Should the rights of White Nationalists et al. be ignored/removed?

Using "White Nationalist et al" to rope in White nationalists, white supremacists, the kkk, the Nazis, etc. In part because they're being talked about all together, in part because various people wish to call the groups in question any and all of those names. So just take it as a big entity.

So far in the past few days I've seen individuals here and elsewhere...

Equating attending a White Nationalism protest to performing sexual assault as it relates to justifications of termination in employment.

That engaging in a White Nationalist protest is a form of "injuring" someone due to their message, and as such assaulting such a protesters is justified.

That people should be embracing the Captain America spirit and punching the protesters for being Nazis.

Suggesting the protesters are Nazis, and then later following that up by calling for Nazi's to die.

That because they are pushing a White Nationalist message cities should deny them any permits to protest.

That "silence is the real violence", and that the physical confrontations are more justified than those that prefer to ignore these protests.

---------------

So lets cut to the chase, because I think there could be an actual conversation had here.

Should the U.S. institute some form of law that would prevent groups like White Nationalists from being able to gather and protest to spread their message. Something like Denmarks criminal code that criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred"?

Should the tenants and views of White Nationalism be codified into law as a generalized style of "fighting words", thus making any speech supportive of various White Nationalist ideals to be unprotected speech? Similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Alito in Snyder v. Phelps regarding some of WBC's members comments during protests?

Should the U.S. pass laws that would disallow individuals to wear or show symbols common within the White Nationalist movement like the swastika or KKK robes? Similar to how Germany has banned public display of Nazi symbols, or Hungary disallows the Hammer and Sickle?

Should not legal action be taken, but rather an organized effort via the public and law enforcement to essentially nullify the illegality of any actions taken against White Nationalists via choosing not to arrest, not to charge, not to prosecute, and/or ultimately jury nullification? Would such a systematic, orchestrated manipulation of the legal system to create a defacto amnesty for any such violation be acceptable, and would it's precedence have any significant issues as it relates to our legal system in the future?

I don't bring this up flippantly or tongue in cheek; as I noted, many of the things I've said are actions that have been taken or suggested in other countries. However, for quite some time now many of these things have tried and failed to get a foothold here due to the American Ethos as it relates to the freedoms of speech, of protesting, and of belief. I think the views of many of those uttering things like above are generally a minority. With how heated things are though, it may be an interesting conversation to be had if some form of criminalization would be reasonable/acceptable.

Zyphlin said:

Using "White Nationalist et al" to rope in White nationalists, white supremacists, the kkk, the Nazis, etc. In part because they're being talked about all together, in part because various people wish to call the groups in question any and all of those names. So just take it as a big entity.

So far in the past few days I've seen individuals here and elsewhere...

Equating attending a White Nationalism protest to performing sexual assault as it relates to justifications of termination in employment.

That engaging in a White Nationalist protest is a form of "injuring" someone due to their message, and as such assaulting such a protesters is justified.

That people should be embracing the Captain America spirit and punching the protesters for being Nazis.

Suggesting the protesters are Nazis, and then later following that up by calling for Nazi's to die.

That because they are pushing a White Nationalist message cities should deny them any permits to protest.

That "silence is the real violence", and that the physical confrontations are more justified than those that prefer to ignore these protests.

---------------

So lets cut to the chase, because I think there could be an actual conversation had here.

Should the U.S. institute some form of law that would prevent groups like White Nationalists from being able to gather and protest to spread their message. Something like Denmarks criminal code that criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred"?

Should the tenants and views of White Nationalism be codified into law as a generalized style of "fighting words", thus making any speech supportive of various White Nationalist ideals to be unprotected speech? Similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Alito in Snyder v. Phelps regarding some of WBC's members comments during protests?

Should the U.S. pass laws that would disallow individuals to wear or show symbols common within the White Nationalist movement like the swastika or KKK robes? Similar to how Germany has banned public display of Nazi symbols, or Hungary disallows the Hammer and Sickle?

Should not legal action be taken, but rather an organized effort via the public and law enforcement to essentially nullify the illegality of any actions taken against White Nationalists via choosing not to arrest, not to charge, not to prosecute, and/or ultimately jury nullification? Would such a systematic, orchestrated manipulation of the legal system to create a defacto amnesty for any such violation be acceptable, and would it's precedence have any significant issues as it relates to our legal system in the future?

