways to do this. They are hard, but I'd rather follow the current confines to see the through rather than burn anything (or even *some* things) down to get to my preferred outcome.

Is there some part of the allegations that discusses that the former president discussed these secrets (nuclear secrets and defenses?) at a country club, on video? If so, what is the source (the indictment itself)? If the answer to the question is no, I apologize for fanning the flames of misinformation.
I actually heard something to that effect on a right wing talk radio show (listen for perspective); the host attempted liken it to actions taken by Biden and Hillary Clinton (perhaps Obama also; I don't recall). If it were true, and I also remember hearing that VP Pence had some classified information, it seems it depends on what the nature of the information is (and I am completely unfamiliar w/the law and do not know if there gradations. But, something of that level (nuclear defenses) does seem to be on the serious end of things (I am not trying to be sarcastic). The Stormy Daniels issues, never cared at the time, certainly don't now. But, this seems much more significant than I thought when I first heard about it.

191 Yes, at some point one must put faith in the system; the bench and the jurors.

How much deep doodoo is Trump in? Read this comment, and then scroll down to read who said it:

It is an extremely damning indictment. There are indictments that are sometimes called narrative or speaking indictments. These are indictments that are really meant to make a point as to the depth of the evidence. There are some indictments that are just bare bones. This is not. The special counsel knew that there would be a lot of people who were going to allege that the Department of Justice was acting in a biased or politically motivated way.

This is clearly an indictment that was drafted to answer those questions. It’s overwhelming in details. And, you know, the Trump team should not fool itself, these are hits below the waterline. These are witnesses who apparently testified under oath, gave statements to federal investigators, both of which can be criminally charged if they’re false. Those witnesses are directly quoting the president in encouraging others not to look for documents or allegedly to conceal them. It’s damaging.

----Jonathan Turley

Somewhere, RDP shrugs off this loss of confidence.

192:

The text of the indictment can be read in full here - it's pretty easy to read and follow, even for a non-lawyer.



To your first question, yes, there are two allegations in the indictment that Trump *did* at minimum discuss, mostly likely *share* the specific sort of top level classified documents you allude. See the bottom of page 2/beginning of page 3 that lays out the two instances.

It's gobsmacker #1.

Instance a. was a MAL. This is detailed starting on page 14. This is the one they have on tape (an audio recording, apparently at Trump's request!). Unless one wants to go full CT on the recording, it makes it pretty painfully clear that 1)Trump knew he hadn't declassified the materials, 2)he knew sharing with the people present (2 staffers + a publisher and author of a Mark Meadows book) was wrong, and 3)it is very much about the most sensitive sort of secret materials.

Instance b. was at Bedminster. It's outlined at the bottom of page 16. In this case, the timing/context *seems* to imply it's about Afghanistan. This one was apparently from witness statements.

As to your second item - the most critical difference is outlined starting at the bottom of page 3. Obstruction.

Hillary - and Biden and Pence (the Obama allegation is a stupid red herring - an allusion to a 'warehouse' in Chicago that *is* the midwest regional office of the National Archives) *cooperated* with the records/classified material 'investigations'. Indeed, in the case of Biden (and I believe Pence), it was the parties themselves that notified the appropriate authorities.

In any case, this is gobsmacker #2 -

It outlines that a)Trump asked his attorney to lie about complying with the subpoena to return the docs, b)he asked Walter Nauta (charged as a co-defendant) to move materials to hide them from an attorney seeking to comply, c)discussing with an attorney how to further hide/destroy docs in question, d)partially complying by design to say "that's all", and e)causing his attorney to certify all docs were returned when he *knew* they weren't... Indeed, funny thing on e - I believe this refers to one of his woefully incompetent TV lawyers signing onto an affidavit that all had been surrendered but as some legal observers pointed out, she (I believe this was Christina Bobb?) made the stupid mistake of not couching it in "So far as I know" or "As my client has verified to me.."

It's actually no wonder Trump goes through attorneys faster than Some Here spin through whattabouts (or whatabouts, if you prefer). He was both setting them up to lie *and* attempting to rope them into a conspiracy to obstruct. This is why the indictment actually includes information *from* his attorneys - the crime-fraud exception. Attorney-client privilege doesn't allow you to discuss with your attorney *how* to commit a crime and *how best* to cover it up.

So what's the difference between HRC/Biden/Pence and Trump?

1. Lack of cooperation, indeed - attempts to obstruct, hide, and otherwise in multiple ways on multiple occasions defy the law.

