Read IBM CEO Ginni Rometty's letter to staff: Why I walked from Trump's strategy forum In November 2016 IBM CEO Ginni Rometty wrote to then-president-elect Donald Trump with a list of ways IBM hoped to help the real-estate tycoon Make America Great Again. And today she wrote to IBM staff to let them know Big Blue has walked away from Trump's strategy and policy forum, which was closing down anyway, and agrees …
Not me. I am attempting to do the opposite of making people forget about this. Judging by the number of downvotes I received and the great preference people had for my first first post over my second, I can only conclude that people (a) don't appreciate irony (especially the recursive variety), or (b) much prefer to interpret my first post as literally suggesting that Trump isn't fascist enough over the sanitised version that presents a post-Fascist apology for my original statement.
OK, I guess that confusion surrounding irony (or meta-irony) angers people. No argument there.
For the record: Nazis are limp-dicked lizards that use the "supremacy" myth to cover up their basic inhumanity.
Keeping in mind that since this is still America, you can say and believe anything you damn well please, no matter who you piss off. You need only to not break existing laws. Worse hatred happens every hour, on the hour, in places like Chicago, Detroit Baltimore and Los Angeles, daily. The problem with Trump's response was that it assumed a general level of intelligence of the listeners. Damn skippy no group should get out of hand during a demonstration. No one should become dead. What is REALLY wrong with this country is that we expect first class behavior from citizens that received a second class brain-deadening education devoid of critical thinking skills. Trump doesn't get that yet. He needs to realize that the majority in this country are knuckle-dragging idiots who lack a half assed education. They need to have things explained to them in a manner that requires no thinking. If Trump had explained that the Klan has been a part of the Democratic Party for 100 years, all hell would have broken out since no one knows that.
@wayward
"The problem with Trump's response was that it assumed a general level of intelligence of the listeners. Damn skippy no group should get out of hand during a demonstration. No one should become dead. What is REALLY wrong with this country is that we expect first class behavior from citizens that received a second class brain-deadening education devoid of critical thinking skills. Trump doesn't get that yet. He needs to realize that the majority in this country are knuckle-dragging idiots who lack a half assed education. They need to have things explained to them in a manner that requires no thinking."
If you wrote that paragraph describing trump you'd be getting gazillions of up votes, as it'd be true.
There's many things Trump doesn't get, he's the bull in the China shop, smashing everything up because he doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand. Once he's gone the shop will still be there, in need of a huge cleanup and restocking, removing all the crap he left behind and in need to convince its neighbors and potential customers its safe to come back in and measures are in place to prevent any new bulls from entering.
When a nation has nuclear weapons and its leader is so removed from reality, the rest of the world truly trembles in terror. This is the reason why we don't want other nations having the bomb, as we fear their leaders are unstable and irrational.
@wayward4now:"He needs to realize that the majority in this country are knuckle-dragging idiots who lack a half assed education. "
He knows his supporters only too well.
His supporters are more likely to live in states with opioid addiction problems, with people relying on Medicaid, with blue collar jobs going down the toilet. He's a puppetmaster, he just doesn't realise that someones pulling his strings too.
@wayward4now:"He needs to realize that the majority in this country are knuckle-dragging idiots who lack a half assed education. "
He knows his supporters only too well.
He does, however, you don't.
Many people voted for Trump for many reasons. Most of all, the other candidate would have been worse.
Do you know why the 'alt right' and 'white supremacits' side with Trump?
Because he's not Obama.
Think about that for a second.
Many people voted for Trump for many reasons. Most of all, the other candidate would have been worse.
That is wearing more and more thin by the day. Its a farce to think Hillary would have tried to side with Russia over her own Government agencies, threatened war with North Korea over a twitter spat about who is the most manly, tried to close down all the national parks, offended pretty much every other world leader (except the other oppressive sociopath regimes) and most importantly it is a farce to think she would have enabled and supported white supremacists.
Do you know why the 'alt right' and 'white supremacits' side with Trump?Because he's not Obama.
Yes, they are racist nazis. We get that. However they didnt have to choose between a white and black guy. They chose their fellow racist who would enable them.
