Arnold Schwarzenegger terminates the hate

There's only so many times you can excuse his words by "well what he meant to say was..."

And the several times where he did condemn white supremacy?

Oh, that's an easy one: he's a compulsive liar and a hypocrite. He only condemned militant ultra-rights after everyone around him told him it might be better for him if he did, cause most people are way less found of nazis and white supremacists than he is. And for every instance he's been condemning Nazis and wacko militias he's been asking them for help and support a dozen times before and after that.
.
Btw: "Clearly he was trying to say... " Seriously?

That is one hell of a reach to describe a man who used to rub elbows with the likes of Al Sharpton.
And yeah, I could tell what he was trying to say, I actually watched the debate. He has never supported supremacists, he has never accepted their endorsement or support, and most of them actually hate his guts for being related to a Jew and appointing women and minorities to positions of power.
There are a lot of valid things you can attack Trump for, why focus so heavily on the one that he isn't guilty of?

Ok, if most of them "hate his guts" they surely dont support him or recommend to vote for him or have welcomed his election. So how come most of them do? Or better, who didn't? What extreme right and/or white supremacist condemned him?

You're still reaching mighty far. I believe this is called "moving the goal posts". Y'all seem to love doing that when your original claim falls through.

Uhm, no? My claim is that Trump only pretends to condemn white supremacists in certain situations,while on most opportunities he's been pandering to them, which they gladly realize and happily confirm. Which you countered by asserting "most of [white supremacists] actually hate his guts". Following this I asked for examples which YOU decided to side-track. Prove me wrong by quoting a few prominent white supremacists stating their dislike for Trump.

He does not pander to them. For fucks sake, he vowed to declare the KKK to be a terror group. Dog-whistles aren't a fucking thing. Minority communities have never been better off than with a Trump administration.
I don't fucking know any prominent white supremacists, I just troll their boards.

Of course somebody as informed in american politics as you doesn't know any prominent white supremacists and of course you do troll their boards *lol* - you said "most of [white supremacists] actually hate his guts" - how do you know this then? Andrew Anglin? David Duke? Richard Spencer? Pretty well-known nazis suporting and praising Trump... You never heard of them? I'm a gonna call this a lie.

David Duke I've heard of, now that you reminded me. The rest are unknowns to me. And yeah, I troll them. They are fucking idiots. It's fun.
And white-supremacist =/= Nazi.
I don't care what they have to say, so I don't know them. What I do know is that Trump has condemned, disavowed, rebuked, and actually took action against supremacists, even before he became POTUS.

Now you know them, now you can confirm how they endorse and praise Trump. And now maybe you can explain why they do this when they allegedly "hate his guts".
.
Trump only said something against them when his dog whistle (yes, they DO fucking exist and ALL right-wing populist worldwide use them, it's their very thing) became too audible to the public and there was an outcry. This is just pathetic.

The same reasons evangelicals support him. He is less hostile to the first amendment than his opposition. Unlike you, I actually know how they think and see what their opinions are.

Like d'oh

I’m gonna try to be the balanced voice here. Donald Trump HAS condemned Neo Nazis. He HAS been misquoted or distorted by the media on things he has said- not “you know what he meant...” but literally quoted for a single sentence that seemed to support white extremists- when the very next sentence was one where he specified he was NOT talking about white extremists and they were excluded from his sentiments. With that said....

Donald Trump has repeatedly quoted white extremists, nazis, neo nazis etc. not as in “the left is doing that thing where they compare something he said to Hitler...” but like. He’s directly quoted and even attributed the quotes. Donald Trump HAS been very ambiguous and weak on the subject of neo nazis and others. For a man who speaks off the cuff and puffs his chest and blusters and Twitter rants about anything he perceives as wrong....

He’s managed to “denounce” neo nazis and such with “vigorous” and “strong” condemnations such as when asked if he would condemn them... answering “sure.” And then changing the subject to focus on left wing political violence.

The running tally of tweets he’s made about white nationalists, neo nazis, etc. is FAR less than those about Hillary Clinton, even a very dead and no longer a “threat” to anyone John Mccane has been more often and vigorously condemned by the president than neo nazis.

And lastly- a matter of record- Donald Trump has spoken to the media about his weakness in denouncing white nationalists and neo nazis and such- he’s said- in his own words- that he doesn’t consider certain groups that the media or left or law enforcement classify as extremists and hate groups- he doesn’t consider them to be hate groups or neo nazis etc.

So when he condemns “neo nazis” of the like- those rare and flaccid moments where he DOES actually do so- we don’t know who he’s talking about. We know there are certain groups he’s said he doesn’t consider part of the “alt right” or anything- Breitbart for one. Stephen Miller is pretty swell in Trumps book.

