Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

Viper87

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
95
Time stamp to where he said that?
From about 6:25 - 8:40 of the embedded WH.gov clip. Exact line occurs at 7:15.

A slightly broader excerpt.

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you putting what you're calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?
TRUMP: I'm not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I'm saying is this. You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You've just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... on both sides, sir?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Well, I do think there's blame -- yes, I think there's blame on both sides. You look at -- you look at both sides. I think there's blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: And -- and -- and if you reported it accurately, you would say (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: (inaudible) started this (inaudible) Charlottesville. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. (inaudible) themselves (inaudible) and you have some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group -- excuse me, excuse me -- I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same (inaudible)…
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So, will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me -- are we going to take down -- are we going to take down statues to George Washington?
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: OK. Good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So you know what? It's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You've got -- you had a lot of bad -- you had a lot of bad people in the other group…
 
Last edited:

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,191
You mean Viper, of course, don’t cha?
The American civil war was about states rights and how much the federal government could interfere in states.

The dumbed down version is:
Basically the federal government(north) said: Do what we tell you.
The south said: no, we'll seceded and do our own thing.
The north said: We are stronger and will make you do what we say.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,226
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-bald-eagles-dead-wind-turbines-8914861

You want to see a bird cemetery? Go under a windmill sometime.

You will see the saddest, you got every type of bird. You know, in California you go to jail for five years if you kill a bald eagle. You go under a windmill, you see them all over the place. Not a good situation.
That article...:rolleyes:o_O
What they said:
Although wind farms do kill some birds (approximately 20,000 a year, according to a 2009 study), they kill significantly fewer birds than nuclear plants (approx. 330,000 deaths) and fossil fuel power plants (more than 14 million deaths).
What the study says:
The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh.
The reason why nuclear power kills far more birds than wind is because it produces far more energy.

Also, looking at total bird deaths is misleading. As sad as it might be, killing thousands of birds that are not endangered(like cats killing pigeons) isn't a biodiversity problem. The deaths of endangered species like eagles is a concern.
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2012-feb-16-la-me-eagles-20120216-story.html
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,512
The context of "fine people on both sides" that has been repeated time and again insinuating that he was supporting supremacists and neo nazis when he gave unambiguous condemnation of those people and was referring to those who were there (from both sides of the political divide) simply to protest the issue of pulling down the statue.
There were no non-white nationalists protesting the pulling down the statue. That was the entire purpose of the rally. Robert E Lee is a hero of the white nationalist movement because as greg points out, he led the war against the republic to keep slaves.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
12,245
The American civil war was about states rights and how much the federal government could interfere in states.

The dumbed down version is:
Basically the federal government(north) said: Do what we tell you.
The south said: no
The north said: We are stronger and will make you do what we say.
Well look at you, falling for the greatest myth about the civil war.

Here are some quotes from the declarations of secession of some of those southern states...

Mississippi:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

Texas:
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

In fact, go and read as many of them as you like... they have one thing in common...

No. Not state’s rights

Yep... it’s slavery.

Books can be fun rietrot. You should try one someday.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,191
Well look at you, falling for the greatest myth about the civil war.

Here are some quotes from the declarations of secession of some of those southern states...

Mississippi:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

Texas:
“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

In fact, go and read as many of them as you like... they have one thing in common...

No. Not state’s rights

Yep... it’s slavery.

Books can be fun rietrot. You should try one someday.
There's just no hope. We too much of an ideological difference to even discuss this.
 

Viper87

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
95
There were no non-white nationalists protesting the pulling down the statue. That was the entire purpose of the rally. Robert E Lee is a hero of the white nationalist movement because as greg points out, he led the war against the republic to keep slaves.
The point being, there were people there to protest for taking down the statue, there were people there protesting against taking down the statue (some because they admired Robert E. Lee, some for the preservation of historical statues and monuments on historical grounds, etc), there were neo nazis and white nationalists there getting onvolved and there was Antifa getting involved and committing crimes, all interwoven. The neo nazi and white supremacists were pushing there agenda, the Antifa thugs were there to be the militant arm of the left and interwoven and in between were people there to peacefully voice there thoughts or concerns for or against the issue of this statue and the renaming of a public park. The neo nazis had their agenda, Antifa had their's, some on the left and right of the protests had their's and then there were some who had an issue with renaming things and erasing history (for good or bad) or some that weren't so ideologically driven and wanted to march for an important issue affecting the future of their city (unlike in this country when names of streets, cities and public places change on a dime and the public isn't informed until after the fact).
The neo nazis and Antifa were condemned in that press conference, the violence was condemned and referred to as "bad people on both sides" and the people who didn't break the law and were there to respectfully (within reason) and peacefully contend the issue were acknowledged as "good people on both sides."
The fact that this is never mentioned, or brought up in any clips since then and taken out of context is why the full transcript is here to provide the context.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,512
The point being, there were people there to protest for taking down the statue, there were people there protesting against taking down the statue (some because they admired Robert E. Lee, some for the preservation of historical statues and monuments on historical grounds, etc), there were neo nazis and white nationalists there getting onvolved and there was Antifa getting involved and committing crimes, all interwoven.
That's not true. The Venn diagram of 'white nationalists' and 'people protesting the taking down of the statue' is perfectly overlapping.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,868
The American civil war was about states rights and how much the federal government could interfere in states.

The dumbed down version is:
Basically the federal government(north) said: Do what we tell you.
The south said: no, we'll seceded and do our own thing.
The north said: We are stronger and will make you do what we say.
No
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,191
Kindly point out what he got wrong about Lee?
Trying to justify the removal of his statue on the basis that he supported slavery and fought in the civil war in support of slavery.(witch is a really bad argument on its own)
But is also ignorant and superficial historical revisionism trying to judge the past by todays standards.
When, if you actually read General lee's letters and correspondence (I have, well I actually listened to it on audio book) it is quite clear that it was a matter of principle to him of protecting states rights.
 
Last edited:

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,868
Trying to justify the removal of his statue on the basis that he supported slavery and fought in the civil war in support of slavery.(witch is a really bad argument on its own)
But is also ignorant and superficial historical revisionism trying to judge the past by todays standards.
When, if you actually read General lee's letters and correspondence (I have, well I actually listened to it on audio book) it is quite clear that it was a matter of principle to him of protecting states rights.
Lee supported slavery. After the war he claimed he did not support it, but that does not reconcile with statements he made before the war.
Lee supported the states who believed they had a right to uphold slavery.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,512
Lee supported slavery. After the war he claimed he did not support it, but that does not reconcile with statements he made before the war.
Lee supported the states who believed they had a right to uphold slavery.
Robert Lee was a complete sadist:

http://fair-use.org/national-anti-s...4/14/robert-e-lee-his-brutality-to-his-slaves

Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
12,191
Lee supported slavery. After the war he claimed he did not support it, but that does not reconcile with statements he made before the war.
Lee supported the states who believed they had a right to uphold slavery.
I can support your right to comment on here even though you are still wrong.
 
Top