Presidentr Condemns Alt-Left

[phattonez]

And what would it take for there to be unequal blame? A murder?

If Trump treated each equally then why did he rant about the left having bats when the right had assault rifles?

If Trump treated each equally why did he lie and say only one side was protesting legally?

The left also had flame throwers, piss bottles, mace, etc. Why are they free of blame?

And he was correct that only the alt-right had secured a permit.

 

[phattonez]

Proof?

Look at the first two seconds of this video.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Video of his tail lights being bashed in prior to the collision isn't credible evidence of any real threat to him?

The video evidence shows his tail lights untouched when he drove into all those people. Why do you insist on spreading a false narrative?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAf-6irU2Y

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Look at the first two seconds of this video.

LOL! That video demolishes your claim.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The video evidence shows his tail lights untouched when he drove into all those people. Why do you insist on spreading a false narrative?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAf-6irU2Y

False narrative is all the alt right has.
We know who the alt right is, they're the white supremacists. So, if there is an alt left, who are they? The anti white supremacists?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

False narrative is all the alt right has.
We know who the alt right is, they're the white supremacists. So, if there is an alt left, who are they? The anti white supremacists?

It's becoming crystal clear around here exactly who the Nazi rationalizers are. Good that they're finally coming out of the woodwork, though.

 

[Geoist]

The left also had flame throwers, piss bottles, mace, etc. Why are they free of blame?

I never said they were free of blame. Anyone, left or right, who contributed to the violence shares at least part of the blame. That does not mean the blame has to be distributed equally to both sides. Why didn't Trump bring up the far-right and their assault rifles?

And he was correct that only the alt-right had secured a permit.

That is false.

 

[Geoist]

Look at the first two seconds of this video.

A protester taking a swing at the taillight with his protest sign a mere second before the car collides into the cars/crowd? That wasn't harassment, that was a defensive action.

 

[phattonez]

I never said they were free of blame. Anyone, left or right, who contributed to the violence shares at least part of the blame. That does not mean the blame has to be distributed equally to both sides. Why didn't Trump bring up the far-right and their assault rifles?

When did he excuse the alt-right? He condemned them just as much if not more so.

That is false.

Thanks for correcting that. Still, only the alt-right permit was denied until a federal judge intervened.

 

[phattonez]

A protester taking a swing at the taillight with his protest sign a mere second before the car collides into the cars/crowd? That wasn't harassment, that was a defensive action.

Gauge the speed of the car. He accelerates after being hit.

 

[phattonez]

A protester taking a swing at the taillight with his protest sign a mere second before the car collides into the cars/crowd? That wasn't harassment, that was a defensive action.

Let's put this all together:

Protesters are filling the street hours after the police were supposed to have shut down all protests.
Cars are stuck because of the crowd of protesters (who have weapons, by the way).
His brake lights are on before the collision.
He was attacked before the collision.
His car was attacked immediately after the collision.

It seems to me that you could easily make the case that he felt he was in danger. If he was attacked and thus felt he was in danger, he's not going to be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

 

[Geoist]

When did he excuse the alt-right?

I did not say 'excuse.'

He condemned them just as much if not more so.

That is completely false, and I think you are smart enough to know it. He focused in on how the counter-protesters were "very, very violent." Nearly all condemnation of the right-wing protesters came from when he scolded both groups. He brought up how counter-protesters' 'bats' and ignored the protesters' assault rifles. He said that the protesters demonstrated legally and then lied about the counter-protesters and said they had no permit. You are kidding yourself if you think he was harder on the protesters.

Thanks for correcting that.

All good, but I wonder when Trump will admit he was wrong...

Still, only the alt-right permit was denied until a federal judge intervened.

The alt-right has a right to protest. The ACLU (an organization that the right loves to hate) is defending them. But I hope counter-protesters continue to meet them at every turn (in a peaceful manner).

 

[Geoist]

Gauge the speed of the car. He accelerates after being hit.

Kind of hard to gauge the speed when the camera is directly behind the car. Why was he already practically on top of the protesters before that protest sign hit? (btw, I think this 'he was attacked' defense is completely ludicrous).

 

[ludin]

And what would it take for there to be unequal blame? A murder?

If Trump treated each equally then why did he rant about the left having bats when the right had assault rifles?

