MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Denounces Racism in Charlottesville. Too Little, Too Late.

Did the president really need a teachable moment to denounce neo-Nazis?

It's too little too late that President Donald Trump has finally called out violent white nationalists who marched through the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend. One of them deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring 20 more.

It's pathetic that it took massive public backlash—including a lot from Republicans and conservatives—to spur the president to actually denounce neo-Nazis. Who still needs a teachable moment on this? Seventy-two years after the end of World War II and the president of the United States is slow off the mark to condemn white supremacists?

Rarely one for evenhanded rhetoric, President Trump's initial response referred only to "violence," and he pointedly refused to call out the protesters who beat a black man into the hospital.

The president even managed to squeeze in some political sloganeering over the weekend, declaring "we are all Americans first," echoing one of campaign themes.

There are three basic explanations for Trump's shameful response, one more troubling than the other. Maybe he's unaware that Nazis were responsible for murdering 11 million people. Or maybe he is so politically tone-deaf that he thought his original comments were adequate. Or maybe he just doesn't want to alienate those he considers an important part of his political constituency. Any way you look at it, it's not good.

President Trump surely isn't responsible for the car that killed Heather Heyer, but his rhetoric has helped to fill its gas tank. He wasn't slow to call out Black Lives Matter by name for supposedly "igniting" attacks on police even as he explicitly encouraged violence at his own campaign rallies, telling his supporters that he would cover their legal expenses if they got in trouble.

Just a few weeks ago, he encouraged police to rough up suspects.

If the president really is interested in curbing violence and restoring "law and order," it shouldn't be so hard for him to denounce neo-Nazis by name while upholding constitutional protections for free speech.

That's what we need from a chief executive in hyper-partisan and polarized times, but Donald Trump doesn't seem interested in being the president of most—much less all—Americans.

Produced by Todd Krainin. Written and narrated by Nick Gillespie.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So much derp.

  • GILMORE™||

    President Trump surely isn't responsible for the car that killed Heather Heyer, but his rhetoric has helped to fill its gas tank

    lol

  • WakaWaka||

    This is a really bad take and pretty hypocritical in comparison to Reason's response to a Bernie bro shooting up representatives. TDS is a real thing

  • GILMORE™||

    This is a really bad take and pretty hypocritical in comparison to Reason's response to a Bernie bro shooting up representatives

    How did that one go?... oh:

    Blame the Shooter, Not the "Rhetoric"

    ah. I see. If the left goes on a shooting spree, its a "bad apple". If some Junior-Klansman has a case of leadfoot, well its "Eliminationist Rhetorics! is whut done it!"

    I think its even more retarded than you admit - especially given no one actually knows the intent of the driver yet. Its pretty hard to provide some "alternate explanation" for why a shooter might drive halfway across the country to post up in center field and start sniping at congressmen (*oh, but they certainly tried, didn't they?).... whereas there is at least some possibility that the Yokel-Car-Killer was trying to flee people who were attacking his vehicle. someone said his windshield was already broken before he slammed into other cars, suggesting someone had been whacking at him while he was driving? i don't care enough to investigate but at least info like that would constitute... you know, "journalism", instead of the feels-mongering gibberish everyone pumps lately.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    All of the above assumes that contemporary political speech is both somehow more virulent than ever and responsible for any actual physical violence that happens. In reality, there are no grounds for either belief. In a country where political violence is vanishingly rare, gun violence has declined precipitously despite wider circulation of guns, and mass shootings betray no clear pattern of increase, it's ridiculous to blame words for increases in violence. As important, Bernie Sanders' and other progressives' often-incendiary rhetoric toward billionaires, plutocrats, the 1 Percent or whatever is no more responsible for James Hodgkinson's shooting spree than J.D. Salinger is responsible for Mark David Chapman's killing of John Lennon.

    Presumably if it's ridiculous to blame words for violence it's equally ridiculous to blame a lack of words (but notably not a suppression of them).

  • turco||

    ^This

  • ||

    lol in retard.

  • timbo||

    Trump might be an ass but he did nothing wrong here.

    He immediately called out all sides for acting like savages. The racists had a crazy that took it up one notch. I am positive that the Marxists will take it to that level in due time.

    Antifa calls for just as much violence in their rhetoric so Reason needs to make sure they apply equal coverage and ire when the left does this next time.
    I don't recall the president calling out leftists for the shooting spree at the baseball field.

    The correct thing to do is call all rioting destructionists savages and treat them all accordingly to the law. When one kills, he gets more punishment.

  • Azathoth!!||

    'Will take it to that level in due time'

    How quick we forget.

