I think you are on to something. We should all denounce violence....and racism, white supremacy and lawlessness. BLM is hardly the same thing. But I bet they get laid more. Where did that come from?
There seems to be a growing list of misunderstandings and confusion on your part! When did I criticise Biden for calling antifa an "ideology?" I simply criticised him for not condemning antifa. Are you under the impression that ideologies are immune from being condemned? No, I don't think he has condemned them enough to THE MEDIA'S satisfaction, again, IF they're applying a SINGLE standard, but of course they're not - they much prefer a DOUBLE standard: one rule for Trump and another rule for Biden. Why does Trump keep getting asked if he condemns white supremacy but Biden does NOT keep getting asked if he condemns antifa? I admit that I was unaware of the pro-Trump messages on social media. After seeing one of the pieces of human waste condemning Trump, I just assumed that the entire group was anti-Trump, and just anti-government in general, because that's what it sounded like. Anti-government groups - particularly the sort which plot to kidnap politicians - generally don't like ANYONE in government. So the founders like Trump - what's your point? First of all, Trump didn't call Whitmer a "dictator" until AFTER she accused Trump of inspiring the plot against her, so it obviously had nothing to do with the plot, and that disgusting piece of crap Whitmer absolutely deserved the insult after her disgusting, foul accusation. Now, did Barack Obama's rhetoric 'egg on' the Dallas police shootings? Did Bernie Sanders' rhetoric 'egg on' the Congressional baseball shooting? Did AOC's rhetoric 'egg on' the ICE facility bomber? I expect that you will deflect away from this! Although, you're doing pretty well so far, even at aged 70! Keep it up! Don't be like the others who go up against me and ungracefully pull out of debate because they're totally unable to continue under the relentless pressure and scrutiny! Again, the FBI is NOT calling QAnon ITSELF a potential terrorist threat. Which part are you referring to? I'm guessing that you didn't actually read the FBI intelligence bulletin itself, but are rather referring to something in the Yahoo article. Can you clarify? Oh so you call QAnon a "group", but Antifa NOT a group? It's not a group, it's a conspiracy theory! Fine, so Trump and Biden were as bad as eachother in that debate, because Trump didn't condemn white supremacy when he had a chance on a national stage, and Biden didn't condemn antifa when he had a chance on a national stage. I will say though, that when asked if he is willing to condemn white supremacy, Trump said "SURE." Does that sound like NO to you? This response from Trump is no different to Biden's response to that reporter, which you cited as evidence that Biden condemned antifa. Do you want to explain how the two are different? You and others may be confusing QAnon with Pizzagate, which was a theory specifically accusing Democrats. To be fair, I can see how people confuse the two. And to be honest, I'm convinced that it's the same people who have just modified their theory by making it non-partisan! I find their beliefs PLAUSIBLE, given that it is based on things which I and other sentient humans KNOW exist! You STILL haven't responded to my challenge: Do you believe that pedophilia, Satanism and child trafficking exist? Or will you continue to dodge this challenge? I wonder... I don't even acknowledge that there IS a "cabal."
Speaking of a growing list of misunderstanding and confusion let's add amnesia and dodging. When did you criticize Biden for calling antifa an "ideology"? Here: " he wouldn't be any worse than Biden, who refuses to condemn antifa, and in fact COVERS for them, saying that it's just an "ideology." Your "media's double standard" delusion may be because Biden's answers are unequivocal and Trump's, not so much. He hesitates to condemn the far right unless reading from a teleprompter. His obvious dog whistles to the right with "good people on both sides", "I an a nationalist", "stand back and stand by", "our suburbs would be gone" and more.....makes the media question his belief that he is truly against far right racists and supremacists. Maybe if he was consistent they'd shut up. I'll give Trump called Whitmer a "dictator" post plot because I don't feel like searching for the first time he called her that, but there is a long history of animosity directed at her from Trump and his followers were well aware that they needed to LIBERATE MICHIGAN. You can rationalize the group would have come up with the plot without Trump's constant negative rhetoric but that lacks credibility. Trump's rhetoric has inspired violence all over the US. Here are 54 instances. Has any other politician inspired that much havoc? Like Trump you pivot to Antifa when far right groups are brought up. They seem to be the right-wing bogeyman. Did the FBI bring up Antifa in the bulletin on Anti-Government, Identity Based, and Fringe Political Conspiracy Theories Very Likely Motivate Some Domestic Extremists to Commit Criminal, Sometimes Violent Activity......uh, no. They did bring up QAnon repeatedly, listing it by name as one of the fringe political groups they are warning about and giving example of crimes committed by QAnon adherents. Your silly "challenge" to deny that Satanism, pedophilia and child trafficking exists is just dumb. Do you deny gays, Nazis or necrophilia exist? Now if I told you there is a cabal of gay, Nazi, necrophiliacs conspiring to take down Trump would you believe it? But you find the other "PLAUSBLE"(your emphasis).
