The Biden administration (was: The NEW 2020 Election Thread)

[sandman]

you'd have to look at the liberal posters for evidence of that level of stupidity.

Always resorting to personal insults when you can't make your point with your words like a big boy.

Liberals stupid, orange man good! 

the fact that some supposedly smart liberals in this thread disagree with that, is like a laugh out loud level of stupidity. just a complete lack of understanding of the markets.

Look at you, dancing like a puppet to the tunes I've called. How many pages back did I say "when you have no argument, vaguely gesture at imagined hypocrisy"?

Of course, the entire game you're playing here is to get everyone caught up in a back and forth about which side is more hypocritical, because you're terrified of actually engaging on the issues. As I always say when conservatives play this game of painting the other side as hypocrites, "Okay, let's say you're right and all liberals are 100% hypocritical. That doesn't prove you're right!". It is literally nothing more than a distraction from the actual substance of the issues and ad hominem attacking. But you will continue doing it and act like none of your behavior has been called out already, because you have no honor.

You just slammed Jarmo, because he started with the hypocrisy comments. Real nice, bud.

I was simply responding to him, and stating a fact.

[sandman]

glad you agree and we are on the same page. some liberals in this thread disagree and choose to ignore basic facts.

That's simplifying things.

I bet most people would answer "yes". But the reality is more complex than that.

/jarmo

You would think most people would say yes, because common sense, right?

But not the libs on this board. Check the Trump thread. You’ll be surprised at the level of stupidity.

[sandman]

what's your source for "tremendous levels never seen before in history"? Antifa circle jerks do not count as legitimate sources.

Haha, triggered by facts as usual! "Antifa circle jerks"? You really don't do yourself any favors by speaking in such a juvenile and assumptive manner. You're such a partisan hack that you've already dismissed my source before I've even responded!

U.S. Drone Strikes Have Gone Up 432% Since Trump Took Office

https://worldbeyondwar.org/u-s-drone-strikes-gone-432-since-trump-took-office/

During Mr Obama's eight years in office, 1,878 drone strikes were carried out, according to researchers. Since Mr Trump was elected in 2016 (as of March 2019), there have been 2,243 drone strikes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207



https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-12-19/counterrorism-strikes-double-trump-first-year

And of course, in the typical fashion of the Trump Crime Family, he makes transparent moves to cover up his crimes, where previous administrations were honest with the American people. Trump is a weak little coward, hiding his civilian casualties.

President Trump is making it harder to know how many civilians the government kills by remote control.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/opinion/drones-civilian-casulaties-trump-obama.html

Gee, I wonder why? Could he have something to hide? Hmm...

Civilian Deaths in U.S. Wars Are Skyrocketing Under Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/02/trump-impeachment-civilian-casualties-war/



https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/how-many-civilians-did-trump-kill-in-drone-strikes-last-year/

So, are you having fun playing with your little "antifa" strawman to dodge the death and destruction your president is reigning down on innocent civilians across the globe? What's sickening is that you think this is all just political gamesmanship. You only care about scoring political points to "own the libs" and it doesn't matter how many human lives are snuffed out as a result. As long as you get that sweet self-satisfaction of feeling morally superior by building a liberal strawman that you can easily knock down instead of dealing with reality. Unfortunately for you, reality has a way of asserting itself like a Mack truck at highway speeds...

https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/trump-cancels-drone-strike-civilian-casualty-report-does-it-matter/

Read. Learn. Think.

[PermissionToLand]

You just slammed Jarmo, because he started with the hypocrisy comments. Real nice, bud.

I was simply responding to him, and stating a fact.

Nice dodge. I'm criticizing anyone who does that.

Your inability to understand the difference between a fact and a massive, baseless generalization is a recurring problem with you.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/trump-cancels-drone-strike-civilian-casualty-report-does-it-matter/

Read. Learn. Think.

 

Are you not even aware of how pathetic and obvious it is that you leave 99% of my argument on the table every time?

Maybe you should learn to think for yourself and use your words to form a response instead of lazily linking some basement blogger's ramblings. Poor show, as always.

That article is a joke. He's ignoring Afghanistan entirely, which is where the vast majority of Trump's drone strikes occurred. Gee, what a surprise, when you just ignore the majority of his drone strikes, all the sudden it's not such a tremendous increase! You know, it's not good to be this gullible, Sandy. You're going to get taken by a Nigerian Prince scam one of these days.