    We may be quick to condemn police here, but they're still people--A BLM supporter killed 5 people in Houston

    Oh, everyone was quick to create a gap between him and BLM--saying that he'd said he wasn't with BLM, he was just randomly upset about cops shooting black men.

    He just wanted every single thing BLM wants--but separately

    Did the president condemn anyone but the shooter? No.
    Did the president decry the violent rhetoric that was the clear impetus for this? No.
    Did the media scream at him until he relented and castigated the people they'd chosen to be victims. Well, yes actually....though there was no need to make him relent--almost before the bodies were cold, the president was back on track--spouting a watered down version of the rhetoric of the killer.

    And everyone was happy.

  • BambiB||

    I look forward to the day when one side or the other physically attacks the other - and the attacker is immediately shot dead - all on video.

    From what I've seen in Charlotte, that would mean a lot of dead libtards.

  • BambiB||

    Oops. Charlottesville. Fingers too fast!

  • Michael Hihn||

    From what I've seen in Charlotte, that would mean a lot of dead libtards.

    Proot you're a psycho, contard. Your time has expired. Your hatred is a disgrace. (gag)

  • ||

    I guess Reason get their talking points directly from the left now.

  • Red Twilight||

    You get yours from David Duke. No guesswork involved

  • ||

    Awww, you're so cute, just like a fuzzy kitten.

  • timbo||

    Dude, he said you are in the klan. A measured response from a rational individual no doubt.

    Go Castro, eh Red?

  • BambiB||

    You mean "fried" kitten, right?

  • SIV||

    Now?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hyperion goes psycho again!

    I guess Reason get their talking points directly from the left now.

    Psychopathic haters deny even absolute proof of their mental derangement.

    A new Cato study shows the odds of being killed by an extremist, Muslims are on top, followed by
    1 on 33 million to be killed by a a far-right extremist
    1 in 400 million by a far-left extremist.

    So, of course, Cato is now controlled by George Soros. (sneer)
    For the mentally deprived. you're 12 times more likely to die at the hands of a contard than a libtard.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Did the president really need a teachable moment to denounce neo-Nazis?

    Did the Nick Gillespie need to learn to contextualize events and responses to said events based on the information available at the time? ///rhetorical

    Anyway, Antifa pledges to continue doing what it does best. I.e. showing up to places it has no place being (like areas where a permitted demonstration is taking place), instigating violence, breaking shit shutting down opposition speech and generally being everything they claim to hate*. And for fucks sake can the world stop being so stupid that I find the need to defend some assholes over other assholes because I am trying to maintain consistent principles?

    *They, of course, can't really "hate" fascism because they don't know what fascism is. If they did, maybe they would stop being actual fascists using actual fascist tactics.

  • Cyto||

    And for fucks sake can the world stop being so stupid that I find the need to defend some assholes over other assholes because I am trying to maintain consistent principles?

    This is a major social disorder shared by many libertarians. It is almost a weird form of OCD. We can't resist correcting major logical fallacies or giant holes of hypocrisy in people's positions.

    And Trump is the all-time world champion at eliciting irrational and nonsensical responses. Every other topic that I can think of that involves this sort of thing to such a degree involve things like software development languages and open-source license formulas.

  • BambiB||

    I don't think the irrationality and nonsense is "elicited". "Synchronized" might be a better word. It's like thousands of distended abscesses in the libtard body just waiting to burst forth in all their pustulence. They can't help themselves.

    Where Trump excels is in making true statements that sound false, or which libtards oppose at their very core. But Trump's not responsible for the reactions. When someone makes a rational statement, all the zits may pop simultaneously - but they were going to pop anyway.

  • damikesc||

    How is ALL hate groups are bad "insufficient"?

    Outside of "He didn't blame the supremacists ALONE", I mean.

    I can say I dislike cockroaches. It doesn't mean that there is a specific type of cockroach I secretly do like.

  • Cyto||

    "All lives matter" is racist. This is known.

    Ipso-facto "all violence is bad" is racist. And it is clearly said in support of racist hate groups and their violence. Duh.

  • Red Twilight||

    It's like condemning all those who committed war crimes in WWII. And working hard to not mentioning the Nazis.

  • WakaWaka||

    Not really. The Japanese committed some pretty horrendous war crimes. You Euro-centric shitlord

  • Alec Leamas||

    His historical illiteracy is no impediment to his feelings of superiority.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I wish we covered the East Asian campaign of WW2. Not the Pacific but the actual land war. Lots of bravery and atrocity there as well. Get to read lots of stories of Sihks being fucking awesome.