The fact that many non Nazis voted for trump is more worrying.
I live in one of those states in a city that I'm the minority in. I bet you can guess what the crime stats are.
I graduated from High School, have a degree, still constantly learn new things that are beneficial to me and by extension society and, oh yeah, I voted for Trump.
Don't sell Trump short.
He's human and has his failings.
He's not a great communicator and the MSM and politicians tend to focus on the word and not the thought behind what he is saying.
When both sides bring shields and weapons to a rally, what do you think is going to happen? And do you only blame one side?
The problem is that there are groups of people who want to oust Trump at any cost. This is unfortunate.
@Ian Michael Gumby:"When both sides bring shields and weapons to a rally, what do you think is going to happen? And do you only blame one side?"
Don't be so disingenuous. You can't incite or engineer a confrontation and then complain that the people who find you to be reprehensible are to blame.
The time for thinking about possible repercussions was before the nazi scum organised the rally.
I'm surprised and disappointed at the number of nazi apologists on this site.
You truly are clueless.
Nobody here is apologizing for the NN and the White Supremacists. Not even Trump.
To clarify,
On the one side which you call Nazis, you had Neo-Nazi, White Supremacits, 'Alt-Right' and other similar groups. It wasn't a single cohesive group. Not to mention a group of people who were protesting the removal of the statues because they wanted to protect our history.
On the other, you had BLM, Antifa, and miscellaneous peaceful protesters. Which in your mind you conflate to 'peaceful protester'.
Sure those who scheduled the rally expected to have a violent opposition.
I would suggest you think of the possible outcomes and how the rally organizers could use it to their advantage.
Clearly you don't think before you post and you clearly haven't a clue about what is going on in this country.
You want to blame Trump, but in truth... most of this started while Obama was President.
To ignore the violence caused by BLM and Antifa not only adds fuel to the fire, but also is unfair because they too share the blame for the violence.
I suggest you look at the March on Skokie IL back in '78.
Nothing happened. Why? Because the police did their job and shut down the march before violence could happen. That didn't happen here. Ask yourself why.
Learn your history son, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
@Ian Michael Dumby:"You truly are clueless..."
Aw diddums. Poor Gumby is #triggered.
Take a break from your hysterical shitposting, and have a Xanax and a lie down. Or maybe go play with some guns.
We get it - you're an apologist for fascist scum. You don't need to differentiate between the types of fascist scum you're making excuses for...
Son,
You're not intelligent enough to push my buttons.
The sad truth is that you like many others here spout half truth and utter nonsense.
There's an op-ed piece on Fox's site from a resident of Charlottesville who explained what set up this situation.
I point you and others to historical facts that also led to this confrontation, as well as point to the fact that the confrontation could have been avoided.
You spout nonsense out of ignorance. You also misunderstand what I am saying and why I am saying it.
The issue isn't support for neo-nazi, alt-right, white supremacists. The issue is the support for the law that allows them to say what they want. You probably never heard the expression "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend your right to say it.". Its a paraphrase of a quote that was written over 100 years ago.
You clearly aren't an American or understand why we believe in the first amendment rights.
The issue is that you want to shut down speech and ideas that you don't agree with.
You don't want to assign blame to the BLM who were present and are also part of the problem.
You don't want to assign blame to the Antifa who were also present and were shown to be attacking the police prior to the event. And the Antifa are actually acting like fascists by shutting down ideas and speech that they don't like.
You are just as ignorant as the youth in America today. And that's a major problem.
Maybe one day you will learn.
You want to stop racism, you start with educating them.
I personally have stopped several people from being antisemitic. Just by being myself and showing the stereotype to be wrong. What have you done to stop hatred and bigotry?
Grow up. You're heading down the slope of being a fascist and creating the society you claim to hate.
Maybe you should reread Animal Farm? Assuming you read it in the first place.
@Ian Michael Gumby:"The issue is the support for the law that allows them to say what they want. You probably never heard the expression "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend your right to say it.". Its a paraphrase of a quote that was written over 100 years ago."