Hell, he literally even confirms the numbers I posted when Afghanistan is included.

Also, the entire first half of the article boils down to "Obama's reporting methods could have been more rigorous". Cool. That doesn't mean it's not a bad thing for Trump to cover up his civilian casualties entirely. What is he hiding? We'll never know, especially since the Trump Crime Family is burning records as they prepare to leave, just like every criminal syndicate in history...

Historians Sue to Force Trump Administration to Preserve Records

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-02/historians-sue-to-force-trump-administration-to-preserve-records

https://whistleblower.org/letter/letter-to-nara-on-preservation-of-presidential-records/

But civilian casualties have nothing to do with the initial point I made which remains standing as a fact: that Trump escalated drone strikes year over year to tremendous levels never before seen in history. Which you pre-emptively dismissed as a product of assumed strawman "antifa circle jerking" sources. I'd say you have egg on your face, but at this point, you don't even have a face anymore, just a permanent layer of encrusted egg proteins. You're flailing for something - anything - to latch onto so you don't have to deal with the reality that Trump is reigning down death upon brown people at a scale never before seen by drone.

If you had any sense, you would stop coming back for these beatdowns...

[tim_m]

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/trump-administration-passed-chance-lock-more-pfizer-vaccine-doses-n1250357

Trump administration passed up chance to lock in more Pfizer vaccine doses
The White House reportedly declined “multiple” offers from Pfizer to strike a deal on more vaccines for the second quarter of 2021.

It is like he's trying to kill as many people on his way out as he can, how can anyone still supports someone who does this?

[jarmo]

You would think most people would say yes, because common sense, right?

But not the libs on this board. Check the Trump thread. You’ll be surprised at the level of stupidity.

The level of stupidity I'm astounded by these days is not so much "refusing to give Trump 100% credit". It's more about "believing 100% of what Trump says"... Common sense seems like a dream!


I know I have a different perspective of what goes on in your country, because, I'm not there. Maybe I don't read exactly the same news sources as you do.


I know you're just saying all these things because it's a fun way to pass the time. Attacking others for their alleged stupidity while basically defending a make belief MAGA ideology and a guy who's, no matter how many times he says it, really isn't the brightest leader in the (free) world.

Why is it a witch hunt when his people are investigated and held responsible, but when it's the other way around, it's not? "Lock her up!" wasn't a hoax, a politically motivated witch hunt? The laptop!!!!!11111! wasn't a hoax?



Now the cult followers are leaving Fox News because they dared to say something that was true. Seriously... Yet people like to cry about how the news are biased and report the wrong things. But once you report something that's true, these snowflakes move to some other news sources that are supporting their own fantasies about the state of the country... You can't make this up!

2020, the year when the only news sources that matter are the ones that support your own beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. And research is something you do on the Internet, preferably watching a YouTube video of a stranger rambling about things they know nothing about, while discrediting educated people as elitist...

As I said, looking at things from this side of the wall, it sure doesn't look like they managed to make it great again. Peoples' belief in its democratic voting process has been undermined for one. I'm afraid others will follow this example and other countries will have to deal with the same old. And at some point, someone will take advantage of it. Then you got a problem, when a leader gets to power because people don't think voting matters anyway...




/jarmo

[sandman]

You would think most people would say yes, because common sense, right?

But not the libs on this board. Check the Trump thread. You’ll be surprised at the level of stupidity.

The level of stupidity I'm astounded by these days is not so much "refusing to give Trump 100% credit". It's more about "believing 100% of what Trump says"... Common sense seems like a dream!


I know I have a different perspective of what goes on in your country, because, I'm not there. Maybe I don't read exactly the same news sources as you do.


I know you're just saying all these things because it's a fun way to pass the time. Attacking others for their alleged stupidity while basically defending a make belief MAGA ideology and a guy who's, no matter how many times he says it, really isn't the brightest leader in the (free) world.

Why is it a witch hunt when his people are investigated and held responsible, but when it's the other way around, it's not? "Lock her up!" wasn't a hoax, a politically motivated witch hunt? The laptop!!!!!11111! wasn't a hoax?



Now the cult followers are leaving Fox News because they dared to say something that was true. Seriously... Yet people like to cry about how the news are biased and report the wrong things. But once you report something that's true, these snowflakes move to some other news sources that are supporting their own fantasies about the state of the country... You can't make this up!