I don't bring this up flippantly or tongue in cheek; as I noted, many of the things I've said are actions that have been taken or suggested in other countries. However, for quite some time now many of these things have tried and failed to get a foothold here due to the American Ethos as it relates to the freedoms of speech, of protesting, and of belief. I think the views of many of those uttering things like above are generally a minority. With how heated things are though, it may be an interesting conversation to be had if some form of criminalization would be reasonable/acceptable.

Click to expand...

We cannot solve this by banning stuff. As hard as Europe's tried to ban stuff, they've had even more issues with Nazis than we have. The only people speech bans have hurt are the lawful, decent folks. Nazis don't care about bans.

This needs to be a unified resistance of the people that makes Nazism too expensive to continue pushing for. The counter-protests need to be bigger than the protests. The government officials need to be swift and unmistakable in their condemnation.

And yes, people outting them and employers cracking down on them helps too; I have actually seen people quit white nationalist groups because they were afraid of their employers finding out and canning them. They may not stop being Nazis, but now they're cut off from organizing, which as good as takes them out of the game.

We can make it untenable to live in our society as someone who wishes to destroy it and persecute people, without changing the law. And we should be. We can do this without the law putting us at the top of that very slippery slope.

We can create such an overwhelming response that it is impossible for them to keep functioning, if we decide that we really believe America is for everyone, and everyone deserves to feel safe living there.

The first amendment is absolutely useless if it doesn't doesn't count for all speech outside of incitement of violence (no matter how abhorrent it is).

It's in place for things EXACTLY like this. Not disagreements on whether someone believe Cheerio's or Fruit Loops are better.

Zyphlin said:

Using "White Nationalist et al" to rope in White nationalists, white supremacists, the kkk, the Nazis, etc. In part because they're being talked about all together, in part because various people wish to call the groups in question any and all of those names. So just take it as a big entity.

So far in the past few days I've seen individuals here and elsewhere...

Equating attending a White Nationalism protest to performing sexual assault as it relates to justifications of termination in employment.

That engaging in a White Nationalist protest is a form of "injuring" someone due to their message, and as such assaulting such a protesters is justified.

That people should be embracing the Captain America spirit and punching the protesters for being Nazis.

Suggesting the protesters are Nazis, and then later following that up by calling for Nazi's to die.

That because they are pushing a White Nationalist message cities should deny them any permits to protest.

That "silence is the real violence", and that the physical confrontations are more justified than those that prefer to ignore these protests.

---------------

So lets cut to the chase, because I think there could be an actual conversation had here.

Should the U.S. institute some form of law that would prevent groups like White Nationalists from being able to gather and protest to spread their message. Something like Denmarks criminal code that criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred"?

Should the tenants and views of White Nationalism be codified into law as a generalized style of "fighting words", thus making any speech supportive of various White Nationalist ideals to be unprotected speech? Similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Alito in Snyder v. Phelps regarding some of WBC's members comments during protests?

Should the U.S. pass laws that would disallow individuals to wear or show symbols common within the White Nationalist movement like the swastika or KKK robes? Similar to how Germany has banned public display of Nazi symbols, or Hungary disallows the Hammer and Sickle?

Should not legal action be taken, but rather an organized effort via the public and law enforcement to essentially nullify the illegality of any actions taken against White Nationalists via choosing not to arrest, not to charge, not to prosecute, and/or ultimately jury nullification? Would such a systematic, orchestrated manipulation of the legal system to create a defacto amnesty for any such violation be acceptable, and would it's precedence have any significant issues as it relates to our legal system in the future?

I don't bring this up flippantly or tongue in cheek; as I noted, many of the things I've said are actions that have been taken or suggested in other countries. However, for quite some time now many of these things have tried and failed to get a foothold here due to the American Ethos as it relates to the freedoms of speech, of protesting, and of belief. I think the views of many of those uttering things like above are generally a minority. With how heated things are though, it may be an interesting conversation to be had if some form of criminalization would be reasonable/acceptable.

Click to expand...

That's a slippery slope to oppressive authoritarianism. Not a good road to go.

In the US, Nazis and associated groups are generally limited to small cliques of a dozen or so. They hold almost no political power even at the local level and tend to be shunned by every other group. In fact, the media focus on such groups due to the Charlotteville incident is probably the most empowerment they've had in decades.

Lutherf said:

In the US, Nazis and associated groups are generally limited to small cliques of a dozen or so. They hold almost no political power even at the local level and tend to be shunned by every other group. In fact, the media focus on such groups due to the Charlotteville incident is probably the most empowerment they've had in decades.

Click to expand...