It's not a law that allows them to say what they want, it's a constitutional amendment. You don't appear to know the difference.
Judging by the amount of downvotes you're getting I'm pretty sure everybody on here is tired of your shit. But carry on by all means; it's your constitutional right to talk crap.
Son.
The truth is a popularity contest? Really?
I think that says a lot about you and your vision of reality.
You are closer to being a fascist that you so hate than you realize.
You tend to revel in your ignorance. And that's the sad pathetic truth.
You clear don't know constitutional law. Or its significance in shaping this country.
I've already suggested that you read Animal Farm.
You should also read 'A Nation Takes Shape' by Cuniliffe.
There's more, but seriously its all wasted on you. What do they teach you in school these days?
@Ian Michael Gumby:"I think that says a lot about you and your vision of reality."
You poor snowflake. I said yesterday you were triggered and that is true without doubt.
Why else would you go to the trouble of typing so many lengthy replies to various people's criticism?
It's ironic that people like you who bring out the corny old cliche "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend your right to say it." are the same people who talk down to (and try to ridicule) those who don't agree with them.
My vision of reality is just fine. The people who organised the rally in Charlottesville are fascist pieces of shit, just like the people who make excuses for them. The world seems to agree.
I've read Animal Farm BTW. You remind me of Squealer, loyal to his leader, justifying Napoleons actions and trying to confuse the uneducated...
One other thing - this is a UK website as you can see from the .co.uk in your address bar. You may be surprised to learn that "muh freedomz" such as the first and second amendments don't apply extra-territorially
"We get it - you're an apologist for fascist scum. You don't need to differentiate between the types of fascist scum you're making excuses for..."
I'm truly confused as to whether you actually believe what you are saying or are being deliberately disingenuous in order to get a rise.
Please could you provide the original text you are responding to when putting words other peoples' mouths, because I didn't anywhere that Ian was making apologies or excuses for anyone, let alone the NN's etc.
At the moment it rather looks like you are taking the view 'if you aren't frothing at the mouth and are determined to have an intelligent discussion about this then I'm going to accuse you of siding with the worst group that is under discussion'.
This approach (sadly) probably works on people who are only 1mm deep, but not for those of us that can still fire neurons.
When both sides bring shields and weapons to a rally, what do you think is going to happen? And do you only blame one side?
Mmm. False equivalency fallacy. Let's try some of that, too:
“You know, one side hates minorities, the other side hates people who hate minorities. Okay? Two sides. All right? It’s just like D-Day. Remember, D-Day: two sides, Allies and the Nazis. There was a lot of violence on both sides.” --Colbert, as Donald Trump
"I don’t agree with the Nazis, but they had a permit for Normandy & the Allies didn’t." --General Trump.
"Sure the Empire is evil, but nobody is talking about the extremely violent Rebel Alliance." --Darth Trump
"Sure, the cancer was aggressive. But the chemotherapy was also very aggressive. There was aggression on both sides." --Dr. Trump.
OMG. I hope this is a comic post I've misread. If so, I am sorry but just in case you were being serious:
He's not a great communicator
He is the president of the USA. He is supposedly a successful business leader. He was a successful TV personality. He took part in a successful election campaign. He is constantly on twitter.
If he is NOT a great communicator then he needs to resign as president or STOP ignoring the messages his communications staff try to give him.
the MSM and politicians tend to focus on the word and not the thought behind what he is saying.
Far from true. The thought behind his words is pretty much what everyone gets to see.
For example, when he was on-script following the autocue he was saying the right things and *may* have calmed down some of the furore over his basic inability to manage any difficult situation. However, when he decided he'd had enough and wanted to express his true feelings it became apparent that he really is a Nazi sympathizer.
When both sides bring shields and weapons to a rally, what do you think is going to happen?
What? One side organised the attendance of an armed militia with assault rifles who patrolled through the streets like an occupying force. One side brought Nazi slogans and anti-semitic chants. One side out-weaponized the police presence.
There is no "both sides" here. There really isn't. The Nazis turned up looking for a fight.
Keeping in mind that since this is still America, you can say and believe anything you damn well please, no matter who you piss off.
