Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

Here's the full context of Trump's 'many fine people' comments.

I'll say two things:

1) Factually Trump was correct. Not lying. I'm sure there were fine, good people protesting quietly and legally to protect a statue

2) No American president should waffle around violent white supremacy like this.

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

agip wrote:

GFR wrote:

Unlike the Senate, the House is designed to include some representatives with more radical viewpoints. AOC represents a district in Queens and her constituents were apparently pleased with her first term because they sent her back again. That's who she speaks for. Greene represents a very different constituency.

We have a very diverse country and it seems like having all viewpoints included, even more radical ones, is a good thing. AOC has to work with people with different agendas and viewpoints to get anything done. She has no real power on her own and Boebert and Green will need to learn that too if they want to be effective

As for Pelosi, despite the right trying to make her into a radical, no one could stay in a position of power for as long as she has unless they were a pragmatist, first and foremost.

no, it's not good to have 'all viewpoints' represented.

The nation is not helped having Green in congress, and would not benefit from having, say, the grand sphinx manticore of the Klan in congress.

agip wrote:

Here's the full context of Trump's 'many fine people' comments.

I'll say two things:

1) Factually Trump was correct. Not lying. I'm sure there were fine, good people protesting quietly and legally to protect a statue

2) No American president should waffle around violent white supremacy like this.

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

Paradoxical wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Family separation was a Trump policy. Sessions announced the new policy on camera. Then he implemented the new policy. The video of Sessions announcing new policy is out there for anyone to see.

Obama never, ever, ever had a policy that babies should be taken from their mothers at the border.

But Trump did. He kidnapped those children and now Biden has signed an executive order that says government agencies have to do everything possible to get those kids back with their parents.

First, I never said anything about Trump's policy on separation, but even on that front you are oversimplifying the situation. First, the policy to for migrant children to go under the care of U.S. marshals was nothing new under the Trump. Separation happens only when officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child's parent, is believed to be a threat to the child, or if the adult is being criminally charged. Second, this policy only applies to migrants illegally crossing the border, not those seeking asylum (these are two different things). What Trump's policy did was make it a zero-tolerance offense (first illegal entry is a misdemeanor, second is a felony) for immigrants to illegally cross the border, so those that were illegally crossing with children would automatically be separated. However, most that were charged would shortly plead guilty and would be reunited with their children and sent back across the border. The problem lies in migrants that would illegally cross the border, only to apply for asylum after. This is because a different law states that unaccompanied children can only held in custody for 20 days which is longer than the asylum, which is where you see kids that have been indefinitely separated and put into foster care.

This is sad, and poor policy, but could be prevented if people didn't try to illegally cross in the first place.

seattle prattle wrote:

agip wrote:

Here's the full context of Trump's 'many fine people' comments.

I'll say two things:

1) Factually Trump was correct. Not lying. I'm sure there were fine, good people protesting quietly and legally to protect a statue

2) No American president should waffle around violent white supremacy like this.

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

Yeah, I read the whole interview, and the other important paragraph is this:

"Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.""

I think you are correct, Agip, the context would indicate that he is saying that there were some good people in the group that showed up to protest the taking down of a statue. And he admits there were bad people, doing harmful things, too, but he seems clear in saying there were some non-violent protesters there as well. So he was referring to the assembled group, not to white supremacists when he said there were some good people in that group.

I don't think that is how his remarks were widely interpreted.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

Yeah, I read the whole interview, and the other important paragraph is this:

"Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.""

I think you are correct, Agip, the context would indicate that he is saying that there were some good people in the group that showed up to protest the taking down of a statue. And he admits there were bad people, doing harmful things, too, but he seems clear in saying there were some non-violent protesters there as well. So he was referring to the assembled group, not to white supremacists when he said there were some good people in that group.

I don't think that is how his remarks were widely interpreted.

I don't agree with your interpretation, but regardless, a good politician should speak clearly. Half of reporters and other politicians want to make someone look bad and being ambiguous gives an them the opportunity to twist the meaning against the speaker. Trump did that another time where it wasn't clear whether he was calling just MS-13 members "Animals"or all illegal immigrants.