  • Paul E||

    WakaWaka 1
    Red Twilight 0

  • Cyto||

    He certainly looked like a tool trying to condemn the violence.

    But he looks like a tool trying to talk about opinion polls too. And talking about his meetings with heads of state. This is kinda his thing. He really, really sucks at talking about ... everything. So getting histrionic because he said the right thing... but not exactly in the correct phrasing or including all of the correct condemnations is like getting angry at the chimp hammering away at the typewriter because the spelling in his copy of "Macbeth" is atrocious.

    And no, this is not like talking about WWII war crimes and trying really hard not to mention Nazis.

    In the first place, Hitler's Germany was an organized group of millions working to take over Europe and murder tens of millions as a matter of state policy. Charlottesville was a middling group of various alt-right groups and one idiot fellow traveler with a car. They couldn't even get organized enough to have a proper march without letting a bunch of college kids in skate gear carrying a couple of pieces of plywood derail them.

    In the second place, we do mention war crimes in WWII without mentioning the heinous crimes committed by the Japanese all the time. Like almost every single time we talk about WWII, we avoid mentioning the horrific crimes against the Chinese and Koreans, among others. I doubt that the last 100 mentions of WWII war crimes on TV had any mention of Japan. Does that imply a tacit endorsement of organized rape?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    like getting angry at the chimp hammering away at the typewriter because the spelling in his copy of "Macbeth" is atrocious.

    You think the original was any better?

  • SIV||

    It's racist to suggest the Japanese committed war crimes.

  • Trigger Warning||

    11.

  • Robert||

    STEVE SMITH APPROVE!

  • BambiB||

    Trump's a pro at making a true statement sound wrong.

    What's hilarious is when the press takes the bait, calls him out, says he lied - then a week or two or three down the line, they have to swallow their own words. You would think they'd learn - when Trump says something outrageous, fact-check your ASS off before you call him out.

  • damikesc||

    The Japanese and Soviets did some truly ghastly things. Guess that shouldn't be mentioned because...Nazis.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which ones are a current issue?
    See how easy it is!

  • damikesc||

    Nazis have been out of power since 1945. A little before Japan was conquered but decades before the Soviets.

    The NYT is blowing the Soviets still.

    So, you tell me son.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Which ones are a current issue? See how easy it is!

    Nazis have been out of power since 1945. A little before Japan was conquered but decades before the Soviets

    See how easy it is! NEITHER works for your shame game,

    So, you tell me son.

    I already did. And you've now agreed that your comment has no current relevance. If you're still confused:

    Guess that shouldn't be mentioned because...Nazis.

    No. Because, they aren't relevant, You're like the progtards who still blame us for slavery -- even though is had existed for all of known human history, was brought here by Europeans ... and we ended it in less than 90 years.

    And, we see you also share their viictimhood. No shame here, Sport.

  • BambiB||

    and we ended it in less than 90 years

    Not according to some black members of congress. Nooooo! According to them, the slave trade went on for 500 years and so many blacks died on the slave ships that sharks learned to follow the ships to feed on the dead bodies, and (ISTN!!), that's why sharks follow ships to this day!

    Now, how do you argue with someone that stupid?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Now, how do you argue with someone that stupid?

    I choose to ignore you.

  • damikesc||

    No. Because, they aren't relevant, You're like the progtards who still blame us for slavery -- even though is had existed for all of known human history, was brought here by Europeans ... and we ended it in less than 90 years.

    2017 - 1865 doesn't equal a number below 90.

    Try and do better.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Watch the page's craziest dumbfuck supremacist, damikesc!!!

    (We ended slavery in less that 90 years)

    2017 - 1865 doesn't equal a number below 90.

    Dumbfuck says slavery ended in 2017. For any other psychotics, 1865 - 1776 = 89

    Try and do better

    (sneer)

  • damikesc||

    Watch the page's craziest dumbfuck supremacist, damikesc!!!

    (We ended slavery in less that 90 years)

    2017 - 1865 doesn't equal a number below 90.

    Dumbfuck says slavery ended in 2017. For any other psychotics, 1865 - 1776 = 89

    Well, I'm a supremacist when compared to you. But, honestly, who isn't?

    I misread your usual word salad.

    Continue not being a human.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I misread your usual word salad.