Maybe so but I think you are on dodgy ground when you start building an equivalency between Nazis and the other protestors, especially since the Nazi's were mostly brought in from out of state whilst most of the protestors were apparently locals. Also many weapons were being carried I am not sure how that fits with a peaceful protest.
It gave the impression everyone had turned up just to fight, and also seemed to give some legitimacy to the Nazi's many of those sites were playing on this.
Considering America is supposed to be a free and equal place totally denouncing them and showing the presidency holds to a better ideal may have been a far better idea.
"
Maybe so but I think you are on dodgy ground when you start building an equivalency between Nazis and the other protestors, especially since the Nazi's were mostly brought in from out of state whilst most of the protestors were apparently locals.
"
Uhm... no.
Both Antifa and BLM brought in protesters.
You can use google to find the FB comment from BLM asking for PayPal donations to get people to the protest.
Seriously.
You can't make this stuff up, You just need to use google.
Maybe so but I think you are on dodgy ground when you start building an equivalency between Nazis and the other protestors, especially since the Nazi's were mostly brought in from out of state whilst most of the protestors were apparently locals.
"
Uhm... no.
Umm yes.
You can also use google to see quite what the difference was. Now also please note I have not said the antifa were peaceful. I said it was mainly locals who were there, a lot of which got attacked.
And if you build a false equivalency between a hate group that is spouting bullshit about why other races should die versus them even with the antifa and by not being plain on this then you give them more power, so I think you are going the down the wrong path.
Its quite simple free speech or not there is nothing wrong with thinking the Nazis and those following that ideology are utterly foul. To put them in the same region as those against it says that there is a tacit approval of the fact that this ethos is as valid as theirs and has a place in modern society.
If a bunch of people wandered down the street being vile and shouting for I dunno say the right to rape and kill, and people argued against them would you paint them as the same? Or would you say one lot might have used the wrong tactics to counter protest which we can't condone say like the antifa, but at least they are fighting from a better moral ground. There is no moral equivalency with Nazi's and you shouldn't try and make one.
Also yes they were not assault rifles, but and no gun expert but an AR15 fires either a .556 Nato, or a .22 long round if I am correct, both rounds that have plenty of penetration power, easily will go through someone, or the usual sort of cover like a car or say someones sheetrock house wall. I believe some military units like the marines also carry single shot automatic rifles nowadays rather than the something that can provide auto. So technicality aside on the actual name of the weapon, that's a weapon with a serious round and capability to be carrying in a peaceful protest.
@Triggerfish...
You missed the point, but since you want to talk about firearms...
The 5.56 mm round is a .223 which is a .22 caliber round. I won't go in the the ballistic differences other than to say that the 5.56x51mm is a larger case containing a larger charge behind the bullet. But both can kill. In terms of penetration. most pistol rounds can penetrate a car door easily. You can find YouTube videos demonstrating this. And those are 9mm, .40 S&W, .45ACP and .357Sig rounds that are commonly used in the police force today.
There is no such thing as a 'single shot automatic rifle'. There are muzzle loaders, bolt action, semi-auto and full auto (select fire) weapons. (Select fire in that you can fire semi-auto, burst, and full automatic, while some will not fire bursts but either semi or full auto and other that will fire bursts but not full auto. It depends on the weapon and its trigger group.)
The use of the term 'assault rifle' has both legal and historical significance. Hence its important to note that while some carried rifles (AR-15) some also carried pistols (both open and concealed). But they were in the minority. (There's a reason for this...) And during all of the violence, not a single shot was fired.
While you may focus on the optics of the men brandishing weapons, you need to know the gun laws. First, only residents of the state can carry a concealed weapon if they have a conceal carry permit. Those from outside of the state can carry concealed weapons if the state (Virginia) recognizes the other state's permit. (Reciprocity) You can go online and see which state honors what.
But then you get in to the question of where and when is it legal to actually use your fire arm. Note too that even with open carry, there are rules that vary from state to state that allow open carry.