Yes, as in he used the fact that it is an "ideology" to cover for them, as if that means that it shouldn't be condemned! Me being critical of that isn't me being critical of Biden calling it an ideology! If he called it an ideology AND THEN condemned the ideology, I wouldn't have even MENTIONED the fact that he called it an ideology! Again, are you under the impression that ideologies are immune from being condemned? "Biden's ANSWERS?" Plural? You mean his ONE answer to the ONE question which he was asked, if he would condemn antifa? When else was Biden asked if he would condemn antifa? He wasn't using a teleprompter when he condemned white supremacy after Charlottesville! You can rationalize that the Dallas police shooters would have shot those police officers without Obama's constant negative anti-police rhetoric but that lacks credibility. You can rationalize that the Bernie Sanders supporter would have shot up the Congressional baseball game without Sanders' constant negative anti-Republican rhetoric but that lacks credibility. You can rationalize that the ICE facility bomber would have bombed the ICE facility without AOC's constant negative anti-ICE rhetoric but that lacks credibility. Two can play at this game! I highly suspected that you would have deflected away from what is quoted below, and I was 100% correct: "Now, did Barack Obama's rhetoric 'egg on' the Dallas police shootings? Did Bernie Sanders' rhetoric 'egg on' the Congressional baseball shooting? Did AOC's rhetoric 'egg on' the ICE facility bomber?" Did you even look into each of the 54 cases? There's at least one case in there where it can definitely be said that Trump "inspired" someone to commit the attack, and that is the one where the guy literally said, "this is for Trump." But there are a BUNCH in there where it can NOT be said that Trump inspired it! Look at the one on October 4, 2018: "Her client's "rantings" were akin to comments from "a certain high-ranking official." End quote. And then the leftist HACK ABC so called 'journalist' writes, "Trump!" Do you actually expect me to take that absolute CRAP seriously? Come back to me with a SERIOUS source if you are even REMOTELY capable of doing so!
"Good people on both sides." - Trump was talking about people who he understood were protesting the removal of statues, and this was AFTER he condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists on the day of the Charlottesville rally! Here is what he said: "I am a nationalist." - Nationalism is not WHITE nationalism. Get it right! "Stand back and stand by." - He said "STAND BACK!" Why the hell would he have said that if he meant STAND BY? "Our suburbs would be gone." - What the hell does this have to do with white supremacy? HAHA! What the hell is wrong with you? NO, the FBI did NOT include antifa in the bulletin on 'Anti-Government, Identity Based, and Fringe Political CONSPIRACY THEORIES Very Likely Motivate Some Domestic Extremists to Commit Criminal, Sometimes Violent Activity', mostly because... antifa isn't a CONSPIRACY THEORY! That doesn't mean that QAnon is IN ITSELF EXTREMIST! Certain INDIVIDUALS who believe in it are! Except there is obviously a connection between pedophilia and child trafficking, and there is also a connection between Satanism and the ritual abuse of children. Do you want to explain the connection between gays, Nazis and necrophilia?
My, your arguments seem to be getting weaker to nonexistent. You say you didn't criticize Biden for saying Antifa is an ideology and I proved you did and he went on to condemn it. And again you say he didn't. So you start out badly with a loose grasp of the facts. Biden has condemned all who riot, loot and who are violent during demonstrations multiple times, but your bar is that he must say the word "Antifa" each time or he's covering for them? Ridiculous. And speaking of double standards, does Trump specify the entity he means each time he condemns racism? "Obama's constant negative anti-police rhetoric"? Cite Name another president whose rhetoric has inspired this much division, animosity and violence. Cite Evidently you do not know what a "dog whistle" means. It is "a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular group." On "stand back and stand by" the Proud Boys praised Trump for his choice of words and said "standing by sir". "I'm a nationalist", what white nationalists heard is, he is one of us. Do you get it yet? You say Antifa is not in the FBI report because it is not a CONSPIRACY THEORY(your emphasis)(which Q is) but you left out it is not an Anti-government or Identity Based group either, it is an ideology. Does the FBI need to worry about individual white supremacists? No. I hope that did not go over your head. You say "That doesn't mean that QAnon is IN ITSELF EXTREMIST!" Calm down, that's not what its saying at all. It is saying it is likely to motivate extremist activity. Although Q is extreme. You didn't like my illustration of gays, Nazis and necrophiliacs? How about if I say there is a cabal of gay, Nazi, sado/masochists who are trying to take down Trump. Can you now see a connection between the three now? I think it is just as credible as "deep state", Satan-worshipping pedophiles.