Sure... if you consider being revealed in the national media as a neo-nazi retard and risking the loss of your job, family support, and friends to be "empowerment". Of course YMMV...

Keep the cockroaches in the light. Exposed, they are much less likely to waylay unsuspecting youth into their cult.

RickJames3000 said:

Sure... if you consider being revealed in the national media as a neo-nazi retard and risking the loss of your job, family support, and friends to be "empowerment". Of course YMMV...

Click to expand...

Where in the media did that happen? Other than a couple of the organizers was anyone identified? Near as I can tell the only ones who got attention are the ones who wanted it to begin with.

Lutherf said:

Where in the media did that happen? Other than a couple of the organizers was anyone identified? Near as I can tell the only ones who got attention are the ones who wanted it to begin with.

Click to expand...

Might be true in your media bubble... but I have seen dozens of outings on social media, etc already.

I would suggest that American nazis have their constitutional rights to gather and speak and it would be wrong to pass a law preventing that.

I would further suggest that Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah hit the nail on the head when he said his brother did not go off to the Second World War and die fighting nazism so modern day nazis can come to town unchallenged. They should be challenged. And they were. And they must be in the future.

So no legal prevention of their rights. And no prevention of the rights of those who want to show they are opposed to such evil either.

haymarket said:

I would suggest that American nazis have their constitutional rights to gather and speak and it would be wrong to pass a law preventing that.

I would further suggest that Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah hit the nail on the head when he said his brother did not go off to the Second World War and die fighting nazism so modern day nazis can come to town unchallenged. They should be challenged. And they were. And they must be in the future.

So no legal prevention of their rights. And no prevention of the rights of those who want to show they are opposed to such evil either.

Click to expand...

If these groups want to march around and counter-protesters want to show up and scream at them, that's fine with me. The problem is that people from both sides came with weapons and the intention of rumbling.

Lutherf said:

In the US, Nazis and associated groups are generally limited to small cliques of a dozen or so. They hold almost no political power even at the local level and tend to be shunned by every other group. In fact, the media focus on such groups due to the Charlotteville incident is probably the most empowerment they've had in decades.

Click to expand...

They have grown over the years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...state-of-white-supremacist-groups-in-the-u-s/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...he_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups

Zyphlin said:

Using "White Nationalist et al" to rope in White nationalists, white supremacists, the kkk, the Nazis, etc. In part because they're being talked about all together, in part because various people wish to call the groups in question any and all of those names. So just take it as a big entity.

So far in the past few days I've seen individuals here and elsewhere...

Equating attending a White Nationalism protest to performing sexual assault as it relates to justifications of termination in employment.

Click to expand...

Equating attending a rally of any stripe with actual rape is off base. One is a non-violent act, even if you are spewing the most foul and hateful rhetoric possible. The other is a physical and psychological assault on another human. So no those two acts are not remotely equal in my book, but I believe either could be a basis for termination of employment. But I'm a libertarian, I believe businesses should be free to hire (or not hire) whoever they want and serve (or not serve) whoever they like.

That engaging in a White Nationalist protest is a form of "injuring" someone due to their message, and as such assaulting such a protesters is justified.

Click to expand...

Nope. Words are not injury.

That people should be embracing the Captain America spirit and punching the protesters for being Nazis.

Click to expand...

Honestly, if you go around spouting off radically racist or genocidal rhetoric and you get punched in the nose for it, I won't shed any tears for you and I wouldn't convict the person that did it if I sat on the jury. I consider shouting the N word at a black person for example to be a perfect example of fighting words.

Suggesting the protesters are Nazis, and then later following that up by calling for Nazi's to die.

Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't round them up and put in death camps or engage in some kind of systemic purge (ironic, isn't it?) but seeing said individuals ostracized from society, no problem there at all.

That because they are pushing a White Nationalist message cities should deny them any permits to protest.

Click to expand...

Nope, we have a right to speech and to protest, even Nazi scum. The last thing we should be doing is giving up our freedoms to combat fringe, authoritarian, hateful nut jobs.

That "silence is the real violence", and that the physical confrontations are more justified than those that prefer to ignore these protests.

Click to expand...

I don't know if its preferred. Its what a lot of these groups want and I don't think it really helps anything. They're not going to change their vile ideology based on a counter protest - peaceful or violent. Ignoring them probably is better, more effective way to combat them, but I understand the urge to stand up against something so repulsive.