2020, the year when the only news sources that matter are the ones that support your own beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. And research is something you do on the Internet, preferably watching a YouTube video of a stranger rambling about things they know nothing about, while discrediting educated people as elitist...

As I said, looking at things from this side of the wall, it sure doesn't look like they managed to make it great again. Peoples' belief in its democratic voting process has been undermined for one. I'm afraid others will follow this example and other countries will have to deal with the same old. And at some point, someone will take advantage of it. Then you got a problem, when a leader gets to power because people don't think voting matters anyway...




/jarmo

"make belief MAGA ideology"  the MAGA ideology existed long before Trump and will exist long after Trump.

with comments like that, you make it clear that you're right - you don't know what goes on here. also, most news is slanted to make one side look bad.

the large majority of Trump supporters, including every single one of the ones i know, regularly state that Trump is an asshole. EVERYONE knows he lies. he's not someone that any of us would want to hang out with. but we like many (not all) of the things he has done.

[sandman]

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/trump-administration-passed-chance-lock-more-pfizer-vaccine-doses-n1250357

Trump administration passed up chance to lock in more Pfizer vaccine doses
The White House reportedly declined “multiple” offers from Pfizer to strike a deal on more vaccines for the second quarter of 2021.

It is like he's trying to kill as many people on his way out as he can, how can anyone still supports someone who does this?

another example of taking a fact, spinning it to make Trump look bad, and having liberals fall for the trick and literally believing that Trump hates people and wants them to die.

but conservatives are the loony ones, right? 

let me try to make this simple for you:

did we know what drug company would have the vaccine first?  NO

should we have paid every drug company close to $10B for a few hundred million doses?  NO

what would happen if we guaranteed Pfizer $6B for 150 million full doses?

[sandman]

You just slammed Jarmo, because he started with the hypocrisy comments. Real nice, bud.

I was simply responding to him, and stating a fact.

Nice dodge. I'm criticizing anyone who does that.

Your inability to understand the difference between a fact and a massive, baseless generalization is a recurring problem with you.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/trump-cancels-drone-strike-civilian-casualty-report-does-it-matter/

Read. Learn. Think.

 

Are you not even aware of how pathetic and obvious it is that you leave 99% of my argument on the table every time?

Maybe you should learn to think for yourself and use your words to form a response instead of lazily linking some basement blogger's ramblings. Poor show, as always.

That article is a joke. He's ignoring Afghanistan entirely, which is where the vast majority of Trump's drone strikes occurred. Gee, what a surprise, when you just ignore the majority of his drone strikes, all the sudden it's not such a tremendous increase! You know, it's not good to be this gullible, Sandy. You're going to get taken by a Nigerian Prince scam one of these days.

Hell, he literally even confirms the numbers I posted when Afghanistan is included.

Also, the entire first half of the article boils down to "Obama's reporting methods could have been more rigorous". Cool. That doesn't mean it's not a bad thing for Trump to cover up his civilian casualties entirely. What is he hiding? We'll never know, especially since the Trump Crime Family is burning records as they prepare to leave, just like every criminal syndicate in history...

Historians Sue to Force Trump Administration to Preserve Records

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-02/historians-sue-to-force-trump-administration-to-preserve-records

https://whistleblower.org/letter/letter-to-nara-on-preservation-of-presidential-records/

But civilian casualties have nothing to do with the initial point I made which remains standing as a fact: that Trump escalated drone strikes year over year to tremendous levels never before seen in history. Which you pre-emptively dismissed as a product of assumed strawman "antifa circle jerking" sources. I'd say you have egg on your face, but at this point, you don't even have a face anymore, just a permanent layer of encrusted egg proteins. You're flailing for something - anything - to latch onto so you don't have to deal with the reality that Trump is reigning down death upon brown people at a scale never before seen by drone.

If you had any sense, you would stop coming back for these beatdowns...

now try to do an apples to apples comparison of Trump's strikes vs Obama's. if you are being honest and open-minded, neither of which are strengths of yours, you would admit that it is very difficult and essentially impossible to compare exact number of civilian deaths.

and i'm sure you and all your antifa buddies were saying the same about Obama in 2015 - that he's killing more brown people by drones than anyone ever saw before. of course, we know that is not true, but when it's someone with an R after their name, all of a sudden it becomes a problem.

