No, he lied and said he didn’t know who David Duke was and refused to disavow his endorsement.
I’m not interested in discussing hypotheticals about events that never took place.
Do you have the video or don’t you?
That’s an ironic claim about the group that is trying to stop someone from talking. They don’t want to hear anything except what they agree with.
Considering the fact that political violence in the U.S. is overwhelmingly used by the left it is no surprise you would like it.
I’ve posted the numbers before on the 'Dope but they are, of course, ignored. Just better to believe your side is always right and ignore the facts.
Slee
No he wasn’t, he was clearly refuting the implication that he was intimately familiar with him. You are applying an unreasonably nit-picky level of scrutiny to his words in this particular case. He didn’t say that he hadn’t heard of Duke, just that he didn’t know anything about him and his ideology. Again this is a perfectly reasonable response to the attempt to associate him with a person and ideology that he has never supported. Lots and lots of people of all races see right through it.
Duke has very very little influence. Trump had no fear of alienating racist by disavowing Duke, or he wouldn’t have done it the very night before the interview in question. He was refuting the implied premise that he had some sort of special association with Duke, when Duke is quick to endorse all kinds of people in order to stoke controversy and garner exposure.
He said all Mexicans are rapists and all Muslims hate America? Hyperbole much?
And even though you know it you continue to carry water for him. Besides I already did noted many times before how the company Trump keeps to be better evidence of what Trump is supporting to and seeking support from.
As I posted before, Trump is proud to get the endorsement and support of Joe Arpaio. But what Arapio is doing is not rhetorical, the courts have already found that the police department was doing racial profiling and Arapio is in the courts again because he attempted to get around the remedies the court ordered. Investigating the wife of the current judge in his case in an attempt at intimidation does not help too. *But Trump loves what he sees there.
*
That is because while those legal issues were taking place in the open Trump decided that Arapio was a nice guy to join and get his support from.
I have seen enough to conclude that Arapio is looking to get relief from the federal watchful eyes if Trump become president, and to continue to put those ‘black and brown people’ in place.
One has to add that people like Arpaio would be employed in Trump’s Operation Wetback II, last time it took place people did indeed die.
Lynching was not of the left, nor was Jim Crow, anti immigrant violence, and brutalization of Native Americans.
In case you missed my sarcasm, I renounce and oppose violence, unlike Trump.
Trump didn’t say “I’m not intimately familiar with David Duke”. He said “I don’t know anything about David Duke”. That is, quite obviously, a lie.
I think you are ignoring that iiandyiiii is whooshing you, he is coming also from the side that did think for a long time that Trump was the dream candidate for the Democrats to get as an opponent in the general election, as he is the most likely to go down in flames against the Democratic candidate.
I did worry about it because I expected that Trump’s heated rhetoric would only lead to items like the one we are talking about (and protesters and followers of Trump do deserve criticism in this case) but it seems that iiandyiiii will get his wish.
:sigh: it is bound to get uglier in places like Arizona but I decided to volunteers to to defeat Trump, it is still more likely that I will get into the sights of many followers of Arpaio and Trump in the general election.
To coin a phrase, pix or it didn’t happen.
Seriously, though, I had no idea it was so difficult for you to insert a link into a post. Do you need some help? You claim to have evidence of widespread violence against Trump supporters, and yet it seems you can’t be arsed to present this evidence because a single poster on this board won’t answer a pointless question that you made up on the spot. What about all the other people reading this thread? What about the satisfaction of demonstrating that indeed you are correct, whether or not anyone else cares to admit it?
The “no reason” is the weak link in that statement. Inciting hate against people is good reason to expect a reaction against it.
Trump disavowed the KKK/Duke before and after the Tapper/Trump miscommunication. It’s clear that this was a miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and that it was later clarified. Except, of course, to anyone who might hate Trump and will jump at any chance to reject any attempt at clarification.
So Trump isn’t a liar, he’s just an idiot.
That’s much better.
Well, I haven’t read these other posts of yours. Care to link to your old posts that link to evidence that this is true?
Because, you know, there seems to have been more political violence committed by the Bundy family and their friends in the past couple of years than the left in this country has been involved in since the beginning of the millennium. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
No. A thousand times, no. I don’t care if he is literally Hitler and Mussolini reanimated. The bright line has to be inviolate. And all the posts pointing to bad things that Trump and his supporters have done are completely beside the point.
One of my Facebook friends asked, “Wouldn’t you rather stop an incipient facist threat when there’s still time to do something about it nonviolently? I would.”
My response:
And what if a bunch of right-wingers decided that the real question is “wouldn’t you rather stop an incipient socialist revolution when there’s still time to do something about it nonviolently?” Remember, I’m a guy who has consistently stood up for things like the ACLU going to court to protect the KKK’s rights to march. Protecting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly means protecting it for everyone, both because the principle ethically needs to be universal and also because if you start carving out exceptions the next exception may be for your group.
First of all I was on mobile, secondly I have already giving links in this very thread.
Here are some more:
Anti Trump Protestors block ambulance in Chicago
More footage of attacking protesters, injured police, Bernshirts chanting “Bernie Bernie”
You know, I’m mostly there with you. You’re right that the bright line must be inviolate.
My question now is, was the bright line crossed?
My understanding is that the protesters, until the rally was postponed, followed every law. After the postponement is when violence broke out, but I’m still looking for evidence that the violence came mainly, or even significantly, from protesters and not from Trump supporters.
The one bit of violence I have seen is the police who beat down a CBS reporter who was covering the arrest of a protester. Given the fact that they knocked him to the ground and put a boot on his neck (literally that’s what happened, I’m not just bringing Orwell in for the hell of it) for no clear crime, I’m suspicious that the other protester had done anything either.
So, what evidence is there that these protesters crossed a bright line?
Fortunately, the government was in no way involved in Trump’s decision to cancel his appearance last night, so the principles of freedom of speech and assembly have in no way been infringed upon.
Neither of those videos show anything resembling what you claim.
Let’s see if he disavows the Black Lives Matter movement, as Trump has disavowed the KKK and Donald Duke, or if he refuses to do so out of a fear that doing so would alienate many of his supporters.