In this case the reality is that there are many wounded and one died in an effort to obstruct their right to say to the fascists that the fascists are for racism and genocide.
The problem is indeed to continue to say that both sides are the same when that is not the case here.
The Tu Quoque Boy will win this game: Thomas Jefferson, the very first President from either major party, raped his underage slave girl. Though technically he had “(D-R)” after his name, that counts as “(D).”
Obama was too pro-terrorist to call out “radical Islam.” So Obama did it first; therefore — nanner nanner — Trump doesn’t have to pronounce words like KKK, white separatist, hateful deplorables.
What exactly is one side supposed to say? “Yes, we are bad, you are good, now we will surrender to you and obey you?” That’s not politically realistic to expect.
That’s a terrible analogy.
A “both sides do it” person would have blamed the wife for being half the problem.
No, it isn’t. Nobody is permitted to criticize the actions of the alt-left protesters at these rallies without prefacing every syllable with the obvious statement that they condemn Nazism and white supremacy.
Trump is being excoriated for basically agreeing that the violence at these protests were caused by hotheads on both sides…which is true. But it doesn’t matter that it is true because he must repeat the no shit statement that he does not like Nazis and say nothing more.
“Yeah, maybe if his wife hadn’t made him hit her…” That’s the equivalence. That’s the “truth” you’re repeating. NAZI’s, actual dyed in the wool NAZI’s flooded into a town to promote genocide, racial supremacy, and violent race war and the only “truth” you care to see is “well the other side was upset too?”
I’m not saying that both sides are the same in their ideologies at all. One side are haters and one side exists to hate the haters. But both came ready to fight at what should have been a reprehensible but peaceful and legal rally.
Of course, but others looking at the issue can look at history and what took place to realize that indeed, both sides are **not **the same in the recent incident.
Missing the point, what side left one person dead and many seriously wounded in the recent incident?
You’d be wrong, and betraying a bias. The current process, if it can be said to have a single beginning, was spurred far more by the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which led American racists to shift away from the Democrats and into the welcoming arms of Republicans, who cheerfully adapted to accommodate them. Add to that, Evangelicals becoming politicized in the 1970s in reaction to Federal efforts to desegregate their private schools and/or using tax policy to punish the schools who didn’t (Runyon v. McCrary, Coit v. Green, Bob Jones University v. United States). When religion becomes a major factor in politics (as it has been through history, of course, but this was its rise in the modern American era on one specific side of the discourse), your opponents are no longer “respectable but misguided” people with whom one can reasonably compromise, they become “sinners and enemies of God”, and reasoned discourse is actually a hindrance, since reason is precisely the enemy of faith.
And Bork wasn’t the first rejected SCOTUS nominee. He wasn’t even the first to face partisan criticism, though personally I think his actions under Nixon were enough to call his character into question.
It’s not about which side was killed or injured the most. That is the result of violence, which had no place here to begin with.
Has anyone said anything like that? Here’s the difference, if the Republicans decided to propose some good laws, democrats would totally join the process in passing them. But under Obama, it didn’t matter what he did. There was even an instance in which Obama said he supported a bill Mitch McConnel sponsored and then McConnel fillibustered his own bill! Or there was “now if Obama nominated someone like Merrick Garland, it’d be a different story…” - remember that one?
Oh, please. Are we going to pretend Trump is a nuanced statesman now who carefully conisdered his statement?
Remember when an interviewer asked Trump to admit Putin did some bad things, like the murder of journalists? And instead of Trump simply admitting that Putin has done some bad things, he bent over backwards to talk about all the bad that America did?
Trump in his statements does not sound like a guy who is giving a nuanced, unifying message. He looks like a guy who’s desperately trying to do anything but condemn neo-nazis and white supremacism. This is a guy who tried to shit on George Washington while praising how the neo-nazis have a lot of good people on their side. I mean, just look at his D-Day tweet back in 1944.
[QUOTE=Futurama]
Farnsworth: …You’re in Los Angeles!
Fry: But there was this gang of 10-year-olds with guns!
Leela: Exactly, you’re in L.A.
Fry: But everyone is driving around in cars shooting at each other!
Bender: That’s L.A. for you.
Fry: But the air is green and there’s no sign of civilization whatsoever!
Bender: He just won’t stop with the social commentary.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it is like saying that water is wet. 
As told many times before, one has to look at history and what one side wants and does (also looking at history and the present here) is that allows many that look at the recent incident to say that both sides are **not **the same here.
Violence indeed has no place there, and anyone resorting to it should be arrested, but now that violence took place we have to call out to the ones that used, besides violence, deadly force to defend a very violent past.
I forgot to add - your side is obstructionist, my side is principled.
Also, your side started it.
Regards,
Shodan
Would you mind just posting whether or not you actually believe that “Both sides are the same” or not, and perhaps a few words of your own as to why you believe it(or don’t believe it). This bit stopped being cute waaay before you started doing it in this thread.
If one side does something wrong, why is it more desirable to seek moral equivalence than to fix the problem?
It is easier to be better than the caricatures you paint you enemies in than to be your own personal best.
That all sounds great and very even handed.
Unfortunately that is not how it is today. One side is demonstrably, provably worse than the other side and what you wrote is a false equivalence.
Because this is a democracy. In a democracy, being perceived as being better than the other side is good for votes, and being perceived as worse than the other side is bad for votes.
Impossible to prove, mainly because “bad” and “good” are subjective terms. But if you really think you can, let’s see your proof. 