Generally speaking, I oppose any government action to persecute these people. They have rights the same as the rest of us, but I also vigorously support those that exposes themselves to be racist scumbags should not be protected from the natural (and deserved) fallout that occurs when that information is made public. And to be clear here, I'm talking about the true scumbags like the KKK or neo Nazis. I'm not talking about someone's grandmother who makes a few impolite or un-PC remarks at dinner.

I say this because the term racist gets thrown around a lot and lately white nationalist also seems to be tossed about a little too quickly at times for my taste. Various stripes of political ideologies or beliefs that may be un-PC, anti-SJW, or whatever can get lumped in with the true scumbags like the KKK. And those are not the same thing. I have a few friends and some family that will say a lot of negative things about black people as a group. They'll complain about affirmative action, black victim culture, thug culture, and other aspects of what they see as black people as a group. But they'll take individual black people as based on their own merits. They're more than willing to live and work alongside black people who they perceive as decent, hardworking Americans.

Some folks would call people like that racists. But they're not advocating for the return of Jim Crow. They don't want to see mass deportations of minorities. They don't condone violence in the name of racial supremacy. In short, they may have different opinions that some folks don't like or might label as racist, but you can have a conversation with these folks. Trying to talk sense into a guy wearing sheet and a pointed headed mask or a dude with a swastika tattooed on his chest is a lost cause.

JANFU said:

They have grown over the years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...state-of-white-supremacist-groups-in-the-u-s/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...he_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups

Click to expand...

Over the years the SPLC has been able to identify groups based, in large part, on internet presence. That doesn't mean that there are more groups. It just means that SPLC identified more groups. Furthermore, you'll see in the Wiki article that the number of white nationalist type groups peaked in the mid 2000s and has since declined.

Lutherf said:

Over the years the SPLC has been able to identify groups based, in large part, on internet presence. That doesn't mean that there are more groups. It just means that SPLC identified more groups. Furthermore, you'll see in the Wiki article that the number of white nationalist type groups peaked in the mid 2000s and has since declined.

Click to expand...

But if we see an increase of internet presence combined with an increase of meat space presence, does it not stand to reason that there must be more of them? Especially given how much younger many of their members are now, compared to what they were 10 years ago? This used to be the territory of old men who still remembered segregation, and now the major movement figures are my age, and many of their members are even younger. That's not how it was 10 years ago. Oh, and there also WEREN'T any major movement figures 10 years ago, like there are now.

Granted, it is very hard to track this stuff. Because you're right, "traditional" KKK type organizations aren't seeing an increase. But these people aren't the usual sort of KKK, and connecting all the dots does tell us with reasonable certainty that there must be something growing here.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

But if we see an increase of internet presence combined with an increase of meat space presence, does it not stand to reason that there must be more of them? Especially given how much younger many of their members are now, compared to what they were 10 years ago? This used to be the territory of old men who still remembered segregation, and now the major movement figures who my age, and many of their members are even younger. That's not how it was 10 years ago. Oh, and there also WEREN'T any major movement figures 10 years ago, like there are now.

Granted, it is very hard to track this stuff. Because you're right, "traditional" KKK type organizations aren't seeing an increase. But these people aren't the usual sort of KKK, and connecting all the dots does tell us with reasonable certainty that there must be something growing here.

Click to expand...

What seems to be growing is an active effort to out these groups and tie them to Trump. Most of what we see happening has more to do with political motivations rather than public safety.

Lutherf said:

What seems to be growing is an active effort to out these groups and tie them to Trump. Most of what we see happening has more to do with political motivations rather than public safety.

Click to expand...

How is it other people making an "active effort" when they themselves are putting out books, holding large public conferences, and booking college campus gigs? How is it other people making an "active effort" when they themselves are putting out the endorsements for him?

Zyphlin said:

Using "White Nationalist et al" to rope in White nationalists, white supremacists, the kkk, the Nazis, etc. In part because they're being talked about all together, in part because various people wish to call the groups in question any and all of those names. So just take it as a big entity.

So far in the past few days I've seen individuals here and elsewhere...

Equating attending a White Nationalism protest to performing sexual assault as it relates to justifications of termination in employment.

That engaging in a White Nationalist protest is a form of "injuring" someone due to their message, and as such assaulting such a protesters is justified.

That people should be embracing the Captain America spirit and punching the protesters for being Nazis.

Suggesting the protesters are Nazis, and then later following that up by calling for Nazi's to die.

That because they are pushing a White Nationalist message cities should deny them any permits to protest.

That "silence is the real violence", and that the physical confrontations are more justified than those that prefer to ignore these protests.