I'm the only one competent enough to be able to counter ALL of what's included in your replies, point by point, whereas you are picking and choosing the only bits which you think you can counter! How telling that you leave out so much! There's an entire post which you didn't reply to! Here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/racist-white-boys.568307/page-6#post-1072143854 Here is my reply to this subject in the post which you didn't reply to: "Yes, as in he used the fact that it is an "ideology" to cover for them, as if that means that it shouldn't be condemned! Me being critical of that isn't me being critical of Biden calling it an ideology! If he called it an ideology AND THEN condemned the ideology, I wouldn't have even MENTIONED the fact that he called it an ideology! Again, are you under the impression that ideologies are immune from being condemned?" WTF? YOUR bar is that TRUMP must say the words "white supremacy!" RIDICULOUS! He has condemned white supremacy BY NAME about ONE MILLION TIMES! I really should have said BLM, but Obama certainly had some strong rhetoric on how the police have problems with racial bias. And it is MOST telling that you were only able to respond to my mention of Obama and not Bernie Sanders or AOC! The challenge remains, albeit slightly modified: Did BLM's rhetoric 'egg on' the Dallas police shootings? Did Bernie Sanders' rhetoric 'egg on' the Congressional baseball shooting? Did AOC's rhetoric 'egg on' the ICE facility bomber? I don't accept your source for those 54 cases where Trump supposedly "inspired" attacks. Here is my reply to this subject in the post which you didn't reply to: "Did you even look into each of the 54 cases? There's at least one case in there where it can definitely be said that Trump "inspired" someone to commit the attack, and that is the one where the guy literally said, "this is for Trump." But there are a BUNCH in there where it can NOT be said that Trump inspired it! Look at the one on October 4, 2018: "Her client's "rantings" were akin to comments from "a certain high-ranking official." End quote. And then the leftist HACK ABC so called 'journalist' writes, "Trump!" Do you actually expect me to take that absolute CRAP seriously? Come back to me with a SERIOUS source if you are even REMOTELY capable of doing so!" I get that this is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the response of the Proud Boys, who are NOT even white supremacists! What's your point? That this means that it is immune from condemnation? Because it's not mentioned in ONE FBI report? Oh great, so I guess QAnon isn't a problem either, just because it also doesn't appear in certain FBI reports! What the hell are you talking about? I have no idea why you are talking about "individual white supremacists", but I also don't know why you think that the FBI doesn't need to worry about them! Individual white supremacists have committed nearly ALL of the terrorist attacks in the US during the past 10 or so years haven't they? Yes, just like the ideology of ANTIFA is likely to motivate extremist activity, given that many pieces of human waste who identify as "antifa" are under FBI investigation, which is what the FBI director said in the same hearing that he referred to it as an ideology. It would help to actually know what the hell you're talking about! Uh, no I cannot. Are you able to explain the connection? Have people in government and the judiciary ever been involved in child exploitation?
I have two answers to this. One sounds left and the other right, but i think both are key factors. 1. White race and male gender has occupied a place or privilege in society for centuries, and this has been rapidly changing. Some dont take kindly to losing such privilege. Historically men kept women down and white people kept black people down. Some white people may fear a reversal of that. 2. The left has pushed identity politics so hard and so unfairly that many white men have quite naturally fallen into it, embraced their identities as white and male (while they may otherwise not have cared) and decided to rather than to roll over, to stand up, play the identity politics game the left insists on, and win at it. It amazes me how so many on the illiberal left dont see the harm they do to their own purported cause, and how they preach racism while thinking they oppose it.
