• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"On many sides...on many sides."

R

Rich123

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
754
Reaction score
198
I'm just going to ask one question toe anyone who doesn't understand what's wrong with not naming the groups from the start and briefly explaining why it's necessary for the President of the United States of America to talk about them. Here us the question.
First I don't like the KKK or White Supremacist but my point really goes to the Neo Nazis. Here's my question.

Suppose there was a cell in the United States that held s demonstration to show their love for a leader of the Isis regime. During their demonstration counter protesters deliberately provoked them and violence insued.
The of the United States of America says "we condemn violence and bigotry and hatred on both sides... on both sides.

How would you be with that?
 
Uh......I'd agree?



Read the bill of rights. Slowly. Carefully. Like, really read it.
 
Well you mix things up, because the counter protesters are actually fighting to keep western civilization, not destroy it. (In your example i mean.)
 
Hank Brankovic said:
Well you mix things up, because the counter protesters are actually fighting to keep western civilization, not destroy it. (In your example i mean.)
Click to expand...

If they're fighting, then they're not protesting.

To protest =\= to fight.
 
Hank Brankovic said:
Well you mix things up, because the counter protesters are actually fighting to keep western civilization, not destroy it. (In your example i mean.)
Click to expand...

No they aren't. They are fighting to bring about something more akin to Russian or Chinese collectivist culture.
 
Rich123 said:
I'm just going to ask one question toe anyone who doesn't understand what's wrong with not naming the groups from the start and briefly explaining why it's necessary for the President of the United States of America to talk about them. Here us the question.
First I don't like the KKK or White Supremacist but my point really goes to the Neo Nazis. Here's my question.

Suppose there was a cell in the United States that held s demonstration to show their love for a leader of the Isis regime. During their demonstration counter protesters deliberately provoked them and violence insued.
The of the United States of America says "we condemn violence and bigotry and hatred on both sides... on both sides.

How would you be with that?
Click to expand...

The theoretical Isis supporters and the real alt right demonstrators are both responsible for their actions. I don't care if they are provoked or not. If you choose to commit violence, it's not the fault of someone else. The only exception is violence to deter a real and immediate physical threat to yourself or someone else. Assaulting people for shouting mean things at you is not excusable.
 
Fishking said:
No they aren't. They are fighting to bring about something more akin to Russian or Chinese collectivist culture.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how protesting against ISIS sympathisers is bad?
 
Hank Brankovic said:
I'm not sure how protesting against ISIS sympathisers is bad?
Click to expand...

It's not. It's also not bad to protest against white supremacists, government spending, dog catchers, or bad hairstyles. If anyone in the aforementioned groups or protesters reacts violently, that's bad.
 
bearpoker said:
The theoretical Isis supporters and the real alt right demonstrators are both responsible for their actions. I don't care if they are provoked or not. If you choose to commit violence, it's not the fault of someone else. The only exception is violence to deter a real and immediate physical threat to yourself or someone else. Assaulting people for shouting mean things at you is not excusable.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. But my question isn't about the groups per se. It's about how one might feel about a president not calling out the one's who support Isis by name? This is a equivalency because both parent groups that are being idolized by the home grown version of themselves have and or are at war with the United States. So for the Neo Nazis or the Isis want to be s ,pretty much in this scenario, ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL. So the question isn't about who the bad guys are here, because it's a given that they both are, incidentally so are the counter protesters. The question is about the president's statement regarding those two hate groups who's (parent groups) for want of a better term, who's parent groups have been or are at war with America?
 
Fishking said:
It isn't. I was commenting on ANTIFA.
Click to expand...

Antifa's main reason for existing seems to be to aggressively protest and counter fascists and Nazis...and if ISIS were to hold rallies and parade down our city streets then they'd probably aggressively counter protest against them, too.
 
Rich123 said:
Excellent point. But my question isn't about the groups per se. It's about how one might feel about a president not calling out the one's who support Isis by name? This is a equivalency because both parent groups that are being idolized by the home grown version of themselves have and or are at war with the United States. So for the Neo Nazis or the Isis want to be s ,pretty much in this scenario, ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL. So the question isn't about who the bad guys are here, because it's a given that they both are, incidentally so are the counter protesters. The question is about the president's statement regarding those two hate groups who's (parent groups) for want of a better term, who's parent groups have been or are at war with America?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Neo Nazis are at war with the United States so much as at war with American values, but I will grant you that there is an equivalency, since Isis supporters are also at war with American values. Yes, both should be called out by name.
 
