What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Oexmelin]

So are you saying that it is ok to have civilians physically attack these people? Instead of relying on the police for this?

No. 

[Jacob]

Here on this forum we have garbon being even more bitchy than usual every time what he considers canon is being referred to disrespectfully, and we have Jacob and Solmyr howling for nazi blood, ready to turn streets into battlefields because of a couple of hundred losers posering in a country of more than 300 million.

[garbon]

Here on this forum we have garbon being even more bitchy than usual every time what he considers canon is being referred to disrespectfully, and we have Jacob and Solmyr howling for nazi blood, ready to turn streets into battlefields because of a couple of hundred losers posering in a country of more than 300 million.

Yeah it isn't like you posted a link that had details of white supremacist attacks in the past year.

[garbon]

SPLC visual of when various Confederate monuments were put up.

[Syt]

I read the article, and I'm unsure what they count as "Confederate memorial" in that graph - e.g. they show an image of this one in Iowa:

Iowa, a Union state, has three Confederate monuments, all dedicated after 2000.

The main monument there comprises three plaques on as many large rocks in Bloomfield, the northernmost point the Confederate army reached in the state. A Confederate lieutenant led 12 armed rangers there, dressed as Union soldiers, on a raid that killed three local people.

This is not exactly a pro-Confederate memorial ("In memory of those citizens [...] who sacrificed and served to preserve the Union.", the raid resulting in "the murder of three local citizens").

[viper37]

That's not besides the point. Invocation of legality do not erase the political effects it has.

I'm not saying it isn't dumb, nor is it devoid of any sense, but it is perfectly legal, and we're talking groups that try to push the legality as far as they go.

Had it been in Quebec, they would not have carried guns.

You are right that an organized group carrying baseball bats would also have strong political effects of intimidation, but on the continuum of effects, such a group would be much less liable to intimidate the police forces of a big American city, much more liable to intimidate the police forces of a small village, or indeed a construction site.

In a big American city, cops would be armed with semi-automatic rifles too, and they would have tanks, heavy body armor and various other means of imposing their force.
In a big Canadian city, they would have helmets, shields, a bullet proof vest and a stick.

[viper37]

The "moral reasoning" may be the same, but the political purpose is quite different.

Showing strenght against "the ennemy", organizing for bigger protests/events and pushing for laws to be changed?
Totally different.

[Oexmelin]

I am genuinely puzzled: Do you all see no actual difference between marching armed with semi-automatic weapons promoting Nazi ideology and, say, organizing "the Women's March on Washington".

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Why did they move? They think Trump is on the way out?

They lost their hosting, first from GoDaddy then when they tried to move to google, they got shut down there.

Russia - recently a good friend to the alt right and Nazis - is protecting their free speech.

Let's hope they don't post swastika or similar symbols. Russian authorities tend to look unkindly on that.

depends on how useful they are to the Russians, in which case they'll surely look the other way. As is their habit.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

But surely you see that wishing for a society where minority opinions are beaten up for speaking out is not exactly democratic, or liberal?

Nazism/racism is not an opinion.

given that you're not born with them and can change them they might very well be opinions. Like religions.
It's not like you can't change them after all (and many people do change their stance on that -in both directions)

[Jacob]

In any case, it appears that this was not the straw to break the camel's back and the GOP is still sticking with Trump. No biggie.

Republican lawmakers and administration aides found themselves again Wednesday weighing the costs and benefits of remaining loyal to President Donald Trump, whose equivocal statements about neo-Nazis and white supremacists marked a dramatic shift in presidential rhetoric.

By Wednesday afternoon, most appeared to have made their calculation: deserting Trump now could only harm — and not help — their agendas or political fortunes.

Republican leaders in Congress, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, released statements affirming their disavowal of white supremacist groups and neo-Nazis — but not explicitly condemning Trump, who said Tuesday there were "very fine people" protesting in Charlottesville amid the torch-bearing marchers.

Within the White House, Trump's aides privately expressed indignation at the derailed news conference, which unraveled on cable television Tuesday afternoon and has been replayed endlessly since.

But they, too, stopped short of declaring their consternation publicly, determined instead to remain focused on their agenda and keep the President occupied.

Trump himself has remained largely silent on the matter. But inside the glassed-in confines of Trump Tower — where he remained inside for nearly two days straight — the President was defiant in the wake of the ensuing backlash, according to two people who visited the building on Wednesday.

He's plunging forward "without regret," one of those people said, firmly believing the media and East Coast elites are unfairly hyperventilating about the Charlottesville remarks. The two people said it is similar to the posture he took during challenging moments of his winning presidential campaign.

Some Trump aides described themselves as shocked at the President's remarks. But the more common sentiment Wednesday was dismay — at Trump's words, but also at his repeated inability to remain on the intended message.

For many of the operatives and policy experts who signed on to work for the Republican President, it was a familiar feeling. There have been stumbles and setbacks throughout Trump's presidency that prompted head-shaking and grumbles from even the most unwavering aides.

The shadows this week are darker, the advisers concede, with a greater chance of obscuring whatever message the President hopes to advance as he returns to Washington from his working vacation next week.

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/republican-reactions-donald-trump/index.html

[Ed Anger]

I'm enjoying all the Inglorious Basterds killing Nazi gifs on twitter.

[derspiess]

Which is what?

What is a second baseman.

A Nazi-sympathizing second baseman?

[dps]

And you simply cannot draw a line and stop this at Nazis.

I totally can.

For yourself, sure, I believe you.  But do you seriously think that if we allow mob rule and vigilante justice against Neo-Nazis, everyone else will stop there?

[Jacob]

For yourself, sure, I believe you.  But do you seriously think that if we allow mob rule and vigilante justice against Neo-Nazis, everyone else will stop there?

Who's allowing mob rule and vigilante justice against Neo-Nazis?

I'm certainly not. I have no power to enact such rules, nor do I advocate changing the laws to allow for it. On a personal level, no antifa activist is going to ask my permission before they act.

What I do think is that direct anti-fascist action is in many cases an effective tool for stopping the rise and spread of Nazism and for protecting vulnerable communities that would otherwise be victimized by them. That it works (in my opinion) is independent of any legal or moral considerations (though obviously dependent on other individual contexts).

I also understand why the people who engage in direct anti-fascist action do so, and I hold them in significantly higher esteem than I do Nazis who attack and sometimes murder the people they hate. I do not think our system should allow antifascist activists to escape the legal consequences of their actions (assuming a reasonable justice system of course). I do not think vigilante actions against Nazis should be legal, but I do not think they are immoral - but to your point, nor do I think that my judgment as to the morality/immorality of their actions has anything to do with us "allowing" those actions.

All that said, I do recognize that there's a potential danger of a cycle of vigilante political street fighting growing in scope and out of control. I do not think we are anywhere near such a stage. And to be honest, I think if we see that kind of large scale street fighting that is not the actual problem, but the symptom of a larger and more significant set of problems.