What Donald Trump hasn’t said- for a man who doesn’t hold back when he sees an enemy or something he doesn’t like- says enough. The fact that his condemnations have all come after he’s made controversial statements or seemingly given approvals to such groups... that is a point of data- and when we combine how much of his agenda fits the agenda of these groups, his often, very odd and unconventional statements echoing white nationalists (telling a crowd they all have “very good genes...” what human, outside a medical context- tells a group of people... “you have good genes...”?

Connect the dots. Connect the ties, the members of his staff and inner circle who are themselves in these groups or have supported these groups- and what we know else wise- and wether he condemns these groups or not- his condemnation of any is weak and limited to those outside of whom who can be of use to him. He’s certainly willing to entertain them or flirt with them.

You started off so well, then you fell right back into left-wing drivel. Proud Boys aren't racial supremacists, and anarchists and communists pose a far greater threat to life and liberty than the KKK has in decades.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
,
The Proud Boys is a far-right[2][3] and neo-fascist[4] male-only organization[5] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[6][7][8][9][10] While the group officially rejects racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy and the Proud Boys has been described by United States intelligence organisations as "a dangerous white supremacist group."[11][12][13][14]

Just in case anyone was confused

Not far right. Not fascist. Does not initiate violence per their policies. And every group of size has less desirable members. Any intel-agency calling a racially diverse minority led group a "white supremacist group" has no credibility on the issue.

Wikipedia: 14 references
@famousone: 0 references
,
Aaaand that's enough of me feeding trolls today lol. Apologies to people who are getting pinged every time this comment thread grows.

Enrique Tarrio, leader of Proud Boys. Brown Cuban who identifies as latino. Opposed to authoritarianism in all it's forms.

Clearly a white supremacist, Wikipedia said so.

For the record, I do not like Proud Boys, I am not affiliated with them. I simply hate the echo-chambers perpetuation of lies and defamation.

I think Jasonmon nailed it. But Famousone is correct. Tarrio is of cuban decent. I think that clearly dispels any ideas of the prod boys as white supremacists. They have a Latin guy. I mean... they also have.... more known white supremacists than I can count... but just because some members or leaders are white nationalists we can’t condemn the organization. That would be like labeling BLM as socialists or terrorists because they have leaders and members... wait. Bad example. Well- Proud boys have a Latin guy.

Since we are talking about white supremacy- an apt comparison would be- saying the proud boys could be racist or white supremacists and have a Latin guy in a position of power would be like the Nazis having Jewish soldiers and generals! Ha. Can you even imagine.... wait... what?! That Nazis totally DID have Jews in their ranks? Even after the purge of Jewish from Nazi government- Hitler granted status to Mischlinges- Jews who were legally considered Aryan- and included high ranking Nazi generals?!

B-b-ut... that makes no sense does it? Well... it does. But for it to make sense, one must think, and thinking is hard. I regret to inform you dear readers, that having a Cuban guy in your club doesn’t absolve you from being a white supremacist. There are reasons why, and we can historically see- people joining the cause of those who were against the rights or fundamental existence of their own people, there are many reasons- but it might shock you to know that while many slave hunters were black, many blacks helped in the keeping of slaves- that having a black guy working on your slave hunting crew didn’t mean that the rest of the boys, or the organization itself- wasn’t inherently racist.

But even IF we were to all agree the prod boys aren’t “white supremacists” they are in point of fact- a violent extremist group- domestic terrorists. That Tarrio’s position in the group requires one to have had a physical altercation of political ideology in order to advance to it. That isn’t a social club or a political party- that is a gang or terrorist organization. So regardless of wether they are racist or not- the failure of a commander and chief to reject violent extremist organizations is disgusting and inappropriate. Made more so by the fact that Mr. Trump has had no problems speaking out about BLM and violence related to things like the death of George Floyd et al. He can muster many words to condemn those “violent extremists” and leftists- but the proud boys get a “stand by...”

Having a Cuban guy IN CHARGE of a RACIALLY INCLUSIVE organization that regularly DENOUNCES RACIAL SUPREMACY and AUTHORITARIANISM.
Look at BLM and Antifa, on the other hand, since you want to play equivalency, their organizers and leaders have cheered and supported everything from harassment, to looting, to the execution of at least one man who looked "like a Trumper".
Thinking is hard, but that is no reason not to try it.

I don’t recall him taking BLM to “stand by.” He has been VERY clear on what he thinks on those matters has he not? It seems a tad coincidental that all these things would conspire to paint a picture of a man who at the very least, we have established has a limp twisted stance on violent extremist groups no?

It’s a fine bit of whataboutism you’ve got yourself there. Take that to The illiterate and you might get elected to office friendo. But I never said BLM or any leftist was the good guy did I? I said that the proud boys are violent extremists with membership known to be white supremacists. Those are all true things. We aren’t talking about antifa. Donald Trump has denounced Antifa. We aren’t talking about BLM. he’s denounced the whole deal.