IMHO it was foolish of them to brandish rifles. If you use it, the odds are you will end up in jail and you would lose your rifle. At best, you may be found not guilty, however it will be a very expensive lesson.
Firearms are not toys. Full disclosure. I legally own several bolt action rifles, semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols. I regularly shoot in order to maintain my proficiency and have a healthy respect for the damage a gun can do.
Also, lets be clear. Neither side wanted a peaceful protest.
To help put the issue in context.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/17/charlottesville-never-had-to-happen-how-craven-local-politicians-led-our-nation-into-tragedy.html
@Triggerfish/Snorlax & Downvoters
A question for you (genuine one) - Why does recognizing that, in addition to a bunch of Nazi wankers, a bunch of left-wing extremists were *also* at fault immediately result in accusations of support for the Nazi's?
I would really like to understand the reasoning behind this process, because it is truly baffling me and I think is causing a lot of conflict between people who would otherwise agree (in general that is).
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Ian is responding because he believes you are only looking at one side of the picture and missing key elements on the other side that might come back to haunt you if you continue to conflate it with 'the enemy'.
By not acknowledging all of the components in this situation when discussing it someone who is, you are creating your own view where you think he is being superior - part of you must be acknowledging (at a subconscious level at least) that you aren't being honest, and that it is yourself that is triggered. Ever hear of projection?
A question for you (genuine one) - Why does recognizing that, in addition to a bunch of Nazi wankers, a bunch of left-wing extremists were *also* at fault immediately result in accusations of support for the Nazi's?
Ok, I cant answer for anyone because I didnt vote you down or accuse you of supporting the Nazi, however I think saying that fault is shared here is incorrect. Responsibility for actions may be shared but, for me at least, the fault is one sided.
Ask yourself, what should those who oppose Nazis have done? Should they have allowed the protest to go unopposed, leading to the Nazis believing they have more support then they do and allowing those scared by this event to feel more alone?
The Nazis chose follow a path of hatred for others, chose to demonstrate this in an aggressive show of force, chose to chant their hatred with incendiary, racist and anti-Semitic remarks and chose to try and intimidate those who disagree with them. Placing any equivalence between the two sides is similar (only similar before the pedants get off on one) to saying France is partly at fault for the first world war because they fought back against the Germans.
So, what do you think the people opposing the Nazis should have done to not be at fault in your world view?
AC:"So, what do you think the people opposing the Nazis should have done to not be at fault in your world view?"
That's a valid question and deserves an answer. The local populace (who I think pretty much everyone agrees were the peaceful ones who were the real victims of this situation) tried to protest the Nazi's by blocking their path to the rally (at least that's the impression I got when reading the witness statements).
Since these Nazi's were obviously armed and looking for trouble that was both brave and fooling in equal measure, and I stand by comments made in another thread that the Police should have done more here.
However, I'm not seeing any real fault with the locals here, they were understandably pissed off their their local area was being used to make a political point by extremists.
In order to answer your question I'm going to have to have a guess at what would have happened if Antifa/BLM were not there and did not step in. There is some doubt as to whether the NN's would have actually acted violently towards the locals since that wouldn't gel with their 'victim' ploy. They would have scared the locals, some shoving and pushing to get past them maybe, but I doubt it would have turned ugly because I reckon the Police would have stepped in and I don't think the locals were looking for trouble - it sounds like they were pretty scared.
If it had all played out like that this would have been a non-event (in terms of international news I mean). The addition of left-wing extremists who adopt similar tactics to the NN's (use of violence and threats to achieve their goals) only served to ignite the powder-keg the NN's had prepared.
Some may argue that Antifa/BLM were there to protect the civilians of the town, but let's face facts - they were there to kick the shit out of the Nazi's. Understandable? Yes. Condone-able? No, not in my world view.
Don't get me wrong - I am NOT defending white supremacists - but I find it disingenuous to totally ignore the actions of Antifa/BLM as if they were entirely blameless in the violence that ensued.
Pointing out that the left-wing extremists played their part in the violence DOES NOT MEAN I SUPPORT FASCISTS. Hopefully that not-so-subtle point is starting to sink in with those who have so far seen fit to denounce anyone who dares point this out is a closet Nazi.
Thank you for responding with an intelligent post, you have restored 0.05% of my faith that all is not lost :)
However, I'm not seeing any real fault with the locals here, they were understandably pissed off their their local area was being used to make a political point by extremists.
I agree. I am not sure I've seen anyone blaming the locals - certainly from what I've seen there are two camps: 1) the nazis are to blame; 2) both sides are equally to blame. To be fair, I do strongly favor one over the other but...
In order to answer your question I'm going to have to have a guess at what would have happened if Antifa/BLM were not there and did not step in. There is some doubt as to whether the NN's would have actually acted violently towards the locals since that wouldn't gel with their 'victim' ploy.
I sort of agree here. Not fully because, fundamentally, the Nazis turned up ready to fight, and vastly out-gunned the locals in terms of both "melee" weapons and actual guns on display.
They would have scared the locals, some shoving and pushing to get past them maybe, but I doubt it would have turned ugly
For me, this is already ugly. When the nazis start threatening, pushing and shoving the locals, the fight has begun and the expectation (certainly by most people) is that those being pushed, shoved and having abuse hurled at them have the right (if not the ability) to defend themselves.
If I were to parade through a white nationalist community shouting "death to crackers", "whitey out"
and "Jesus was queer" would I share the blame for my end results or would the ensuing violence be entirely my fault? For me, it would be entirely my fault for A) holding an offensive and unacceptable viewpoint; B) antagonizing and goading others by expressing my unacceptable viewpoint in a manner I know will cause offence and result in action. Its not a freedom of speech issue when I press buttons knowing the outcome.
and I don't think the locals were looking for trouble - it sounds like they were pretty scared.
I agree here and this speaks volumes as to the situation. The Nazis were intimidating and threatening. Their language was inflammatory and their behavior offensive. They had turned up looking for a fight and were going to engineer one.
Some may argue that Antifa/BLM were there to protect the civilians of the town, but let's face facts - they were there to kick the shit out of the Nazi's. Understandable? Yes. Condone-able? No, not in my world view.
I sort of agree here. I dont for one second think Antifa went there to "protect" citizens. They arent superheros and they arent law enforcement. However, the reality is if people dont stand up to Nazis - people who are neither scared of violence or unwilling to use it - then the Nazis will eventually win, through fear and intimidation if nothing else.
Neville Chamberlain is, possibly with some value, criticised for having tried to reason with Nazis and for his unswerving belief that any form of violence was wrong. There are those who believe that if he had stood up to them in 1938, we would have avoided WW2 but he firm held the belief that discourse and debate would de-escalate the situation.
While I truly wish he was true with every bone of my body, history now mocks his appeasement strategy.
Now that we are faced with our own Nazis, there has to be a decision. Do we appease them, knowing that no amount of education or "showing them whats right" will change their views or do we meet force with force?
What is the third option here?
While I truly wish he was true with every bone of my body, history now mocks his appeasement strategy.Now that we are faced with our own Nazis, there has to be a decision. Do we appease them, knowing that no amount of education or "showing them whats right" will change their views or do we meet force with force?
What is the third option here?
The historical situation with Nazi Germany isn't really a true comparison as they were operating within their own powerbase. The Nazi wannabee's on show here don't have a powerbase and they aren't speaking to a large group of people and saying what they want to hear. (There will always be the odd bell-end who believes that drivel).
1. Appease? - No. They have a right to their views, but they don't have a right to make me listen. If they act out any of their ideas then they are breaking the law and are simply criminals.
2. Respond with force? - No. This only legitimizes their position and could actually garner them more support from moderate right-wingers - if only to thwart the radical left that are oppressing them (see how that works?)
3. Respond with strength. - Yes. As long as you don't equate strength to use of force that is. Rejecting their ideas - protesting at their rallies without resorting to violence etc.
4. Ignore - up to a point. If no-one else had turned up at that rally except NN's etc. there wouldn't have been an incident at all - unless they started turning on themselves or damaging property - which would just make them criminals and free speech protections don't apply.
