America - The Official Thread

[huskeR32]

That didn't answer my question at all. I'm not surprised.

It doesn't matter how many times he denounced them afterwards, the message had been sent and received.

 

[ryzno]

You're referring to Robert Byrd, who, before he entered public service (and therefore, before he had any sort of relationship with Clinton) said that being in the KKK was a mistake, and denounced the group. He wrote in his autobiography "It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me, and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career and reputation... I displayed very bad judgment, due to immaturity and a lack of seasoned reasoning."

Associating with a man who has publicly repudiated the KKK is an extremely ineffective way to wink-and-nod in their direction...



No, it's a fact you just mangled around to fit a hole it doesn't belong in.

Oh so repenting for my sins will make it all better? He was covering his ass. If I announced here I'm joining the KKK and years later I say I regreted it doesn't negate everything I did in the KKK.
My felony still haunts me, what gives him a pass? He said hes sorry?
I can't believe you're even trying to defend someone who voluntarily joined the KKK.

 

[TexRex]

Happy Paul Bunyan Day, everyone!

 

[ryzno]

It doesn't matter how many times he denounced them afterwards, the message had been sent and received.

Hypocrisy much?

 

[AbeFroman75]

It doesn't matter how many times he denounced them afterwards, the message had been sent and received.

Still refuse to answer my question. Not surprised. Have a pleasant day.

But remember, he's like totally, literally Hitler.

 

[baldgye]

I'm blaming Trump for this one, but the OC&E forum is currently in its saddest state since I've been a member. You're all acting like US politicians during election times, throwing petty remarks at each other, and turning discussions into a he said/she said kindergarten squabble.

To be fair, the first page of this thread is fairly sassy.
People seem to self identify with politics more and more these days so when a politician or party or even stance is challenged it's seen a personal attack.

 

[huskeR32]

Oh so repenting for my sins will make it all better? He was covering his ass. If I announced here I'm joining the KKK and years later I say I regreted it doesn't negate everything I did in the KKK.
My felony still haunts me, what gives him a pass? He said hes sorry?
I can't believe you're even trying to defend someone who voluntarily joined the KKK.

I didn't defend anybody, or give anybody a "pass." I responded specifically to your claim that Hillary was tacitly associating with the KKK, and pointed out that saying nice words about someone who very publicly turned from the Klan is a pretty ineffective strategy for doing so.

Hypocrisy much?

Not really. I'm not defending Byrd, nor saying that his reversal on the KKK in any way exonerates him. What it does do is make your claims that Hillary used him as a vehicle for embracing the KKK a little questionable.

---

Still refuse to answer my question.

I've answered it twice now. I don't know, and it doesn't matter to me, how many times Trump denounced Duke after the fact.

When someone asks "do you denounce racists," you say "yes." Immediately. Unequivocally. Pretending that there's any nuance to the situation, that he needed time to think about it or learn more about it, is preposterous.

But remember, he's like totally, literally Hitler.

Cute strawman.

 

[TexRex]

Still refuse to answer my question. Not surprised. Have a pleasant day.

I'll bite; just how many times did Trump denounce David Duke and his support?

Since the issue is clearly of such great importantance that you continue to hold it over someone's head, I'll expect a precise count and an unbiased, peer-reviewed source that supports the claim.

Or maybe the number of times he did it isn't nearly as telling as how long it took him to do it.

 

[AbeFroman75]

I'll bite; just how many times did Trump denounce David Duke and his support?

Since the issue is clearly of such great importantance that you continue to hold it over someone's head, I'll expect a precise count and an unbiased, peer-reviewed source that supports the claim.

Or maybe the number of times he did it isn't nearly as telling as how long it took him to do it.

So you expect somebody to step in and do all the work for you? Typical for the left.

 

[TexRex]

So you expect somebody to step in and do all the work for you? Typical for the left.

Best. Response. Ever.

Thank you so much for the blatant dodge. I sort of expected you to dodge the question, but that you did so in such a manner just made my day.