There isn’t an either or here. He doesn’t have to choose to either denounce antifa and BLM OR denounce Proud boys and white supremacists does he? He tweets about bullshit all day long. He has time. Where are the tweets about white supremacists and extremist violence other than BLM, Antifa?

There is an either or. Either you support free speech for all and believe in the right to self-defense for all, or you do not.

Well... I mean... no. Not really. Like- do YOU support free speech for all? Like I can call the fire department and say there’s a big fire at the abandoned warehouse- but there isn’t one? That’s a lie... but lying is free speech isn’t it? So I mean... you don’t support completely free speech for all do you? Like- a popular celebrity telling all their fans they should murder someone? That’s free speech- but do you support it?

But I guess that’s more nuanced than I should expect from you, and not fair to ask you to stretch your respective far enough to understand. So maybe forget I brought it up. A more pertinent question is: how is denouncing one group as violent extremists vehemently, but not denouncing another group of violent extremists- directly tied to your right to free speech? Is it like- a personal thing? Like Trump supporting the proud boys allows YOU to speak your heart openly?

I mean... you do realize that the president of the United States doesn’t have “free speech” right? There are tons of classified things a president learns that if they tell random people- they could actually find themselves in prison right? I mean- beyond the expectations of a leader to unite and foster prosperity and peace amongst their people- the things a president shouldn’t say- there is the literal fact there are things a president cannot legally say.

Even private citizens- Musk found himself in quite a bit of legal hot water for things he had said which could influence the public and cause shifts in the market no? So I mean... our fundamental proposition is already flawed. You aren’t either “for or against” free speech- you can be for or against the concept of free speech- but that’s academic since what a person considers “free speech” is subjective and we have countless Cases in court records debating and setting precedent on what is and isn’t counted as “free speech” let alone between two random people and what they think it means.

Dip, duck, dive, dodge, jump, reach, and evade all you have to. I've made my points on the relevant subjects, I'm done dancing with you.

You keep accusing other people of dodging or moving goal posts- but how did we get here? You spun the issue of the proud boys being a hate group into some ultimatum on being for or against free speech. You had said the proud boys couldn’t be racist because they have a Cuban- I pointed to historical examples as well as current examples where the presence of a person of color doesn’t change wether a group is or is not a hate group. You didn’t even try and address the point that regardless of racism, the proud boys are violent extremists- you keep moving the goal posts and dodging, you haven’t refuted a single point here but you keep throwing spaghetti at the wall and when you get backed up you say the opposing view point is changing the subject....

We don’t have to dance, if you stop dancing. Go back, make in context direct replies to refute the points made about the proud boys without “whataboutism” or leaning on some absolute crutch of vague constitutionalism- you can either defend the proud boys are or are not an extremist group. Your only evidence so far is:
- they have a Cuban guy.
- Some other groups are bad too.
Have anything else- or is this case closed and we can all agree that wether you believe they are a supremacist group or not; or that trump supports them or not- the body of evidence overwhelmingly supports that they are a violent extremist group with supremacist base and Trump doesn’t denounce them with the vigor he applies to other groups?

That IS an either or. Well- you could say something childish or “take your ball and go home” avoiding a defeat via “rage quit.” I suspect it will either be this; or... unhinged and off topic attacks or out of nowhere high minded appeals to freedom. Let us see what shall come....

I like squirrels.
In all seriousness, comparing anarchists and communists is... i mean they are damn near the exact opposite....
And I really did not want to have to join in on this; as everyone has made up their mind. @famousone, I fear you might have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome going on when it comes to Trump. If you really think he gives a shit about you, or anyone else, over the hue of his own orangeness, you're already delusional. You may agree with what he says, but look at his actions. You say he said he'd label them a terrorist organization, yet he never did (they already were)... he just says shit; he never does shit. He literally tried to gaslight 380 million people so he could "appear" as a confident leader; not actually BE a confident leader, "appear" as one. The worst part? These antics from him have been well-documented for over 3 decades. None of this behavior is new.
I say this as a friend, because believe it or not, I care. I do enjoy most o'er discussions.

I truly respect what you're trying here, but you know he's not stupid, and it's not that he doesn't know all this. He explained it earlier by sort of projecting his motivation on nazis and white supremacists: they may not like all aspects of the guy, but he's delivering big time, and of course it's not about the fucking first amendment, it's about annoying liberals, fucking poor people, attacking feminism, the right to abortion and such things.
.
One thing you need to learn when it comes to extreme right voters: they don't give a shit about principles or ethics or truth or integrity. They have an agenda on a sort of bingo card and the guy calling most of their points gets their vote. They know the consequences, but they reckon themselves strong and reckless enough to deal with them. And they're probably right.