[jarmo]

"make belief MAGA ideology"  the MAGA ideology existed long before Trump and will exist long after Trump.

with comments like that, you make it clear that you're right - you don't know what goes on here. also, most news is slanted to make one side look bad.

the large majority of Trump supporters, including every single one of the ones i know, regularly state that Trump is an asshole. EVERYONE knows he lies. he's not someone that any of us would want to hang out with. but we like many (not all) of the things he has done.

I didn't claim to know when it started or how long it existed. The fact is that one guy made it a household phrase. The guy who lost the most recent presidential election.

Yes, media can be biased. But if you manage to read the news as a way of looking for facts. You can kinda ignore the bias in a way. Let's say one source says "Person A won the game!" and the other one says "Person A finished second to last!". Both are true, there were two people competing in the game. So you come to the conclusion, "ok, this person A won a game with two contestants....".

I know sometimes it's not easy when all you hear is "The laptop!!!!" or "they stole the election!" without finding essential information about the how/why/who which paints a different picture.



That's some dangerous ice you're walking on....

Not to compare anyone else to other leaders of the past, but some of them built stadiums, highways etc. and were horrible for mankind.... So basically accepting someone despicable because you think he/she did some good things.

Interesting how you wouldn't even wanna hang out with him, but you still support the guy.

Not saying a leader has to be BFF material, but maybe share some of the same values would be a starting point?



/jarmo

[sandman]

"make belief MAGA ideology"  the MAGA ideology existed long before Trump and will exist long after Trump.

with comments like that, you make it clear that you're right - you don't know what goes on here. also, most news is slanted to make one side look bad.

the large majority of Trump supporters, including every single one of the ones i know, regularly state that Trump is an asshole. EVERYONE knows he lies. he's not someone that any of us would want to hang out with. but we like many (not all) of the things he has done.

I didn't claim to know when it started or how long it existed. The fact is that one guy made it a household phrase. The guy who lost the most recent presidential election.

Yes, media can be biased. But if you manage to read the news as a way of looking for facts. You can kinda ignore the bias in a way. Let's say one source says "Person A won the game!" and the other one says "Person A finished second to last!". Both are true, there were two people competing in the game. So you come to the conclusion, "ok, this person A won a game with two contestants....".

I know sometimes it's not easy when all you hear is "The laptop!!!!" or "they stole the election!" without finding essential information about the how/why/who which paints a different picture.



That's some dangerous ice you're walking on....

Not to compare anyone else to other leaders of the past, but some of them built stadiums, highways etc. and were horrible for mankind.... So basically accepting someone despicable because you think he/she did some good things.

Interesting how you wouldn't even wanna hang out with him, but you still support the guy.

Not saying a leader has to be BFF material, but maybe share some of the same values would be a starting point?



/jarmo

everyone shared values with Bush and would love to sit down and have a beer with him. was Bush good for mankind?

People are more than able to determine if someone is bad for mankind. i didn't say he was despicable. I said asshole - he's a rich pompous asshole and i probably have very little in common with him. he doesn't even drink!   

if you think there are many US politicians in Congress who are great people, I would argue you are sadly mistaken. For examine, Cuomo is a major asshole. that doesn't automatically make him a threat to mankind. assholes can govern effectively.

Requiring COVID patients to go to nursing homes? THAT's what makes Cuomo a threat to mankind.

[jarmo]

everyone shared values with Bush and would love to sit down and have a beer with him. was Bush good for mankind?

Maybe it wasn't so much Bush, but the people he surrounded himself with?

In this current case, it's a mixture of both.


Where do you draw the line? Someone defends right wing extremists and he's still the "good guy" because "look at the stock market!"?





/jarmo

[sandman]

everyone shared values with Bush and would love to sit down and have a beer with him. was Bush good for mankind?

Maybe it wasn't so much Bush, but the people he surrounded himself with?

In this current case, it's a mixture of both.


Where do you draw the line? Someone defends right wing extremists and he's still the "good guy" because "look at the stock market!"?





/jarmo

Give me the exact reference and quote where he defended right wing extremists. Not sure what you are referencing there.

We could play this game all day and pick and choose specific comments and actions of various politicians.

For example, you support someone that put kids in cages and bombed innocent brown civilians on a daily basis. But he’s a “good guy” cause he “acts presidential”. Where do you draw the line?

[jarmo]

Give me the exact reference and quote where he defended right wing extremists. Not sure what you are referencing there.

Well, he claimed to know nothing about David Duke when asked about it, yet he had mentioned the guy years before....  Also, there was the fine people on both sides thing. Obviously, to you that's not defending right wing extremism. That's just being presidential or something.

