So he is endorsing nazies you say cv.
I would say that makes him a nazi by any logic.
His son in law is jew. Steve Gannon and breitbart are based in Jerusalem. How do you explain this in short terms?

I don't read wookie's inconsistent dribble he's one of the most dishonest posters on this forum and they must have been effin desperate when they asked him to moderate. Nor do I intend to read any of his crap either so I'm not interested in what he opined. He can't even form his own arguments and steals from Trevor Noah instead with his cops looting lack bodies spiel on another thread.

Also I reckon you're incapable of being persuaded when it comes to the likes of Trump anyway. You're the type who makes his mind up right from the start and that's all there is to it especially if it's someone you dislike.
Besides onus isn't on me to persuade anyone, onus is on those making the false claim that trump said he wanted black people murdered on twitter to provide this quote. Saying he really meant it doesn't cut it. Same re the both sides comment, the transcripts clearly show him condemning neo nazis and correctly claiming that not everyone there were neo nazis. Insisting he really meant this doesn't cut it

And no offence but you claimed some militia was neo nazi for turning up at a rally due to having a bee in their bonnet re the first amendment. You also intimated it simply because of the way they dress. Which is a decidedly weak and unpersuasive argument, so I'm not really regarding you as an authority on what you consider weak arguments.

When the only rallies you attend to "protect the first amendment" are Nazi rallies, you're a racist, regardless of your dress, and regardless that you say you're not racist.

One can be a racist without being an anti Semite. Lots of hard right groups endorse Zionism or the state of Israel or Jewish self determination. Geert Wilders party has no problems with Jews or afaik black people but have a serious beef with Muslims for example.
The EDL are a hate group who fully support Judaism or claim to. But they're still a hate group.I wonder if they simply hate Muslims more and use Islamic extremist views on Jews and Israel to engage in Muslim bashing. Maybe if Muslims weren't around they'd go back to whinging about Jews again. Maybe deep down Bannon dislikes Jews but sees them as a useful ally or propaganda tool as again he dislikes Islam more. Maybe the 21st century neo nazi/supremacist movement are aware that they need a makeover and that their anti Islamic stance can get them more members. All sorts of possibilities.

But there's far easier ways for evil businessmen to gain power than consistently endorsing hate groups.And Bannon consistently endorses hate groups so you have to wonder why he's endorsing these groups specifically.

No probs mate

Those are the points you should have brought up, so. Instead of asserting what he meant with nothing really to back it up with

Believe me I hear ya on this one

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't aware of this and thought only Trump was, my bad and thanks again for the clarification.

Bro bannon and breitbart are based in Jerusalem.
It's not only trumps stepson being jewish. Steve Bannon can not dislike Jews.

I know you're getting dog-piled by everyone so it's easy to get confused, but I didn't actually make any posts regarding the "thugs" comment or Trump calling for the murder of black people; that's not to say I disagree entirely with what was said by others, either.

The picture of them was obviously not meant as proof of anything, it was a lighthearted poke at your argument (incidentally, not just how they dress, but also the heavy automatic firearms). The fact that their protection of free speech seems to extend only to attendance at neo-nazi and other far right protests is the most compelling evidence.

I don't know if I would describe Trump as "racist" or a "nazi sympathiser" simply because I think he is too stupid and self-obsessed to hold any coherent ideology. He certainly panders to those elements for support, so it's really a distinction without a difference.

I really didn't do what you're accusing me of here, although I don't entirely disagree with other posters who did. I just wouldn't make that argument to you, since I am aware of your preference for specificity when it comes to these matters.

I did, however, ask you to clarify on several occasions who the "fine people" were, and you came up with the first amendment brigade, which is how our discussion about them started in the first place.

Thanks for the links and the fact that he's plenty of black supporters is what makes me merely suspect he might be a racist, but not assert it. I've also read that some of Trump's policies have benefited black Americans by and large. He also pardoned Jack Johnson so there's things which counter balance the racist suspicions and allegations. The problem is that some of the people here think simply in lockstep so any chance of proper debate tends to wane, unfortunately.

Sorry but you did. I linked condemnation of racism by militias attending the rally and your response was essentially I don't believe it. Then you expected me to disprove your assertion instead of you supporting it. The you refused to link anything from either militia that could be seen as racist but still insisted they were racist anyway. Those are nothing burgers, sorry. I know from debating with you that you're clearly not stupid so you're better than this. Basically I provided evidence that not all attending were neo nazis and you simply denied this without giving anything to support your denial. So again to you anyone attending was a nazi so trump meant nazis with his fine people comment, his condemnation shouldn't be believed and that's all there is to it- again they're nazis because trump praised them and trump praised them because he's a racist because he's Trump. That's your entire argument when you boil it down.