Are you high? I can see why people quit answering your posts and you think you won the argument. I answered the first of two posts beginning with "ideology" and the fact that Biden denounced Antifa and the fact that he has denounced violent protests many times but your bar is he has to say Antifa too or he's "covering" for them. How? Where do you get Biden saying they are an ideology, condemning them and violence is not being critical of Antifa. Weird. Your ideology seems to outweigh reason again. "does Trump specify the entity he means each time he condemns racism?" Was a rhetorical question, by the way, and the answer is no. You don't always catch what I'm throwing. As far as Obama, George W, Sanders or AOC goes there has been no recorded violence in their name, but Trump, not so much. I believe you called ABC leftist hack, so called journalism. That tells me how very far to the right you are and I'd hate to see who you use for a reliable source. Anyway here is another list (a year old) of violence in the name of Trump to deny. I noticed you dodged the question to name another president who inspired this much animosity, division and violence? Your equivocation on what "inspired" means is weak sauce. About the Proud Boys, it wasn't my spin, they heard the dog whistle: Proud Boys organizer Joe Biggs also posted he was “standing by,” and said the president “basically said to go f--- them up.” “President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA... well sir! we’re ready!!” Biggs wrote.....and what does "they're not even white supremacists" have to do with anything. They seem a little violent. Those anti-fascists who use violence need to be condemned and arrested, but, again, QAnon is cited as a source of potential extremists by the FBI, warning law enforcement and it gives examples. You have problem with that? I thought my comment, "does the FBI need to worry about an individual white supremacist" (or anti-fascist for that matter) would go over your head. It zoomed. The FBI doesn't care what you think it's what you do. Threats, acts peek their interest. I can say I'm anti-fascist, I hate everything Antifa hates but I think pissing off rednecks and violence is counterproductive, but I'm not a 20 something male. If they break the law they need to go to Jail. Anyway, the FBI could care less about me. And then this nonsense: "Have people in government and the judiciary ever been involved in child exploitation?" Have people in government and the judiciary ever been involved in bestiality, S&M, murder, drugs, adultery, graft......? Yeah, probably. What's you point? Can you explain the connection between pedophilia, deep state and Satanism?
You need to define what you mean by "left has pushed identity politics" because I think it may mean something different from what you mean.
MY bar? NO! YOUR bar! IF you are being consistent and not using a double standard! You say that TRUMP has to specifically condemn WHITE SUPREMACY! How the hell is simply calling antifa an "ideology" being critical of them? Biden didn't CONDEMN the ideology! And "condemning them" you say? You only have the ONE single example when he was asked by a journalist if he condemns antifa, and he replied with "yes" and then talked about "all violence." This shouldn't be good enough for you or the left wing media. But of course, it IS good enough, because it's Biden. Such an answer is clearly NOT good enough when it is from Trump, who has REPEATEDLY condemned white supremacy BY NAME about ONE MILLION TIMES prior to the first debate and often without teleprompter! DOUBLE STANDARD! What's an example of an "entity?" White supremacy? If so, then YES! See above! I dare you to declare that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases in that Guardian article are cases of violence SPECIFICALLY "IN THE NAME of Trump." I can only assume that by "in the name of Trump" you mean that the suspects CITED Trump's name somehow. Well you're in for a REAL SHOCK! At which point, you will have no choice but to acknowledge that in many cases, the person was simply a Trump supporter, therefore making it NO different to the Bernie Sanders supporter who shot up the Congressional Baseball game! Yes, because again, I didn't accept your source for those 54 cases where Trump supposedly "inspired" attacks. When you say "THIS MUCH animosity, division and violence", I assume that you mean at least those 54 cases. Correct me if I'm wrong. What are you saying is my "equivocation?" Just because they supported Trump, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have committed the attack if Trump wasn't President. They are pieces of HUMAN WASTE, and these are the actions of pieces of human waste. They will do it no matter WHO is President - why? Because they are pieces of human waste! And when other pieces of human waste invoke "BLM" when they burn down cities, is that inspired by BLM? I look forward to your dodge! And you think that because some dumb piece of crap like Biggs interpreted it that way, that means that Trump was "dog whistling?" The fact is that Trump said "STAND BACK!" So at the very least, he cancelled himself out when he said two contradictory things! Trump's an idiot who can't speak properly, just like Biden! You called them white supremacists. I was simply correcting you! Correct, but they're mostly responding to the violence of antifa, which doesn't make the violence okay, but the Proud Boys don't burning cities down like antifa, and they're rarely the instigators - but do they add fuel to the fire? Yes, absolutely. So I condemn the Proud Boys. I wonder if you will be able to bring yourself to condemn antifa... No, not at all. I'm just making the point that antifa is far worse, because members of antifa have actually COMMITTED violent acts, whereas QAnon are ALL TALK and NO ACTION! And I'm not sure that there's any evidence of them even TALKING about committing violence, not that this means the FBI shouldn't be watching them like a hawk. So why did you answer "NO" to your question? Ah, so you say "probably!" Funny how you didn't say "probably" in response to MY question, because you know that the answer is ABSOLUTELY pedophiles in government and the judiciary have been involved in child exploitation! Okay, lets just drop the satanism aspect to make it simpler - I admit, that I am highly skeptical about this aspect. And the "deep state" aspect, doesn't specifically apply to QAnon. However, if "deep state" refers to people in the government and judiciary, then the connection is obvious - many people who have been in the government and judiciary are pedophiles and have been involved in child exploitation. Do you acknowledge that much?