Not the first thing that comes to mind when neo-nazis or that kinds of people are talked about. The fact that some of them are fine people... But, that's just me. You're here basically proving the point....

We could play this game all day and pick and choose specific comments and actions of various politicians.

For example, you support someone that put kids in cages and bombed innocent brown civilians on a daily basis. But he’s a “good guy” cause he “acts presidential”. Where do you draw the line?

Yes, American leaders have been killing innocent people and overthrowing governments for quite some time.

You just answer my questions with more questions...

Is this wrong?
But is that wrong? 

Wouldn't expect anything less.



When a person goes on a campaign against immigration and as some kind of law & order person, that should ring some alarm bells.... That's usually not a good sign.

 I mean, unless you're one of those fine people from that galaxy far far far to the right ... 




/jarmo

[tim_m]

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/trump-administration-passed-chance-lock-more-pfizer-vaccine-doses-n1250357

Trump administration passed up chance to lock in more Pfizer vaccine doses
The White House reportedly declined “multiple” offers from Pfizer to strike a deal on more vaccines for the second quarter of 2021.

It is like he's trying to kill as many people on his way out as he can, how can anyone still supports someone who does this?

another example of taking a fact, spinning it to make Trump look bad, and having liberals fall for the trick and literally believing that Trump hates people and wants them to die.

but conservatives are the loony ones, right? 

let me try to make this simple for you:

did we know what drug company would have the vaccine first?  NO

should we have paid every drug company close to $10B for a few hundred million doses?  NO

what would happen if we guaranteed Pfizer $6B for 150 million full doses?

So we shouldn't have paid for more just because they might not have been able to deliver the doses we paid for? We're talking about saving millions of lives here. We do this shit with military hardware, for stuff we don't need, don't ask for or for stuff contractors are delinquent on and no one bats an eye. Now this is the thing we should be frugal on?

[sandman]

Give me the exact reference and quote where he defended right wing extremists. Not sure what you are referencing there.

Well, he claimed to know nothing about David Duke when asked about it, yet he had mentioned the guy years before....  Also, there was the fine people on both sides thing. Obviously, to you that's not defending right wing extremism. That's just being presidential or something.

he never defended David Duke. he said he did not know anything about him. several years prior, he had commented on him. i think it is one thing to make comments as a successful businessman. and a completely different thing to make a comment as a political figure. there is also a reluctance by all politicians to give in to reporters' traps. it is rare you will see a politician condemn certain people when they are asked on the spot. Trump asked for a list. its a shame no one ever provided him one.

the fine people on both sides is a hoax. you were played by the media. you claim you are smart enough to determine truth by reading various sources. promoting this hoax is proof that you are not able to find truth. this is exactly what i pointed out in my earlier post, and you have proven me correct. here is the full transcript (I bolded some relevant comments):

• • •

Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"

Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."

Reporter: "Forty-eight hours."

Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement.

"So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to --

Reporter: "So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?"

Trump: "I brought it. I brought it. I brought it."

Reporter: "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?"

Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here’s the thing --"

Reporter: (Inaudible)

Trump: "Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here’s the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened.

"Before I make a statement, I need the facts. So I don’t want to rush into a statement. So making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear was a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC -- her mother wrote me and said through, I guess, Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine -- really, actually, an incredible young woman. But her mother, on Twitter, thanked me for what I said.

"And honestly, if the press were not fake, and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice.  But unlike you, and unlike -- excuse me, unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts."

(crosstalk)

Reporter: "The CEO of Walmart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?"

Trump: "Not at all. I think the country -- look, you take a look. I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m President. The country is booming. The stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we’ve ever had in the history of our country. We’re doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So the head of Walmart, who I know -- who’s a very nice guy -- was making a political statement. I mean -- I’d do it the same way. And you know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement, that the statement is correct. And there was no way -- there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters. Unlike a lot of reporters --

Reporter: "Nazis were there."

Reporter: "David Duke was there."

Trump: "I didn’t know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, ‘His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.’ I couldn’t have made it sooner because I didn’t know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don’t know all of the facts.

"It was very important -- excuse me, excuse me -- it was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly. Because if I would have made a fast statement -- and the first statement was made without knowing much, other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made after, with knowledge, with great knowledge. There are still things -- excuse me -- there are still things that people don’t know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts."