    (laughing) Is that why you said slavery ended in 2017?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    damikesc,

    1776 is the year we began as a nation

    1865 is the year we ended slavery

    1865 - 1776 < 90

    Check your mail. Your recruitment letter from Google should arrive any day now.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (lol)

  • timbo||

    Red, would you be cool with him mentioning the communists and the number of dead there? Perhaps if he denounced antifa for being the fascists they are and then referred to all of the repressive murderous leftists regimes of the fascists, socialists, and communists as one, would you be happy?

    Of course these supremecists are pyschos and should be called out as such but the looming hypocrisy of what will not be said when the next leftists goes off the handle will be quite obvious.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Antifa freaks are the new Birthers.

  • damikesc||

    So if a group decides to kill an antifa goon...I should be outraged why?

  • Michael Hihn||

    (sneer) Another dumbfuck assumption.

  • damikesc||

    No assumption.

    And, no, I feel no empathy if an antifa goon is killed.

    C'est la vie and all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ME: Antifa freaks are the new Birthers.

    PSYCHO: So if a group decides to kill an antifa goon...I should be outraged why?

    ME: (sneer) Another dumbfuck assumption.

    PSYCHO: No assumption.

    Okay, just a dumbfuck lie about what I said.
    Still not as batshit crazy as you were here. (snort)
    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6933212

  • damikesc||

    Okay, just a dumbfuck lie about what I said.
    Still not as batshit crazy as you were here. (snort)

    Well, I can only defer to your clear expertise in batshit crazy.

    The antifa goons started the violence. So be it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    EIGHTH TIME I'VE LINKED THE VIDEO PROVING THE TROLL damiskesc A PSYCHOTIC LIAR

    The antifa goons started the violence. So be it..

    (snort)
    Video shows exact moments leading up to the supremacists initiating the violence. And the assault.
    PROOF the President is as psycho as his trolls here,
    1) Counter-protesters had NO baseball bats,
    2) Counter-protesters DID NOT charge anyone. Standing motionless when the alt-right launched their violent assault.
    3) The supremacists had the ONLY bats (sticks actually)

    But they'll use every chance to repeat the same sick lies, Today's brown shirts.

  • BambiB||

    Depends - who threw the first punch/swung the first bat?

    From what I've seen, most of the violence seems to start on the left. So for my money, if a guy swings a bat at someone's head, and someone else puts a bullet through bat-boy's head - I'm good with that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER psycho!

    Depends - who threw the first punch/swung the first bat?

    The first punch was by the alt-right ... who had the only bats. Proof below, chump

    From what I've seen, most of the violence seems to start on the left.

    It will take me a sec to jam that up your ass, Sport ...

    So for my money, if a guy swings a bat at someone's head, and someone else puts a bullet through bat-boy's head - I'm good with that.

    The psychos will agree. The honest ones will look at the video proof, and write you off as ... bat-shit crazy. The ones who didn't immediately
    (sneer)

  • ||

    Why should they stop? No one is stopping them.

    And Reason is full blown retard now.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Now? Roofie, you were here for Robbie's stream of derp.

  • Paul E||

    It's like Reason has forgotten that Trump has been "condemning" these white supremacist idiots months ago. He has to do it each time they pop up? I didn't remember Obama condemning BLM, he applauded them. I guess some racists are more equal than others, it's just a shame that a magazine like Reason has lost its moral and mental compass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's like Reason has forgotten that Trump has been "condemning" these white supremacist idiots months ago.

    Alex Jones says so! (lol)

  • sharmota4zeb||

    It's not even every time they pop up. It's every time reports about them go national. In a nation of 320 million people, there will be a rally of every kind of hate group at least once a month. White supremacists in the South are the current narrative.

    The segregationists a few miles from my New Jersey home who work to keep the Joooos from moving into their town won't get any coverage on Reason. Mahwah, NJ uses an ordinance against posting signs to prevent the construction of an eruv.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you have any clue what NATIONAL news is? Compared with a purely local story?
    I didn't think so.

    And you LIED about what your video link shows, SHAME ON YOU..
    Like those conspiracy emails with phony links -- because goobers are eager to be manipulated by puppetmasters,

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Can antifa be charged under RICO? Or maybe we could dust off some of he sedition laws. They really need to be taken down, and fast. They are in no way a legitimate organization. They are coordinated to cause violence and unrest for the outpost of sunvert No the constitution.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    You understand that the point in all of this is that EVERYONE has a right to free speech, assembly, etc, right? Mind your footing on the slippery slopes you're advocating.

  • damikesc||

    If they just protested, I wouldn't carry.

    It's their tendency towards violence in ALL of their interactions that is a concern.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Anitfa is a violent group and should be stopped.