---------------

So lets cut to the chase, because I think there could be an actual conversation had here.

Should the U.S. institute some form of law that would prevent groups like White Nationalists from being able to gather and protest to spread their message. Something like Denmarks criminal code that criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred"?

Should the tenants and views of White Nationalism be codified into law as a generalized style of "fighting words", thus making any speech supportive of various White Nationalist ideals to be unprotected speech? Similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Alito in Snyder v. Phelps regarding some of WBC's members comments during protests?

Should the U.S. pass laws that would disallow individuals to wear or show symbols common within the White Nationalist movement like the swastika or KKK robes? Similar to how Germany has banned public display of Nazi symbols, or Hungary disallows the Hammer and Sickle?

Should not legal action be taken, but rather an organized effort via the public and law enforcement to essentially nullify the illegality of any actions taken against White Nationalists via choosing not to arrest, not to charge, not to prosecute, and/or ultimately jury nullification? Would such a systematic, orchestrated manipulation of the legal system to create a defacto amnesty for any such violation be acceptable, and would it's precedence have any significant issues as it relates to our legal system in the future?

I don't bring this up flippantly or tongue in cheek; as I noted, many of the things I've said are actions that have been taken or suggested in other countries. However, for quite some time now many of these things have tried and failed to get a foothold here due to the American Ethos as it relates to the freedoms of speech, of protesting, and of belief. I think the views of many of those uttering things like above are generally a minority. With how heated things are though, it may be an interesting conversation to be had if some form of criminalization would be reasonable/acceptable.

Click to expand...

In general their rights should be respected just as other Americans should be. The more extreme groups however should be kept under watch for acts of violence and actual planning for said acts of violence. Or in other words be treated as any other potential terrorist group would be in the US.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

How is it other people making an "active effort" when they themselves are putting out books, holding large public conferences, and booking college campus gigs? How is it other people making an "active effort" when they themselves are putting out the endorsements for him?

Click to expand...

"....and tie them to Trump".

The leaders of these groups like the attention. For the most part they are self-employed trolls best left to their own little niches of the internet. There would be no purpose for anyone outside their own circle to even know about them UNLESS the public knowledge of these people can somehow or other be used to discredit Trump. It's the real world equivalent of finding a disgusting Tweet and using that to implicate Trump in some conspiracy or other.

Lutherf said:

What seems to be growing is an active effort to out these groups and tie them to Trump. Most of what we see happening has more to do with political motivations rather than public safety.

Click to expand...

Trump is his own brand. He doesn't have to be directly tied to white nationalists to credit him as being, at the very least, a bigot.

Zyphlin said:

Using "White Nationalist et al" to rope in White nationalists, white supremacists, the kkk, the Nazis, etc. In part because they're being talked about all together, in part because various people wish to call the groups in question any and all of those names. So just take it as a big entity.

So far in the past few days I've seen individuals here and elsewhere...

1.) Equating attending a White Nationalism protest to performing sexual assault as it relates to justifications of termination in employment.

2.) That engaging in a White Nationalist protest is a form of "injuring" someone due to their message, and as such assaulting such a protesters is justified.

3.) That people should be embracing the Captain America spirit and punching the protesters for being Nazis.

4.) Suggesting the protesters are Nazis, and then later following that up by calling for Nazi's to die.

5.) That because they are pushing a White Nationalist message cities should deny them any permits to protest.

6.) That "silence is the real violence", and that the physical confrontations are more justified than those that prefer to ignore these protests.

---------------

So lets cut to the chase, because I think there could be an actual conversation had here.

Should the U.S. institute some form of law that would prevent groups like White Nationalists from being able to gather and protest to spread their message. Something like Denmarks criminal code that criminalizes "expressing and spreading racial hatred"?

Should the tenants and views of White Nationalism be codified into law as a generalized style of "fighting words", thus making any speech supportive of various White Nationalist ideals to be unprotected speech? Similar to the dissenting opinion of Justice Alito in Snyder v. Phelps regarding some of WBC's members comments during protests?

Should the U.S. pass laws that would disallow individuals to wear or show symbols common within the White Nationalist movement like the swastika or KKK robes? Similar to how Germany has banned public display of Nazi symbols, or Hungary disallows the Hammer and Sickle?

Should not legal action be taken, but rather an organized effort via the public and law enforcement to essentially nullify the illegality of any actions taken against White Nationalists via choosing not to arrest, not to charge, not to prosecute, and/or ultimately jury nullification? Would such a systematic, orchestrated manipulation of the legal system to create a defacto amnesty for any such violation be acceptable, and would it's precedence have any significant issues as it relates to our legal system in the future?