 

[Imari]

Oh so repenting for my sins will make it all better? He was covering his ass. If I announced here I'm joining the KKK and years later I say I regreted it doesn't negate everything I did in the KKK.

No, it doesn't. But it does add an extra layer of nuance. There's a difference between associating with someone who is currently the Grand Poobah of the Punting Babies From Overpasses guild, and associating with someone who used to be the Grand Poobah but has since realised that perhaps punting babies from overpasses is not in fact a particularly good way of creating the society that they wish to see.

Frankly, I'd rather sit down and have a beer with someone that used to be the KKK than someone who currently is. Someone who used to be in the KKK has an interesting story that is probably worth hearing. Someone who is currently in the KKK is an idiot.

My felony still haunts me, what gives him a pass? He said hes sorry?
I can't believe you're even trying to defend someone who voluntarily joined the KKK.

Clearly you're of the opinion that people do not change. Interesting. You still find value in being on message boards then, if no one ever changes? You don't think that you're a different person now than the one who committed your felony?

One does not need to approve of someone's past actions to hold an opinion that perhaps they are now not the same person who made those choices. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't face the consequences of their actions, but it also means that they should have a chance to move on.

I'm sorry that you're not being given that chance, but would you rather put everyone through what you've been through or would you like to start working towards how things should be?

So you expect somebody to step in and do all the work for you? Typical for the left.

So actually when you asked the question originally you didn't know and wanted someone else to inform you?
Or you have the information and you just refuse to share it?

Some of us actually don't know and would be curious, but I doubt that such a number is easily googleable. You gave the impression that you knew already. I feel like the quoted post took more effort for you to write than just typing the number, if you do know it.

 

[Rallywagon]

So you expect somebody to step in and do all the work for you? Typical for the left.

I think he expects someone to source their claim, thats generally how debate works.

 

[TexRex]

someone who used to be the Grand a Poobah

I'm given to understand he never actually reached "grand" status. Hey, maybe it was dismay and/or disillusionment over the idea that room for growth simply was not there that informed his decision to leave the organization.

But he still left that past behind him with only a glance back as a reminder of his failings, and that's what establishes his rank among decent human beings--not infallible but in a continuous state of bettering themselves.

 

[Imari]

I'm given to understand he never actually reached "grand" status.

I'm not sure he ever punted a baby from an overpass either.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not sure he ever punted a baby from an overpass either.

Right. Is it actually illegal to join the club? I'm not aware that it is, but being in the club also doesn't offer any kind of legal protection (beyond support from peers) from prosecution for illegal acts committed while in the club.

 

[huskeR32]

Some of us actually don't know and would be curious, but I doubt that such a number is easily googleable.

I suspect that was was a feature of his question, rather than a bug.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It did briefly reignite my rage about the unscrupulous theft of Merrick Garland's seat, I suppose. Not sure that qualified as going bonkers though.

---



They're calling to hang him, so... yes?



Of course, that Democrat party is pretty much today's Republ... eh, forget it. I've never once seen this actually sink in.

---



Wait, just because some wackjob claims affiliation with a group, that doesn't make the group responsible for their actions? Quite the flip-flop on your part, wouldn't you say?



Donald Trump claiming to not know who David Duke was, so he could deflect questions asking him to condemn Duke? Yeah, I'd say that was a pretty clear wink and nod to the KKK.

You missed the part where I qualified it as the organization encouraging the association in question. Nice try though.

 

[Danoff]

Whelp... someone has to do it! Number of times Trump disavowed Duke:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-record/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6fa5bbcb0e11

As of March 1 2016 it looks like 6 times. But there was confusion in there (as always with Trump).

 

[TexRex]

Whelp... someone has to do it! Number of times Trump disavowed Duke:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-record/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6fa5bbcb0e11

As of March 1 2016 it looks like 6 times. But there was confusion in there (as always with Trump).

Sure, sure, but considering WaPo's leftward leanings, how sure can we be that the actual number isn't greater than that?