I used Isis as a parallel to a government or organization that either declared war on U.S. as Nazi Germany did or we are in conflict with. So if the theoretical situation exist with Isis idolizers instead of Nazi idolizer, then would the vague statement the president issued innitially about the Charlottesville tragedy. How would that be viewed who seemingly just don't understand why it is important for the president to have actually name the hate groups and discuss why their beliefs are un American. Again I will say he was factually correct to say there was violence on both sides. But to say only that and not to name them is at the heart of the controversy. If you heard what he said at Phoenix you should have noted that when he read his speech of the tragedy to his audience he omitted " violence on both sided.. on both sides. Those words fail to note that some of the haters idolize Adolph Hitler. Hench the parallel I offered. So if he omitted Isis would that be o.k.?
 
It's not bad to demonstrat against Isis. If the haters idoluzed Isis as the neo nazis idolize If all other circumstances were the same as Charlottesville. And if in this fake scenario Trump issued the very same statement. That is not mentioning Isis in his condemnation. Would those who see nothing wrong with Trump not mentioning the Nazis by name would they feel the same way if it were Isis.
I hope Ive cleared this up.
 
Just try to insert Isis into the Charlottesville tragedy instead of Neo Nazis. And trump issued the exact statement as he initially did. Those who don't see anything wrong with his innitial statement on Charlottesville. That, he fails to mention Isis just as he failed to mention Neo Nazis. What would your feelings be about him not mentioning Isis sympathizers Him just saying both sides were violent.

Please if I haven't made my intention clear about this question, Im sorry. I dont know how I can. It's a fake scenario to examine what our feelings would be if Isis instead of Neo Nazis were the ones our president failed to condemn by name.
 
Thank you the person who suggest I read the "Bill of Rights"
It's a good suggestion. Truth is I've read it a few times.
But the question is for those people in this forum who say Mr Trump's innitial statement about Charlottesville was sufficient. The statement that omitted calling out the Neo Nazis by name and condemning them for Idolizing a leader and regime that declared war on the U.S.A. just as Isis is currently at war with us. Would they still say his first statement was sufficient. ?
 
Hank Brankovic said:
Well you mix things up, because the counter protesters are actually fighting to keep western civilization, not destroy it. (In your example i mean.)
Click to expand...

O.K. but the question is about what the president says about the fictional scenario. If he said only the "We condemn bigotry and violence on all sides..on all sides..only and not call out Isis as being an organization that advocates violence against American's as the original Nazi regime did because they declared war on America and so too by extension the Neo Nazis because they idolize the original Nazis.

So the question is for those of us in this forum who fail to see why it was important for the president to call out the Neo Nazis by name, and to condemn their ideology,do you now feel the same way about a president who fails to call out the fictional Isis demonstrators by name and not mention anything about their ideology? There, I think I've now been pretty clear as to my intention with this fictional scenario. I'm asking those people who can not understand what the problem was with the presidents initial statement ,to honestly view this fictional scenario and honestly answer this question.
 
Rich123 said:
I'm just going to ask one question toe anyone who doesn't understand what's wrong with not naming the groups from the start and briefly explaining why it's necessary for the President of the United States of America to talk about them. Here us the question.
First I don't like the KKK or White Supremacist but my point really goes to the Neo Nazis. Here's my question.

Suppose there was a cell in the United States that held s demonstration to show their love for a leader of the Isis regime. During their demonstration counter protesters deliberately provoked them and violence insued.
The of the United States of America says "we condemn violence and bigotry and hatred on both sides... on both sides.

How would you be with that?
Click to expand...

I'd support it 100%. Free speech isn't a matter of "free speech that we like and agree with", it's a matter of protecting speech we (both as a our govt and as The People) disagree with. The only thing that I'd have an issue with is the fact that the Muslims were having a peaceful rally, which turned to violence as a result of the counter protesters. If you don't like what someone has to say, too bad. Let them say it, then have your say - with the expectation that the people you disagree with will allow you the same freedom to speak. Confronting someone directly is an attempt to suppress their freedom of speech. If you want to debate them, set it up in a peaceful public forum, but creating a conflict like that is the last thing we should be doing.
 
Rich123 said:
I'm just going to ask one question toe anyone who doesn't understand what's wrong with not naming the groups from the start and briefly explaining why it's necessary for the President of the United States of America to talk about them. Here us the question.
First I don't like the KKK or White Supremacist but my point really goes to the Neo Nazis. Here's my question.

Suppose there was a cell in the United States that held s demonstration to show their love for a leader of the Isis regime. During their demonstration counter protesters deliberately provoked them and violence insued.
The of the United States of America says "we condemn violence and bigotry and hatred on both sides... on both sides.

How would you be with that?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting hypothetical, but quite unlike anything that's ever really happened.

What about this one: If a group carries on a demonstration to say something you disagree with, should you get in your car and run them down, or just stage a counter demonstration and beat up a few of them?
 
Moot said:
Antifa's main reason for existing seems to be to aggressively protest and counter fascists and Nazis...and if ISIS were to hold rallies and parade down our city streets then they'd probably aggressively counter protest against them, too.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom