[Developing] Nancy Pelosi's husband violently beaten with hammer

Token legislation that barely has any effect does not forgive the entire media and culture Trump represented that dismissed all forms of Black activism and dismissing the cries from those communities and turning all Black activism into a couple of charity grifters under BLM.

 

I watched the unedited Charlottesville speech. I'll watch the edited collection you posted, next. Here's the problem with all of Trump's denunciations of David Duke, and talk about racism. It is always counteracted by claims like the "Very Fine People" comment, and earlier denials about David Duke. Again, him going for just enough to attempt plausible deniability isn't a solid consistent statement. It just isn't.

 

Who woulda thunk that DailyKos would have such a slanted and misleading survey?

(I don't think Jesus was trying to change sinners either when he dined with them. He forgave their sins and paid for them on their behalf with his own crucifixion, allegedly. But as the Lamb who was slain, he'd have the authority to forgive sins. Trump is just an ex-president and he can't forgive racism on our behalf.)

I don't have a problem, really, with Trump the private citizen setting aside the transgressions of anyone and sitting down to a meal and conversation with them. You could call that Christ-like. But Trump just declared his candidacy and I will be asked to make a decision about his suitability for the office. Now, I was never going to decide he was indeed suitable, but Trump the candidate having dinner with racists isn't Christ-like at all. Maybe more like Saul before his conversion on the road to Damascus. By being a candidate, he actually joins Fuentes in his sin because his candidacy augments the reach of Fuentes' racism and invites voters to engage in it as well.

Unintentional comedy.

I think it is pretty interesting, apart from the content of the argument, that a clumsy appeal to Jesus gets so much reaction from the BBS. In such a 'post-religious' society, Jesus still stirs up strong emotion.

He denounced them "totally," but spent the rest of the speech back-pedaling and mitigating. If he was misconstrued, which I doubt, it's his own fault for providing the material. To Franchise's point, Trump needs to consistently condemn racism to have any credibility. Because his MO is to begrudgingly say the thing he's politically bullied into saying but then kick the feet out from under that message with his countervailing support for racism. His dinner with Ye and Fuentes being the latest in a long parade of such support. Glad you don't like Trump as president but, being in a mixed family, I'm more disappointed that you do not see his promotion of white supremacy despite refusing the Trump koolaid more generally.

 

I believe he was trying to change them, but not by telling them they were bad and they needed to change. He was exemplifying a better, more pleasant way of existing which is the best way to cause a change.

 

I think more folks are just comfortable calling out those that use “Jesus” as some get out jail card or a shield to avoid criticism.

 

No he didn't, he was talking about multiple groups of people. There were the people that wanted the statue removed. There were the people that were not racist and wanted the statue to remain. There were the Unite The Right/white nationalists/neo-Nazis that were chanting "You will not replace us". He said there were very fine people in groups one and two, and group three should be condemned totally. What you and FB call backpedalling or mitigating was simply saying group 2 and group 3 are not the same people and group 2 should not be lumped in with group 3.

Maybe I have missed it, but where is his support for racism? I have seen him called racist a lot, but haven't seen a lot of evidence of racism.

The evidence of Trump's support of white supremacy is him dining with a latin guy and a black guy? Was it his saying stand by to a group founded by a guy in an interracial marriage whose chairman was Afro-Latino? It all just seems too silly to take seriously. Where is the video of Trump being racist? The closest I have seen was him saying bad things about illegal immigrants from Mexico. I just think the more well-founded arguments against Trump are the actual things he did as President, like raising spending while cutting taxes, overstepping the bounds of executive power, etc.

 

I mean there are so many things like him being the figurehead for the anti-black activism movement dismissing any of the cries by them and dismissing them all as grifters.

 

As I'd said, he provided the material. If he got up and said, "I condemn the white nationalism expressed at the demonstrations in Charlottesville," and then sat down again (figuratively), there would be no space and no material for anyone to say Trump was dog-whistling. Of course, had he done that, then peaceful and supposedly-non-racist-but-pro-Confederate-statue demonstrators would wonder "Does he mean me, too? Does he think I'm racist?" And he didn't want any of those voters feeling that way. So he had to launch into this complex psychographic segmentation of the crowds there -- I condemn these people, but not those people or those people over there. That gives refuge for the non-racist-but-pro-Confederate-statue demonstrators. But it also gives refuge for everyone else who can imagine or pretend like they fall into a vague category of very fine people. For someone who is looking to a president to stand up for them in the face of racist attack, I'd say it was disappointing to watch him build in plausible deniability for most of the people in attendance while issuing his condemnation. He wanted the population of those actually condemned to be as small as possible, perhaps limited just to those caught in the photos carrying the signs.

Of course, it's also disappointing to see him come out in support of public displays of statues of pro-slavery traitors at all, but I was pre-conditioned to expect it. You say you don't see evidence of his racism, where I see it everywhere. I don't think it'll be fruitful for me to offer a series of examples of things he has said and done that imply a white supremacist worldview so that you can provide the rationalizations for why he is actually just misunderstood or mischaracterized. I'm convinced I see it. You don't see it. I don't think that exercise will change any of that.

 

This dude is Canadian living in California illegally
This is the fault of Justin Trudeau of letting his trash into our country
@AroundTheWorld
@ROXRAN

And every news organization has verified he’s an illegal alien

In California
Not Texas for the fat woke lunatics here
California
@Salvy

 

He’s Canadian

 

All the birtherism stuff with Obama seemed pretty racist to me.

 

i just copy/paste a previous post of mine whenever i see rightwingers asking "how is trump a racist"...

i guess some of these things are more anti-muslim and anti-immigrant than actually racist, but he clearly has a history of saying racist things. i dont know if he actually is a racist, although it seems like it...but again, his words are here for all to see and its absurd when right wingers on here keep claiming that they are unaware of any thing racist trump has said or done.

this list should be updated as in just the last few months he attacked mitch mconnels wife for being asian and then made an anti-asian slur against governor youngkin. and dining with someone who in the last month made a bunch of anti-semitic statements and also dining with a holocaust denyer isnt helping his case.

 

Hey! He's not racist he hates everyone that isn't rich and white equally. He's so NOT racist he even hates the poor WHITE people that vote for him.

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/...-pelosi-attack-suspect-david-depape?_amp=true

 

I read this article. What is news worthy about it?

 

A new judge was named in the Pelosi attack suspect David DePape’s case, perhaps because the previous judge had worked with Nancy Pelosi's daughter, even though attorneys on each side that wasn't the reason for the new judge.

 

Ok... so what is news worthy? The article also says this:

“The case was assigned a new judge ... which is customarily what happens as cases proceed toward trial — cases often have a different judge for preliminary hearings and trials than they do for arraignments,” Seyfer said.

In other words, 2 weeks ago something happened that customarily happens.

 

if you don't like the article, just move on . . . don't read it

 

How do I know if I like/don't like an article unless I read it?