Someone is losing it. I am seeing more clearly why people stop responding to you. Confused statements: "You say that TRUMP has to specifically condemn WHITE SUPREMACY!" Uh, no you said that. I stated Biden condemned Antifa and violence. You say "Biden didn't CONDEMN the ideology!"?? How does that make any sense? If Antifa is an ideology he condemned it. I never called the Proud Boys white supremacists. I noted they were not. You say "I wonder if you will be able to bring yourself to condemn antifa..." and the very next line you quote me saying "Those anti-fascists who use violence need to be condemned and arrested, " ??? Word usage: Not seeming to know what equivocation is and what a rhetorical question means. Denial of reality and dodging: The charge, what other president inspired this division, animosity and violence? You think some guy punching a journalist and yelling "Fake news! Trump 2020!" isn't a example plus over 50 more? You dodged the initial question and bring up Sanders with no evidence of anything. Also Trump has received the support of militias, QAnon, KKK... The fact that Trump has been all over the place with his answers about right-wing extremists and Biden hasn't. The Proud Boys took Trump's statement as a thumbs up. Hysterical hyperbole: BLM burns down cities. Antifa burns down cities. Over you head: I will repeat why the answer was No, because the FBI does not need to worry about individual white supremacists, Antifas, etc. who are not acting out. Those with an ideology that people don't like are free to have that ideology in a free society as long as they obey the law. A group (Q) on the other hand bears watching as its members have broken the law. Anti-fascists are not a "group" anymore than racists are a group. There is no "group" to watch. Weird conspiracy theories: I do not know ABSOLUTELY (your emphasis) that "pedophiles in government and the judiciary have been involved in child exploitation!" Do you have evidence? You need to speak to the authorities, just not the "deep state" ones. You cannot give me the connection between pedophilia, Satanism and deep state so you drop everything except "many people... involved in child exploitation". Are you still on the subject of Q's beliefs or did you just dodge?
Yes, because my scrutiny is too much for them! It's obviously not too much for you... YET! You're doing well! Due to your inability to respond point by point, let's break up the subjects: Uh, what the hell? Isn't that what the debate question was about? I'm talking about during the DEBATE when he referred to antifa as an ideology! Here is the transcript: So in response to Trump saying that someone needs to DO something about antifa, Biden's response clearly means that he doesn't think that anything needs to be DONE about them, because they are just an ideology! If Trump referred to antifa as a GROUP or ORGANISATION, then Biden's response would be fine because he would be correcting Trump. If Biden thought that something needed to be done about antifa, why did he have a problem with what Trump said? And in your mind, has he done that more than once? You say that Trump "didn't condemn them when he had a chance on a national stage." Didn't Biden have the chance to condemn antifa inspired violence "on a national stage?" Or does it only apply to Trump? DOUBLE STANDARD! Looking back, I can see that you did. Although strangely, you went on to say this: You're talking there about what the Proud Boys "HEARD", but you say that it's what "white nationalists heard." Was that a mistake? Yes, you said they "NEED to be condemned", but you didn't actually do it! Yet, you are saying that Trump saying, "sure, I'm willing to do it" wasn't condemning white supremacy!
And you are not too embarrassed to go on? Okay, but I seem to be doing all the heavy lifting here. Proving you wrong, needing to explain the obvious and pointing out faulty logic. Uh, the "debate" question was not all about "Trump had to specifically condemn WHITE SUPREMACY!" (your emphasis). No it wasn't, he doesn't and you brought it up. There is nothing there. I stated "Biden condemned Antifa and violence. You say 'Biden didn't CONDEMN the ideology!' ?? How does that make any sense? If Antifa is an ideology he condemned it." Now you say, you were talking about the debate, and why he didn't say it during the debate (not in the original statement). Okay, a little dishonest, but I'll tell you.....he wasn't asked. Do you think Trump would have denounced white supremacy if he were not asked.....and he was and didn't. That's the problem. You have a major fascination/overblown fear of Antifa (burning down cities) that Trump trumpets as a bogeyman "group". So I don't have to repeat everything see: Over Your Head.....but I think anti-fascism is a good thing. I think anti-fascists breaking the law and violent is a bad thing. I denounce (and obviously condemn) the antifascist people doing that. I think white supremacy is a bad thing. I think it should be condemned. I think white supremacists who are violent and break the law should be denounced. I think religion is a good thing. I think the religious who are violent and break the law need denounced. Is this too complicated for a black and white world? Wrong again, I never called the Proud Boys white supremacists. Here's the quote: "When Trump was asked during the debate if he condemned white supremacy he hemmed and hawed until Biden said "Proud Boys" (not a white supremacist group)," You say my statement is strange, no your interpretation is strange. On Trump's dog whistles I list the Proud boy's and next one is Trump saying "I'm a nationalist" and the white nationalists hear he is one of us. How can you misinterpret who I'm referring to? You also seem to think white supremacists and white nationalists are the same thing. Are condemn and denounce synonyms? No more Q defense?
