No one who asserts must prove or at least support one's claim with validity. That's it. You've provided zero evidence that they're nazis. Please do so, otherwise we'll have to disagree and your point is dismissed sorry.

Oh it went way beyond merely being ott, the initial claim was that Trump called for "the murder of African Americans" on twitter and when I challenged the poster to provide this quote it was backpedaled to Trump really meant that because he used the word thugs to describe rioters in general of all races. Which is quite frankly ludicrous and completely dishonest.

I have provided sufficient evidence to refute their press releases, which is that they march exclusively with nazis. If they were such staunch neutral 1A supporters, they would march with someone other than nazis.

I could equally state that you're asserting that they're not nazis. They're both claims. Your argument here is rather facile. Are you confused by the fact that one is a positive statement and one is its negation? That's irrelevant.

If you prefer, I will claim that they are "not not nazis" and ask you to disprove that, then.

No because my comment was reactive to the claim that only nazis attended the rally. I provided evidence that this was untrue. Your justification was guilt by association which I'm dismissing and you don;t believe their condemnations anyway so we're at an impasse here.

Could you define "guilt by association" when it comes to assuming that someone is "guilty" of adhering to a political ideology because they appear to "associate" exclusively with groups that adhere to that political ideology, and engage in political activities with said group, please? Do you feel that the inference that they are also "guilty" of a similar political ideology is unjustified?

But he is in bed with the nazis or in the same boat. alt right-nazis- same boat even bigger boat.

You believe a militia with a thing for the first amendment are nazis because they attended a rally organised by nazis. You disbelieve their condemnation and disbelieve they've non white members and disbelieve the southern law poverty center and disbelieve they're into the first amendment and disbelieve all of this because the militias attended a rally ergo are nazis and anything they say to the contrary is all a clever ruse... That's guilt by association and we're getting nowhere here, so I reckon I'm done here but have at it everyone and enjoy yourselves.

The thing is: "guilt by association" seems like a relatively reasonable and pro-social response when we're talking about people choosing to associate with neo-nazis. Because it's good to discourage people from doing that. It makes sense for different social norms to apply to different situations. I'm OK with pretty strictly enforced norms against associating with white supremacist groups.

But I agree it would be good to move on from this particular argument.

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I disbelieve all this because on the evidence we have, they've attended only rallies organised by nazis. That is a material, and in my view dispositive difference.

I don't know if we should move on. It seems to go to the heart of corpus' view on race relations; to wit, no person, group, or act should be condemned as racist until we have absolutely incontrovertible evidence of such - no amount of circumstantial, historical, or contextual evidence is ever sufficient. I feel that is a perfect candidate for a topic to thrash out now that CV has his own thread.

You can use the word thug without it being a racist dog whistle. It's just context matters

For example, in the Jordan Davis shooting (from Wikipedia):

Bolded is a racist dog whistle

Here in Philadelphia, I often heard Michael Vick and Allen Iverson referred to as thugs with money. But nobody ever called wife beater Brett Myers a thug with money. After a while you see a pattern and realize it's not a coincidence

Over under on number of times trump's used the n-word* in his life? 1k? 5k?

*includes the times where they just mouth the word(99% of the time with the f word in front) but no real sound comes out with their noses all scrunched up and the various other permutations of that

lol It's hilarious how out of touch corpus is with reality of what things are really like here.

I was going to say exactly this. I have never argued that Trump tweeted out the exact words "kill black protesters". He didn't. And candidly, I think that his looting/shooting tweet is not the best evidence of his racism, if only because I suspect the tweet was directed just as much at Antifa types of all stripes as it was at black people.

But it doesn't follow -- at all -- that we are wanting for evidence that Trump is racist. I cited plenty of evidence. You also cited evidence that I find persuasive. And we don't have to treat everything he does or says that looks racist on a one-off basis. We can look at his cumulative words and actions, and they tell a pretty compelling story that he is racist.

I dunno, Dawg, I hear the N-word all the time in non-racist contexts. Pretty sure it's not a racist word.

Sorry but I disagree. It could easily be argued that they attend such events because controversial marches merely highlight the defence of of the first amendment more starkly. People aren't going to turn up to protest at some benign non controversial march but will at controversial ones. It's again why the ACLU defended nazis because of the principle. It's like Evelyn Hall saying summing up Voltaire with "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
But no that doesn't apply here because Trump.

Here's a press release from another militia who attended the rally condemning bigoted actions of yet another militia with a similar name.
http://archive.is/NW8Ev
I'm sure others will still insist this is simply a "ruse".
Again this is simply circular reasoning. Trump's a racist ergo his both sides comments praised nazis as everyone who attended the rally were nazis and were so because Trump praised them because Trump's a nazi.
No matter what proof is presented it'll be simply hand waved away so again it's pointless continuing here

Gotti was also referred to as a thug as was a white criminal associate of Whitey Bolger. Wookie justified this because they'd committed "horrific crimes" but then deflected into argumentum ad hominem and ran away with his tail between his legs when links to back serial killers who also committed "horrific crimes" were highlighted which is a complete double standard and sheer hypocrisy and done so simply to peddle an untenable narrative.

No, you already said that even if they attended others you might regard that as a ruse anyway which is why I never even bothered looking.

Like I said I'm done here as your mind is already made up cuz Trump's a racist forever and ever amen. Therefore you'll never accept anything other than Trump's a racist. You guys can defend a lie all you like it doesn't make you correct. Trump never called for the murder of black people on twitter and it's a lie to say he did. I already twice provided the entire transcripts re his both sides comments and he wasn't referring to neo nazis and again you guys can lie all you like that he did or insist he really meant that because he's Trump, it doesn't make your lie truth. So like I said I'm done here.

Another reason I'm done here is the dishonesty. I already said I think there's merit to the word thug sometimes being used as a racist dog whistle which is hardly incontrovertible proof and also gave an example with the Jordan Davis murder. I also gave my reasons why I think Trump could possibly be racist which again is hardly incontrovertible proof. And that's simply been ignored. You people simply like narratives it seems, which is more important to you than facts and truth and I've no time for that crap, it's one of the key reasons innocence fraud is such a cottage industry regarding high profile criminal cases. Due to adhering to the narrative, you guys will simply selectively perceive what people actually say and ignore the rest.

So again I'm done here. I'll leave you with this from a black conservative and as I said have at it and enjoy yourselves.

That's about as open a death threat as you can make.

And you have no experience with the damage a demagogue can cause ?

We have quite a history in the US and we understand why we should push back on the sort of rhetoric Trump uses. Just because.....

^^

^^

So you don't see that as an open death threat Mr Torrance ?

You're practicing getting the attention that you didn't get at home ?

I think it was a terrible idea to indulge you with your own thread fwiw.

^^

CV - you keep responding to me about the 1A militia in the context of Trump's statement about "both sides" but if you are right about them being neutral, then they were on neither side, so they wouldn't be relevant in the context of who he was referring to anyway, right? What am I missing there?

He wasn't referring to neo nazis no matter how many times people endlessly repeat he was

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...sides-remarks/

This is the third time I've linked this. This is the response I keep getting no matter what:

You lot are claiming he's a racist and called for the murder of black people.

So prove it. Otherwise it's just the same old same old from you. Flush even acknowledged this several times over- "just because". And that's laughed at 'bye now.