So again you did do what I said you did and again you're better than this.

lmao

Not directed at you but:

Stephen Miller tho
Retweets Breitbart tho
Gentrification tho
Africa = shithole/wants immigrants from Norway tho
Paper towels into a crowd in Puerto Rico hurricane victims/physically hugs Alabama tornado victims tho
Fake outrage against Kaepernick tho
Obama's long form birth certificate tho
Brown kids in cages tho

Shall I go on? He's only been around for 75 years...

But he has Diamond and Silk guise! The mental gymnastics people go through to think anyone is fooled by the Strom Thurmond defense is astounding

Btw my main issue was the false claim that Trump called for the murder of black people on twitter so maybe the thread's heading should be changed? No worries if you decide to leave it be due to the debate

Isn't the word thug a word in the British/english dictonary?

I can only say that I thought it's a harmless word that everyone uses but after learning the history I don't use it anymore I think. Thuggies were Indian criminals.
I don't think it can be used in a rascist way.

I actually did google around both for the name of the militia and for the name of the leader. Most of the material I found related to Charlotesville, but there were a couple of other things. One article from 2016 where he was disclaiming a bunch of right-wing terrorists who had been busted as kooks, saying that his lot were different. Also whatever was on Wikipedia. Nothing conclusive. I didn't look very hard, tbh.

I stand by my preliminary conclusion that groups who march exclusively with nazis are at the very least nazi sympathisers, regardless of what they say in their press releases. If you can find me an example of this group standing up for the free speech of anyone other than nazis, I might change my mind. Or I might claim it's a ruse In any case, I doubt such an example exists.

Can you at least acknowledge that I made no such claim? Thanks.

You most definitely made no such claim and neither did any of the others itt they simply ran with it and defended the false claim but you personally most assuredly made no such claim at all.

And I stand by my comment you're engaging in guilt by association. And no I won't do that as I already provided links of them condemning racism and that's all I'm required to do to counterpoint your claim. You're raising the burden of proof bar and I'm not having any truck with that mate, sorry. I'm not here to disprove claims you proactively made, onus on you to back 'em up, with all due respect.

Jewish people have quite often observed that there's no reason to suppose that right-wing American Zionists are not antisemitic. They simply see Israel as a useful place to 'put Jews' (indeed a large number of right-wing American Christians believe that the Jews will convert to Christianity come the imminent End of Days, a belief quite insulting to Jews) and they seek to use Israel as a proxy against those scary brown Arabs.

The fact that from the sample size we have, 100% of their attendance has been at neo-nazi or anti-Muslim rallies is stronger evidence than what they say in their press releases, so I would say that the burden of proof here is on you.

Guilt by association is only a defense when the "guilty" party is not aware of the activities that their "associates" are engaged in. This is not the case here.

In my country it's used all the time to describe well, thugs. It's used equally to describe white and black criminals. In the US MSM it's also used this way to describe criminals of all races and examples were provided in another thread.
In my country even anti racists use it to describe criminals who happen to be black with zero racial connotations attached to it such as here relating to a recent stabbing where the victim happened to be white and the attacker black.


However in America it's claimed that it can be used as a racist dog whistle to have a dig at all black people and I think there's merit to such claims, notably the Jordan Davis murder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jordan_Davis
From the wiki:
To me, this is an almost textbook example of a suspect lying in order to explain away the evidence submitted against him and the reason he's lying is because he meant thug as a racist code word and knew others would perceive this.

However some here think that whenever it's used it's always used as a racist dog whistle...except when Obama uses it to describe rioters. But when Trump says it for the same purpose he's calling for the murder of black people and its this inconsistency that I have no time for as it's being deliberately dishonest due to one's political affiliations and basically used to bash a POTUS one dislikes.

It's also a supremely dumb argument to justify the falsehood that Trump called for the murder of black people as is the "fine people on both sides" comment to say he was praising nazis while ignoring the transcripts showing what he said and the context in which he said it.

FWIW I actually more meant Gorka and was more putting out possibilities re Bannon. And again I'm not asserting that Trump is or isn't a racist as it's debatable on both counts.

Onus isn't on me as you're making the claim. Maybe attending such rallies gets them more recognition. They were asked by the neo nazis to provide security and refused, again declaring they were there in a neutral capacity which again you disbelieve because they're a militia. And yes they have firearms. They're a militia.

Just felt you were hopelessly outnumbered and the word thugs and things. I dislike most of what trump does and says but to say because he said thugs he's racist is over the top.

This isn't how burden of proof works. If you make a claim that there aren't any snakes in Ireland because you personally drove them all away, and I say it was ice sheets (heard that in a youtube vid, don't bash me if it's wrong), we're both making a claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the least prima facie likely claim, which in both the analogy and in this case is you. This burden may shift as new evidence is adduced, but this has yet to happen.

The only evidence you have provided for their motivations are their publicity statements, which appear to be contradicted by their actions. I'm gonna blow your mind here, but people and political groups sometimes lie to the public and to the media when they feel it's in their best interests to do so.