Anarchists and communists differ in all but the opening act.
As for the rest, and this is meant for the both of you, consider for a moment that a person can disagree with you without being stupid, crazy, or evil.

Very much depending what that person disagrees on. In this case, you're surely not stupid, as I said above. Crazy people don't realize they're crazy, and evil people won't confess to it, so who knows. Actively ignoring a guy's decades long history as a greedy, careless, fraudulent lowlife bitch makes you wonder though.

A disagreement between people is not so much cause for concern in itself. A disagreement between one person and reality however- can be a problem. Communism for example- is a philosophy mentioned here- one which disagrees with reality. In over 100 years reality has not been changed to reflect communist ideals, communism has changed to reflect reality hasn’t it? “Communist” China doesn’t look very communist and has revised what that word means to suit them no?

So the problem isn’t in disagreement with each other so much as it is when people disagree with reality. This is the true nature of the word “alternate facts.” Truth to a person is a matter of perspective which is drawn by an individual based on what facts they have available and how those facts are interpreted. But when a person reaches their own view of truth on incomplete fact or by ignoring fact- or by willfully choosing to change reality in their head to suit a conclusion because that conclusion benefits them- that is a form of delusion which is not so healthy. When our delusions involve others... that causes problems. To disagree, people must first agree on the facts of a matter. There cannot be disagreement where any party refuses to or cannot comprehend the facts. A conclusion drawn in conflict to fact is either emotional in nature or a failure to identify reality.

One can believe that it is impossible for an airplane to fly. They can refuse to believe or understand the science that would allow toms of metal to crest the sky. This does not change the fact that air planes fly. One can tell oneself that the planes they have seen fly or been on are some trick, illusion, that there is some “alternate explanation..” but when an expert in physics tells them they are wrong, explains how flight works
and they rebuff it- that isn’t a disagreement. You can’t disagree with the sun on its orbit. There simply is what is, and what some choose to believe. Such “disagreements” are not resolved through any way other than proving airplanes an or fly using science, or by brining ones beliefs in line without reality.

Trump has condemned white supremacy and helped minority communities throughout his term. That was the original argument. Any who claims otherwise, or says "but Dog-whistles" is lying or willfully ignorant. So take your own advice, stop arguing against reality.

He said words and did shit. You're not arguing reality, you're denying it.

Case in point. Good day.

As my original comments said- he has spoke out against white supremacists. Some. And he has also said that he doesn’t consider some to be white supremacists. So the whole point is moot since that’s like saying you’re against terrorists and then pardoning Ted Kazinsky or Timothy Mcveigh because they aren’t terrorists to you- they were patriots doing what they thought was right no?

For what a person says to mean anything- their words have to have a set meaning. Now, when America is waiting for the president to denounce groups like the proud boys, and they ask the poorly phrased question of him- do you denounce white supremacists- they expect that to include the proud boys. When he says he doesn’t even know anything about them... by default they can’t be included in his statement can they? Not knowing who they are means he doesn’t know if they are or aren’t white supremacists and thusly- he couldn’t have been talking about them we he said it could he?

You’ll call it semantics or politics, but it’s simply logic, and I would challenge you to refute it on logical grounds.. but you won’t.

So what you are saying is that two truths somehow cancel each other out. A man savagely beats his wife and cheats, but says he loves her. On the truth that he says he loves her- you would cancel the latter. It isn’t fair to say by default that because he hits her or cheats he doesn’t love or- or at least think he does. But neither truth cancels the other- it is possible for him to have a twisted and unhealthy way to love a person, AND that he still beats her. Even more so if the words are empty. We can SAY we denounce a group without it being true can we not? People say and do different things all the time.

You can say you are going to repeal Obama care, and not do it. You can say Mexico will pay for a wall... and then use money from the defense budget paid by America taxes to fund it. You can say you denounce witch hunts that waste tax payer money and only serve politics... and then force lengthy and expensive politically motivated investigations into Democrats which turn up no wrong doing can’t you? I mean- you can say that you are innocent because you were investigated and found not guilty- and that proves it, case closed... and then when your investigations don’t turn up that the Clintons are mafiosos or Joe Biden is a spy... say that doesn’t prove they didn’t do anything... just that they didn’t get caught.... can’t you?

What we have are two sets of facts. Both true. If you throw one set out, you can build whatever narrative you want. If you acknowledge and accept both sets of facts- what you have is a picture that is clear as day. The only logical conclusions that can be drawn are self motivated actions. When you have multiple sets of facts which all paint this picture, you have a pattern. A pattern indicative of a set of behaviors. Is Trump a white supremacist? Probably not. Is he fine with white supremacy as long as it serves his goals? Almost certainly. Has he used any degree of power he has, or even applied the same impotent fury to denouncing white supremacy as he has to celebrity gossip or defaming a dead John Mcane? No.