If Trump treated each equally why did he lie and say only one side was protesting legally?

i bet there was evidence that the bats were used in the fight.
we know that assault rifles were not used in the fight.

 

[ludin]

A protester taking a swing at the taillight with his protest sign a mere second before the car collides into the cars/crowd? That wasn't harassment, that was a defensive action.

He intentionally drove into that crowd for the purposes of injury. he is going to get put on trial as he should be.

 

[Geoist]

Cars are stuck because of the crowd of protesters (who have weapons, by the way).

The worst 'weapons' I saw in that area were bats. The far-right had assault rifles.

His brake lights are on before the collision. He was attacked before the collision. His car was attacked immediately after the collision.

His brake lights were not on immediately before the attack. Watch again.

It seems to me that you could easily make the case that he felt he was in danger. If he was attacked and thus felt he was in danger, he's not going to be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

It's a bs excuse and I am frankly done with engaging in conspiracy theory logic.

 

[Geoist]

i bet there was evidence that the bats were used in the fight.

I wouldn't doubt it. I know for a fact the far-right were attacking with their shields in fights.

we know that assault rifles were not used in the fight.

Right, but Phattonez was referring to what was being carried, not used.

 

[Geoist]

He intentionally drove into that crowd for the purposes of injury. he is going to get put on trial as he should be.

I agree. Just in case my statement was misleading, I was referring to the sign-holder taking a defensive action, not the driver.

 

[phattonez]

I did not say 'excuse.'



That is completely false, and I think you are smart enough to know it. He focused in on how the counter-protesters were "very, very violent." Nearly all condemnation of the right-wing protesters came from when he scolded both groups. He brought up how counter-protesters' 'bats' and ignored the protesters' assault rifles. He said that the protesters demonstrated legally and then lied about the counter-protesters and said they had no permit. You are kidding yourself if you think he was harder on the protesters.

He protested them exclusively on Monday. That's now not good enough because he also brought up counter violence? Come on, no one else is even mentioning it, or, when they do they defend it.

 

[phattonez]

Kind of hard to gauge the speed when the camera is directly behind the car. Why was he already practically on top of the protesters before that protest sign hit? (btw, I think this 'he was attacked' defense is completely ludicrous).

I can't say what the motive was. I just want to make the point that there are extenuating circumstances here and that we can't so easily say that it was 2nd degree murder. He was attacked, he was surrounded by people with weapons. It's a dangerous situation to be in.

 

[phattonez]

The worst 'weapons' I saw in that area were bats. The far-right had assault rifles.

They also had makeshift flamethrowers, mace, piss bottles. Come on now, don't act as if a large crowd with bats surrounding your car isn't a totally dangerous situations.

His brake lights were not on immediately before the attack. Watch again.

In the first few frames his brake lights are on.

It's a bs excuse and I am frankly done with engaging in conspiracy theory logic.

Come on now. If you're surrounded by a large crowd with bats, let's see how comfortable you feel.

 

[jimbo]

A racist white male was the murderer in Charlottesville last Saturday. Can you condemn him unequivocally, or is that too much for you to do, too?

I'll condemn any deliberate murderer no matter what their status. But I won't condemn half the population because of one individual. Nor will I not condemn all parties at the table.

Can you say the same? Or is that too much for you?

 

[Phys251]

I'll condemn any deliberate murderer no matter what their status. But I won't condemn half the population because of one individual. Nor will I not condemn all parties at the table.

Can you say the same? Or is that too much for you?

I got your condemnation right here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...ssaulting-trump-supporter.html#post1067478582

Now what about YOU? Where is YOUR condemnation for violent people on the right? Or do they get a pass?

 

[jimbo]

I got your condemnation right here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...ssaulting-trump-supporter.html#post1067478582

Now what about YOU? Where is YOUR condemnation for violent people on the right? Or do they get a pass?

That's moving the bar, but I will condemn any violent people. I think I said that.

I'll condemn any deliberate murderer no matter what their status.

I used murderer since that was what you asked, but OK, violent too.

 

[Phys251]

That's moving the bar, but I will condemn any violent people. I think I said that.

Show me EXACTLY where you did this. All I see in this thread is your liking a bunch of "both sides are the same" posts.

I'll condemn any deliberate murderer no matter what their status.

I used murderer since that was what you asked, but OK, violent too.