2. I believe one of the relevant statutes specifically cites *willfully* disseminating... Assuming the indictment is proven - there have been *no* allegations that HRC/Biden/Trump willfully disseminated anything to anyone.

3. I'm not sure if the delineation is actually in the law - but there are, of course, different levels of classification. There's a legitimate argument - applied to HRC and also applied to Trump - that certain "classified" materials are the product of over-classification. In the HRC case, via the wikileaks leaks (Russia, if you're listening...) I recall the 'server' materials were gossip like "don't leave pretty young interns alone with this handsy foreign ambassador". In the Trump case, I think some of the materials are gossip about Macron. However, to the best of *my* knowledge - the materials alleged in a. and b. at the top are the highest level of classification... SCIF materials where I think simply had they been referenced/discussed/present in HRC's e-mails - that alone hypercharges HRC's problem because they shouldn't even see the light of day.
Now - again, I don't know if the statutes make any kind of legal distinction, but it speaks to prosecutorial discretion.

FWIW- the WaPo has a pretty good piece on the differences in your second question. If you're not a WaPo subscriber, I think this gift link should work. If you want a TL/DR - it's mainly point 1. Trump *probably* doesn't get indicted - even accepting the difference in materials - if he simply complies honestly with not one (request), two (demand), three (subpoena), etc instances where he could have just turned over what he had.

I.e., it should very much be noted that Trump was *not* charged on *all* materials in question - he'd be looking at 100s of counts, not 37. He was only charged on the materials he sought to hide and made illegal efforts to keep.

there have been *no* allegations that HRC/Biden/Trump willfully disseminated anything to anyone.

You mean Pence. And, like Biden, his lawyers notified the government about the documents found in his possession, not the other way around as with Trump.

“We have now reached a war phase,” wrote Representative Andy Biggs on Twitter. “Eye for an eye.” Speaking in Georgia, Arizona’s failed gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake—continuing her audition for VP on Trump’s ticket—promised that 75 million armed Americans stood between Trump and prosecution. “That’s not a threat,” she smirked.
[...]
"Know your bridges" isn’t jargon or metaphor. For the militia-minded, it means knowing the approaches to your location—especially bridges, which can be seized, much the way Canadian far-right truckers blockaded the Ambassador Bridge to Detroit in 2022. And it can mean more than that. The liberal nightmare of militias marching on government institutions—realized on January 6—doesn’t match the fascist fantasy of retreating to strongholds.

Oops, yeah - thanks SoSH for the catch... out of time to correct the typo (and I tried so hard to proofread!)

an allusion to a 'warehouse' in Chicago that *is* the midwest regional office of the National Archives)

Yes, but it was once a Chinese restaurant, so it doesn't count.

I avoid cable news - and anymore, even the Sunday network talk shows - like the plague but out of idle curiosity, did flip through them this morning...

As would be expected, the HRC whatabouts are the most prominent defense*. I feel like the differences are adequately laid out above, but that said? While I don't agree, I do respect the opinions of a few GOP/conservatives who make the argument *both* should be charged (but, they generally do lay out the degree/seriousness of the charges). Of course, some of these people - whose only GOP/conservative apostasy is being "nevertrumpers" - would be dismissed out of hand. However, a few Vichy sorts have said the same thing (Sean Trende, even Rich Lowry and Andrew McCarthy). I suppose that people will complain that they are supposedly "not conservatives/GOP", but in addition to Turley**, Alan Dershowitz has also characterized the indictment as pretty damning. Bill Barr - what is he? NeverTrumper? Vichy? Turncoat? - has likewise (even before the indictment, but even moreso now) characterized them similarly.

EDIT: I will add - I don't *agree* with the "but HRC should have been charged, too", but I think it's at least rational.

I would further add, the GOP-controlled got its two-day kangeroo court that was specifically acknowledged to be a charade to harm her campaign and in an election decided by about 60k votes in 3 states, the 'false alarm' with the late-breaking laptop certainly could be as much to blame as a butterfly flapping its wings in Taiwan... so the "running for POTUS" doesn't wash at all, either./end EDIT

*The Gym Jordan stuff is hardly worth mentioning. If someone makes such linguistic twists? You might as well debate a rock.

**It never fails to amuse me that Green Room Johnny, who has a 30 year history of being the self-described 'liberal' that expands or compresses his analysis depending on the opposite, continually gets cited. Of course, here - he won't be.