It has been my experience that letting idiots ruin themselves (which they always do in the end) is the most efficient means to deal with them, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else (and I don't just mean with 'offensive' language). If they hurt others, then it's a crime and they can be arrested/jailed etc. Otherwise just let them wank each other off into oblivion - who'd notice?
Just as a side note, I'm pretty sure that none of these numpties would ever have been accepted by the Nazi SS for example, who are they kidding?
There is no such thing as a 'single shot automatic rifle'. There are muzzle loaders, bolt action, semi-auto and full auto (select fire) weapons.
A tedious level of pedantry to detract from the core point. The militia turned up heavily armed for no reason other than to intimidate.
The argument between an "assault rifle" or semi automatic is largely irrelevant in this context. The fact they had AR-15s rather than M-16s is only of interest to pedants around terminology. The Meal Team Six heros turned up to defend their Nazi brethern from scary protesting clerics. (See: https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/pri_49385930.jpg?w=964&h=667&crop=1)
You try to create an equivalence by saying "both sides turned up with shields and weapons" but the Nazis and their supporters turned up with body armour, helmets, multiple magazines and more middle-class-middle-aged-combat-fetishitic kit than any cosplay event would normally allow.
They are an embarrassment to the US. They shame and mock those brave enough to have served the country and that they were there to support Nazis is enough to demonstrate it was simply wrong.
...in places like Chicago, Detroit Baltimore and Los Angeles, daily.
Seriously? Violent mobs assemble from out of state and proceed to beat locals up? That happens daily in those places? I guess the MSM just cover that shit up to make us think that Nazis are the baddies......
"Seriously? Violent mobs assemble from out of state and proceed to beat locals up? That happens daily in those places? I guess the MSM just cover that shit up to make us think that Nazis are the baddies......"
No in Chicago there have been cases of violent flash mobs of kids beating up some locals but mainly tourists. But I think that's in the past.
With respect to what happened in Virginia,
Violent mobs attacked another mob who came prepared for violence and the police did nothing.
Ignoring the drivel before it:
If Trump had explained that the Klan has been a part of the Democratic Party for 100 years, all hell would have broken out since no one knows that.
This uses words which are, in different contexts, true.
The Klan and the Democrats did share an ethos but this kind of means you need to dial your calendar back a century. Everyone knows this.
However the bit you overlook is that it is no longer 1895. Both political parties have changed and the electorate has changed. If you are trying to align the Democrats and Klan then there needs to be some major revisionism around what the Republicans support and, to be fair, every republican should be out on the streets fighting the White Supremacists.
"If Trump had explained that the Klan has been a part of the Democratic Party for 100 years, all hell would have broken out since no one knows that."
Trump supporters are fond of this old chestnut about ancient history, because they think it can distract attention about away from current affiliations the current president has. While it is, no doubt, embarrassing and shameful that the Democratic Party were involved with the KKK 100+ years ago, it has no relevance to Trump's associations, policies and attitude, which are in need of far more pressing attention.
The same applies to Trump supporter's laughable attempts at labelling ant-Nazi opponents as "alt-left" or "Marxists". There is no evidence that the counter protesters were Marxists, or even if there is such a concept of "alt-left". There were no mobs waving communist symbols, no chants about bringing down the capitalists. The idea that there is a Marxist movement of any significance in American, hell bent on overthrowing American values, is a fantasy created by the alt-right to justify their own actions. They hope to paint their opponents with the same extremist brush that they are tarred with. Indeed, in most cases, I seriously question if they'd know a Marxist if they even saw one. It's just a word they've heard that they understand all Americans should oppose.
Based on eye-witness reports in this article : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html
It seems that
-the Neo-Nazis went there expecting, and provoking, trouble.
-there were local (peaceful) protesters who were outnumbered and were being bullied by the NN's
-Antifa were there and stepped in to take on the NN's
-Violence escalated etc.
From my point of view we shouldn't be focusing on the POTUS for not condemning the NN's enough (no mention on whether he was right or not in condemning Antifa) - we should be focusing on why the Police let this happen - it seems they were standing well back and there should be in inquiry as to why that was.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