Why the hell would I be? I have the FACTS on my side! Are YOU not too embarrassed to go on? I guess I'll find out if you decide to drop out! How the hell do you interpret the below question? "He doesn't?" WHO doesn't WHAT? Again, in your mind, has he done that more than once? Oh, so your standard is that the only reasonable way that Biden could have condemned antifa is if he was asked if he condemns antifa? Surely you can't be serious! They were on the subject, and Biden specifically referred to antifa when he covered for it! The problem for Biden wasn't that he refused to condemn antifa - because he wasn't asked - it was that he covered for antifa! He didn't take the opportunity that was presented to him on a silver platter! It would have been better for him if he had just kept his mouth shut, and neither condemned OR covered for antifa. And let's just say that Biden WAS asked by Wallace if he is willing to condemn antifa, during a wave of white supremacist violence, with a small amount of antifa adding to the violence - and let's say that this was Biden's answer: Sure, I'm willing to do that, but I would say that almost everything I see is from the right wing, not the left wing. Antifa, stand back and stand by, but someone needs to do something about white supremacy, because this is not a left wing problem, this is a right wing problem. To which Trump replied: White supremacy is an idea, not an organisation. Then antifa scum comes out on social media and says, yes sir Mr. Biden - we are standing by! Yes, I'm SURE that you would have criticised Biden for NOT condemning antifa and for "dog whistling" to antifa and I'm SURE that you would've given Trump a free pass for not condemning white supremacy, instead calling it an "idea", just because he wasn't specifically ASKED if he condemns white supremacy! What, just randomly out of nowhere? I'll tell you one thing, that if the above was the exchange and Trump covered for white supremacy by saying that it is an idea, not an organisation, I would have utterly CONDEMNED him for it! I actually condemn him for his weak answer that he gave, which I admit could have absolutely been ALOT stronger. The most frustrating thing of all is that he followed Biden's 'Proud Boys' cue instead of keeping it about white supremacists, which is what Wallace was asking. When I said, "looking back, I can see that you did", that was in response to you saying that you "noted they were not" white supremacists. So I was acknowledging that you noted that they were not white supremacists, but then quoted a post which seemed to contradict that. Okay. I thought that you were connecting Proud Boys to white nationalism. All cleared up. Well I didn't think that there was much in it really! From the 'White Nationalism' Wikipedia article: "Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism." I would say so. Why do you ask?
You have the "facts' on your side? Why do I spend so much of my time correcting your "facts"? I said: Biden has condemned all who riot, loot and who are violent during demonstrations multiple times, but your bar is that he must say the word "Antifa" each time or he's covering for them? Ridiculous. And you said: WTF? YOUR bar is that TRUMP must say the words "white supremacy!" RIDICULOUS! I did not make that "bar" up. You did. And I have no idea what you mean by that. If he is asked specifically asked if he condemns white supremacy? Yes. He was and didn't. If he is condemning lawlessness, violence, looting or riots, which Biden was doing, no. Chris Wallace's question was very specific and Trump refused to answer it. Biden, unlike Trump, wasn't asked the same question or about Antifa because there is no controversy on how he would answer it. Trump proved again his answers vary and he can not be trusted. That is why he was asked. Trump said during the debate the right-wing is not the problem and tried to deflect to Antifa to get off the subject of white supremacy. So the right-wing groups hear "he is on our side" another dog whistle. Biden went on do say Antifa was not what was being discussed its an idea not a group to get Trump to answer the question. Which he didn't. Then you have an imaginary dialogue? And then criticize the imaginary dialogue? I smell desperation. You seem to think Biden should be condemning Antifa without being asked like it is an existential threat. They aren't burning cities. They are a pain in the ass when they show up at protests, otherwise they aren't much, besides being used as Trump's left-wing scary people. Right-wing organizations on the other hand are a threat. They are arming themselves and killing people. You go on and say if Trump were asked about white supremacy and called it an ideology you would condemn him, but he would be right. It is one that needs condemned and he shouldn't leave the public hanging on what he though of it, otherwise it is only encouraging those groups that believe in that ideology It seems all you have left is Trump's good name.....that ain't much.