 

[huskeR32]

You missed the part where I qualified it as the organization encouraging the association in question. Nice try though.

No, I didn't. I responded to your post in two parts. Admittedly, I failed to clearly separate the two parts when I responded to them, so I guess I created confusion there. Allow me to make it clearer:

Fringe groups of all kinds are free to claim association with anyone they like.

Wait, just because some wackjob claims affiliation with a group, that doesn't make the group responsible for their actions? Quite the flip-flop on your part, wouldn't you say?

--

Is there any evidence that the Republican party encourages and accepts the support of the KKK?

Donald Trump claiming to not know who David Duke was, so he could deflect questions asking him to condemn Duke? Yeah, I'd say that was a pretty clear wink and nod to the KKK.

--

In the post I linked to in the first part, you contend it doesn't matter if affiliation is "official," it's a question of inspiration.

In the David Duke situation, Trump tacitly courted the white nationalist vote. The GOP then made him their nominee, and essentially reversed course on the most important issue for white nationalists (immigration). Is it really your contention that none of this "inspired" or "encouraged" such groups to vote Republican?

 

[ryzno]

No, I didn't. I responded to your post in two parts. Admittedly, I failed to clearly separate the two parts when I responded to them, so I guess I created confusion there. Allow me to make it clearer:





--





--

In the post I linked to in the first part, you contend it doesn't matter if affiliation is "official," it's a question of inspiration.

In the David Duke situation, Trump tacitly courted the white nationalist vote. The GOP then made him their nominee, and essentially reversed course on the most important issue for white nationalists (immigration). Is it really your contention that none of this "inspired" or "encouraged" such groups to vote Republican?

So we're white nationalists cause we want to protect our border? I'm done here...
Nice CNN talking points...

 

[huskeR32]

So we're white nationalists cause we want to protect our border? I'm done here...

That's not at all what I said.

 

[ryzno]

That's not at all what I said.

And y'all read a lot into stuff I never said. Fun ain't it...

 

[UKMikey]

So we're white nationalists cause we want to protect our border?

No, but white nationalists like your party better because of its stance on immigration.

That's why attempts to link it to today's Democratic party are a failure.

 

[TexRex]

So we're white nationalists cause we want to protect our border?

Nowhere in the post you quoted was the border mentioned. The border hasn't been represented to any meaningful degree in the recent poor excuse for a discussion.

White nationalists would want clamp down on immigration (what was brought up), though, and as a result they tend to support the side they think will do so--even if the advertised reasonings for doing so don't quite align. "Protect national security" sounds a lot nicer than "Keep the dirty Mexicans out."

I'm done here...

Really?

And y'all read a lot into stuff I never said. Fun ain't it...

I guess not...

Edit:

No, but white nationalists like your party better because of its stance on immigration.

That's why attempts to link it to today's Democratic party are a failure.

For what it's worth, that link doesn't work for me.

Oops, meant to edit that last reply in from the get-go.

Second edit: Link works now. 👍

 

[TexRex]

Disregard.

 

[UKMikey]

Link works now. 👍

Thanks. I'd greatly prefer to link to the original WaPo article but they got this paywall thing going on.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Great job California. /sarcasm

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....wLSIkXkw5W1BRSCNdSENIUEw0UDxTICBOSzNSTDtKCg==

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213997664.html

 

[TexRex]

Great job California. /sarcasm

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2174217&doc_no=S239397&request_token=OCIwLSIkXkw5W1BRSCNdSENIUEw0UDxTICBOSzNSTDtKCg==

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213997664.html

Fan-freaking-tastic!

 

[TenEightyOne]

Great job California. /sarcasm

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2174217&doc_no=S239397&request_token=OCIwLSIkXkw5W1BRSCNdSENIUEw0UDxTICBOSzNSTDtKCg==

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213997664.html

The patents exists (Smith & Wesson, Ruger and others), what's the problem? Necessity will driver wider production - surely?