Reporter: "Two questions. Was this terrorism? And can you tell us how you’re feeling about your chief strategist, Stephen Bannon?"

Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question:  Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.

(crosstalk)

Reporter: "Can you tell us broadly what your -- do you still have confidence in Steve?"

Trump: "Well, we’ll see.  Look, look -- I like Mr. Bannon. He’s a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him, he’s a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that regard. But we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he’s a good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly."

(crosstalk)

Reporter: "Sen. (John) McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville."

Trump: "Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead."

Reporter: "Well, I’m saying, as Senator --"

Trump: "No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me."

Reporter: "Senator McCain defined them as the same group --"

Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?

"Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day --

" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent."

Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?"

Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee."

Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?"

Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

"So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

"But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead."

[sandman]

Reporter: "Should the statues of Robert E. Lee stay up?"

Trump: "I would say that’s up to a local town, community, or the federal government, depending on where it is located."

Reporter: "How concerned are you about race relations in America? And do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office?"

Trump: "I think they’ve gotten better or the same. Look, they’ve been frayed for a long time. And you can ask President Obama about that, because he’d make speeches about it. But I believe that the fact that I brought in -- it will be soon -- millions of jobs -- you see where companies are moving back into our country -- I think that’s going to have a tremendous, positive impact on race relations.

"We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that’s going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations.  You know why? It’s jobs. What people want now, they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay, and when they have that, you watch how race relations will be.

"And I’ll tell you, we’re spending a lot of money on the inner cities.  We’re fixing the inner cities. We’re doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities.  It’s a priority for me, and it’s very important."

Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"

Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.

"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"

Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

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."


Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

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.


"Does anybody have a final --

Reporter: "What makes you think you can get an infrastructure bill?  You didn’t get health care --

Trump: "Well, you know, I’ll tell you. We came very close with health care. Unfortunately, John McCain decided to vote against it at the last minute. You’ll have to ask John McCain why he did that. But we came very close to health care. We will end up getting health care. But we’ll get the infrastructure. And actually, infrastructure is something that I think we’ll have bipartisan support on. I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure."

Reporter: "Mr. President, have you spoken to the family of the victim of the car attack?"

Trump: "No, I’ll be reaching out. I’ll be reaching out."

Reporter: "When will you be reaching out?"

Trump: "I thought that the statement put out -- the mother’s statement I thought was a beautiful statement. I will tell you, it was something that I really appreciated. I thought it was terrific. And, really, under the kind of stress that she’s under and the heartache that she’s under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something. I won’t forget it.

"Thank you, all, very much.  Thank you. Thank you."

[jarmo]

I read that Politifact article.


Maybe you remember better than I do, but was there talk from Trump about how there were some fine people in the countries affected by his travel ban? Or does that thinking only apply when it's convenient?


Essentially, if someone that supports you does something bad, your defense is: But there's bad people on the opposing side too.

Which is what you've been doing all along!

Trump did something bad.
But so did that other president.


Your defense is to point out someone else is bad, or did something wrong. Your answers are, more questions.

Around we go.



Speaking of going around, don't you think this whole election fraud hoax is a waste of everybody's time and making the US democracy seem like it's a "shit hole country"?




/jarmo

[sandman]

I read that Politifact article.


Maybe you remember better than I do, but was there talk from Trump about how there were some fine people in the countries affected by his travel ban? Or does that thinking only apply when it's convenient?


Essentially, if someone that supports you does something bad, your defense is: But there's bad people on the opposing side too.

Which is what you've been doing all along!

Trump did something bad.
But so did that other president.


Your defense is to point out someone else is bad, or did something wrong. Your answers are, more questions.

Around we go.



Speaking of going around, don't you think this whole election fraud hoax is a waste of everybody's time and making the US democracy seem like it's a "shit hole country"?




/jarmo

so let me get this straight, you read the politifact article, but you still spread lies that Trump said nazis were fine people???

[jarmo]

Let me get this straight, you answer by asking a question?

Again?

I didn't spread lies, did I? To me it looked like, if not exactly what you're doing, then maybe quite similar? Instead of saying "these people and their beliefs need to be condemned", there's a lot of dancing around the issue isn't there?

Edited to add. I forgot? His condemning of the Proud Boys in the election debate was very weak, wasn't it? Almost like support, until he later condemned them, remember? These people themselves even misunderstood what he said as him supporting them, right? But not only that, once again it was about the left because allegedly they're the real problem?





/jarmo