Alright, so the difference is whether someone is asked a question or not which CONTAINS "white supremacy" or "antifa." Fine. So if Trump simply condemned "ALL violence" after the El Paso shooting, you would have accepted that? Don't make me laugh! Trump DID answer the question! He was asked if he is condemns white supremacy and militia! And his answer was "SURE!" Why, because he answered ONE SINGLE question specifically about antifa, and all other times during speeches generalises about "ALL violence?" Surely you can't be serious! Trump has done a FAR better job calling out specific ideologies than Biden during his speeches and statements! Meanwhile, Biden can only bring himself to specifically condemn white supremacy during his speeches and statements during the riots and looting! Why do you think that is? Name one single time when Trump answered a question on white supremacy poorly, if you are even REMOTELY capable of doing so! Because antifa is the most significant problem right now. Wallace's question was CLEARLY linked to the violent protests in response to police shootings given that he mentioned "Kenosha" and "Portland", clearly referring to Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha and Patriot Prayer in Portland. It's just that Wallace is simply too DUMB to know that there is precisely ZERO evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse and Patriot Prayer are white supremacists. Are they militia? Sure, but the TOTAL idiot lumps them in with white supremacy - his superior journalist father would be ashamed of him. He may actually be turning in his grave! Why the hell does Biden need to say that antifa is an "idea" in order to make the point that antifa was not what was being discussed? I love how you are so DESPERATELY defending Biden! You seem to think that Trump should be condemning white supremacy like it is an existential threat at these protests. "They aren't much." Yeah, tell that to people who have had their businesses destroyed by these pieces of HUMAN WASTE! You can comfortably say such a disgraceful thing because you're living in comfort in retirement (or close to given your age) and therefore you don't have to worry about this HUMAN WASTE! Wow, what a GREAT person you are! Are you talking about Kyle Rittenhouse who shot two people in what all evidence points to as an act of self defence? Surely you can't be serious! Sure he would, just like Biden was right about antifa being an ideology. That's not the point. Again, in response to Trump saying that someone needs to DO something about antifa, Biden's response clearly means that he doesn't think that anything needs to be DONE about them, because they are just an ideology! If Trump referred to antifa as a GROUP or ORGANISATION, then Biden's response would be fine because he would be correcting Trump. If Biden thought that something needed to be done about antifa, why did he have a problem with what Trump said? And in order to be consistent, you would also need to say, antifa is an ideology that needs to be condemned, and Biden shouldn't leave the public hanging on what he though of it, otherwise it is only encouraging those groups who believe in that ideology.
"So if Trump simply condemned "ALL violence" after the El Paso shooting, you would have accepted that?" Trump's statement about El Paso was fine: "Today's shooting in El Paso, Texas, was not only tragic, it was an act of cowardice. I know that I stand with everyone in this Country to condemn today's hateful act. There are no reasons or excuses that will ever justify killing innocent people," He gave a general condemnation of "all violence". You say trump answered the question of whether he condemned white supremacists and his answer was "Sure". That is a bit of dishonesty on your part. Why is that necessary if you have a strong argument? His actual answer was "Sure, I'm prepared to do that." And he never did (a poor answer). Again you go on about Antifa and Biden only calling out violence. Antifa is not a significant problem. Are they forming groups, performing military exercises, "standing by sir", getting ready for the race war, planning kidnaping, being vigilantes at protests and on and on? Its the right-wing radicals who are militarizing that are the problem not Trump's imaginary bogeyman that the right is falling for. BTW you seem to be conflating Antifa with looters. Two separate things. Looters are thieves taking advantage of chaos (probably caused by Antifa). Yes I do think Trump should condemn militias at protests who come armed with AR15s, multiple magazines and body armor to "protect businesses". That is vigilantism and an existential threat if left unconstrained. Biden thinks something needs to be done about anyone who breaks the law. That includes Antifa, but there is no group to do anything about, as you wish. Do you think the government needs to do something about a person who has a belief you do not like but is not breaking any laws? Are you for or against Fascism?
I don't think they are recruited. I think they manufacture a personna that will make them seem something other than the complete psychopathic losers they are. There is ample evidence that suggests they spend a lot of time researching other shooters more so than they do planning their attacks.