I don't bring this up flippantly or tongue in cheek; as I noted, many of the things I've said are actions that have been taken or suggested in other countries. However, for quite some time now many of these things have tried and failed to get a foothold here due to the American Ethos as it relates to the freedoms of speech, of protesting, and of belief. I think the views of many of those uttering things like above are generally a minority. With how heated things are though, it may be an interesting conversation to be had if some form of criminalization would be reasonable/acceptable.

Click to expand...

interesting Z, good topic

We all have the same rights and the laws apply to us all even racist bigoted assholes like nazis. now to your points.

1.) no those are NOT equal but as far as I know one can be terminated for being a nazi
2.) No
3.) No
4.) the world would be a better place if Nazis just died but I wouldnt call for it or condone murder
5.) no, I would be fine if restrictions were made on where and when though but that goes for ANYBODY not just nazis
6.) Silence on this is horrible BUT that doesn't not mean i support violence or physical confrontation.

as for any laws again id support them if done right but it wouldnt have to do with just nazis it would be in general.

for example and ill just stick to the setup/framing here and make my example extra dramatic.

If a nazi group was protesting by say an elementary school in a mostly black or minority neighborhood and they were chanting stuff like all n-words must die . . .i would be totally supportive of constructing a law or regulation not allowing somethign of that nature to happen.

"protest in a hostile environment(based on message and offensiveness) with offensive vulgar threatening chants around an area where children are required to be"

outside of your framework

a protest right outside a funeral home of a dead soldier who happened to be gay and people are chanting the dead solders name and saying he is going to burn in hell and god killed that faggot for punishment of his sins.

again, i would be totally supportive for laws or regulations not allowing that to happen

but let me be clear im talking about restricting the location and time frame of said protest, not the protest in general.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

How is it other people making an "active effort" when they themselves are putting out books, holding large public conferences, and booking college campus gigs? How is it other people making an "active effort" when they themselves are putting out the endorsements for him?

Click to expand...

Because, anyone who openly supports President Trump is automatically labeles a racist, fascist, homophobe, sexist, etc. With that effort to smear Trump supporters, of course the appearance that their numbers are growing will exist.

Lutherf said:

"....and tie them to Trump".

The leaders of these groups like the attention. For the most part they are self-employed trolls best left to their own little niches of the internet. There would be no purpose for anyone outside their own circle to even know about them UNLESS the public knowledge of these people can somehow or other be used to discredit Trump. It's the real world equivalent of finding a disgusting Tweet and using that to implicate Trump in some conspiracy or other.

Click to expand...

Yes. But you're saying outside people are doing that, and they aren't. White nationalists themselves are doing that. This is not a Tweet. This is several groups of white nationalists who openly endorsed him, starting in his campaign.

No one is implicating Trump in that, dude. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's a white nationalist. He just has no scruples about where his support is coming from, as long as it benefits his ego, and even during his campaign, he refused to condemn them for that reason.

Incidentally, that's probably exactly why they like him so much. He's the only politician of either party who is so easy to sway.

Removable Mind said:

Trump is his own brand. He doesn't have to be directly tied to white nationalists to credit him as being, at the very least, a bigot.

Click to expand...

This is the same technique that the left uses with gun control. They identify some lunatic or radical outlier and then hold that individual up as an example of some endemic characteristic of whatever group they oppose.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Yes. But you're saying outside people are doing that, and they aren't. White nationalists themselves are doing that. This is not a Tweet. This is several groups of white nationalists who openly endorsed him, starting in his campaign.

No one is implicating Trump in that, dude. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's a white nationalist. He just has no scruples about where his support is coming from, as long as it benefits his ego, and even during his campaign, he refused to condemn them for that reason.

Incidentally, that's probably exactly why they like him so much. He's the only politician of either party who is so easy to sway.

Click to expand...

Sure they are. There was some Nazi group that had a convention in DC during the campaign. They endorsed Trump and then the media treated that like Trump had been courting them. Attempts to tie Trump to Nazis through Steve Bannon have been ongoing. We basically ignored Nazis for the last several decades (which is the best way to handle Nazis) but now there is a political motivation to not only recognize them but also imply that they somehow or other held enough political power to sway the election.

As the Russia things crumbles the left needs to latch on to something else and racism has been their "go to" for the last 50 years.