Are you serious? Are you actually under the impression that this is ALL that he said in response to the El Paso shooting? You cannot actually think that this is sufficient! If this was all that he said, I certainly wouldn't think that it was sufficient! I'm just making the point that he DID answer the question, in reply to you saying that he didn't answer the question. Perhaps what you mean is that he didn't obey the command that the question turned into - which was "DO IT." (Condemn white supremacists and militia.) If he doesn't think that it should be condemned, why the hell would he even say that he is "willing to do it?" You and others seem to take his answer as, NO, I'm NOT willing to do it. Look, Trump's answer was weak, I don't deny that. He should have done better, but not because he actually NEEDED to condemn white supremacy, because he has already done that one million times before - but because it was politically damaging, because of what the TRASH dominant leftist media was DESTINED to do with it! Which was, use it to suggest that he is an evil white supremacist, or at least to suggest that he doesn't condemn white supremacy! Trump should know the dominant leftist media well enough by now to know that they would use anything other than the strongest possible answer against him, and this is exactly what they did. Again, tell that to people who have had their businesses destroyed by these pieces of HUMAN WASTE! (Including many BLACK owned businesses!) You can comfortably say such a disgraceful thing because you're living in comfort in retirement (or close to given your age) and therefore you don't have to worry about this HUMAN WASTE! Wow, what a GREAT person you are! Oh, so if Antifa WAS all of these things, then you think that Biden would need to specifically call them out? How convenient! What groups are "militarizing" exactly? You mean the group who went after the governor of Michigan? What the hell makes you think that antifa people don't also loot? So is there absolutely no circumstances that citizens should take up arms and take to the streets? You may want to think hard about that. Why the hell does it need to be a group in order to do something about them? No. What a weird question. Define "fascism." Isn't that a form of government?
Diversion, dodge and whataboutism seems all you have left and you're still not embarrassed? On your little El Paso diversion, you are attempting to compare a single terrorist act by a Trump supporter, who probably got worked up by Trump saying hordes are approaching the border, with the general unlawful acts of Antifa. Trump can give a specific condemnation and Biden can only give a general condemnation of violence, looting and lawlessness because he wasn't commenting on a specific act. Not comparable. And then you don't acknowledge your dishonesty but double down saying he answered the question. He did not answer the question. Him saying "Sure, I'm prepared to do that" is not answering the question. It is saying I will do that at some point, which he never did. If he condemned it a "million times" and he believed it, it should have been an easy answer. What makes you think Antifa are the looters? Cite a credible source. Another whataboutism, I say Antifa is not a militia but if they were an organized group arming themselves making threats Biden would have a duty to call them out, but they are not. But the right-wingers are militarizing like Oath Keepers who back Trump and getting ready for the "race war", and others like Three Percenters, Light Foot Militia, Civilian Defense Force, American Contingency, Patriot Prayer, Boogaloo Bois, People’s Rights and many more. That makes them a threat to law and order. You think unvetted, untrained, civilians should be running around with lethal weapons "upholding the law" which they may or may not have a firm grasp of? Vigilantism is dumb and dangerous. I thought about it, you didn't. You ask in reference to Antifa: Why the hell does it need to be a group in order to do something about them? I think I've answered that a couple times. Refer to Over Your Head......again. And then I ask: Do you think the government needs to do something about a person who has a belief you don't like but is not breaking any laws? And you say no, what a weird question. You really don't get it do you? Does the gubnet need to do anything about racists who obey the law? Does the gubnet need to do anything about Antifas who obey the law? Only if its Antifa you say. Are you for or against Fascism? Answer dodged.
Except you quoted Trump NOT giving a "specific condemnation." You quote Trump saying: "There are no reasons or excuses that will ever justify killing innocent people" Then you said, "he gave a general condemnation of "all violence"". So what the hell are you talking about?
Is that all you have? In your initial statement on El Paso you were attempting to compare Biden's general statements condemning rioting, violence, etc. with Trump's statement on El Paso: "So if Trump simply condemned "ALL violence" after the El Paso shooting, you would have accepted that?" I pointed out he did with: "There are no reasons or excuses that will ever justify killing innocent people," That is the only way you can compare the two which is what you were trying to do. And then you go off on a new hysterical tangent: "Are you actually under the impression that this is ALL that he said in response to the El Paso shooting? You cannot actually think that this is sufficient! If this was all that he said, I certainly wouldn't think that it was sufficient!" I tried to calmly explain that the statements one general and the other specific were not comparable in how one would condemn the events, which is what you started out to do before going off about Trump's El Paso statements.