  • BambiB||

    If the dudes carrying AR-15s had triple-tapped one of the Antifa pukes when they swung the first bat, justice would have been served and the correct course of action for future encounters would have been laid.

    Every sane state has reasonable self-defense laws. Someone swinging a bat at your head (or someone else's) is justifiably a target for the use of deadly force.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If the dudes carrying AR-15s had triple-tapped one of the Antifa pukes when they swung the first bat,

    They didn't do that, you pathetic piece of shit.
    This video is undeniable proof that you and Last of the Shitlords are bat-shit crazy psychos.
    (vomit)

  • BambiB||

    So you show me video of Antifa counter-protesters (who did not have a parade permit) obstructing the neo-Nazis (who did have a permit) and video of an Antifa puke clubbing a neo-Nazi puke (drawing first blood) and that's supposed to be evidence of... what?

    I note only that your response is typical of the Left - no facts, just name-calling.

  • Michael Hihn||

    and that's supposed to be evidence of... what?

    YOU CAN'T READ EITHER? ABSOLUTE PROOF YOU'RE A FUCKING LIAR.

    I note only that your response is typical of the Left - no facts, just name-calling.

    (snort) Absolute proof is not a personal attack ...WHICH YOU JUST DID!. (OMG)

    Now I'll prove your NEW bigotry in saying I'm on the left (lol)
    This links to the web archive of my political writing. Especially see the ones my "leftwing" Taxes. Health Care and New Federalism .. as I continue laughing at your pathetic ass.

    The aggression here is verbal ... but the same thuggery and bullying they showed at Charlottesville.
    (sneer)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Can antifa be charged under RICO?

    Depends. What did they do?

  • damikesc||

    Started all of the violence.

    The girl's death is their fault.

    RICO the shit out of them. And all of their supporters.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is the NINTH time I've PROVEN that the damikesc troll is a psycho liar

    FASCIST: "Can antifa be charged under RICO?"

    ME: "Depends. What did they do?"

    FASCIST: "started all of the violence."

    You have NO SHAME AT ALL, like your fellow thugs in Charlottesville

    One more time for the morally deprived,
    This video provides absolute proof that
    1) ALL the violence was launched by the fascists
    2) The counter-fascists DID NOT have baseball bats.
    3) THE FASCISTS had the only clubs.

    (sneer)

  • Cyto||

    Trump is pathetic, but this critique is extremely lame. It is the mainstream view on every news channel and website, but "he didn't condemn this using the exact words I want him to use" is really, really weak. And bemoaning the fact that he said what you wanted him to say two days later is also weak.

    But it is the popular thing to do.

    It isn't like what Trump had to say had any bearing on events. There wasn't a tinder box waiting to be ignited if he didn't come out and strongly condemn the nazis. There was no great temporal need for him to say anything - other than political pandering.

    Contrast this with other events in recent history that did have a moment when a well-timed and well-thought-out speech from the president could have prevented violence against people and property. And think of those moments when, instead of calming the waters, our president stirred the pot.

    This guy is an 11th order douche. But pretending that tone-deaf politics and just general stupidity are the source of all evil is just .... stupid.

    These alt-right douchebags are the reaction, not the cause. The virulent reaction to Trump, #BLM's racially charged rhetoric and a dozen other overreaches from the race-baiting professionals are the cause.

    These white-power nozzles where quietly living under their rocks since we chased them there 30 years ago. The desperate attempts to keep race as an issue is what allowed them to crawl out again. Not some idiot reality TV host and his tweets

  • Rebel Scum||

    These alt-right douchebags are the reaction, not the cause. The virulent reaction to Trump, #BLM's racially charged rhetoric and a dozen other overreaches from the race-baiting professionals are the cause.

    This. I would add the legitimized violence of the forever ironically named 'Antifa'.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Mind control has taken your soul.

  • chemjeff||

    These alt-right douchebags are the reaction, not the cause.

    Do you think white supremacy started last year or something? It has been around for quite some time, as I'm sure you well know.

    The alt-right in particular started sometime in the mid-00's - yes, it predated even Obama.

    So no, neither their ideology nor their movement is a response to BLM provocations.

    No one in this sorry tale deserves to be let off the hook for their own free choices. No one forced the racists to protest. No one forced the antifa to engage in violence in the streets. They all did so by their own free choices, and they deserve to be condemned for their choices.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No one in this sorry tale deserves to be let off the hook for their own free choices. No one forced the racists to protest. No one forced the antifa to engage in violence in the streets. They all did so by their own free choices, and they deserve to be condemned for their choices.

    True, but it's also true that when you deny people their free speech rights (and due process and presumption of innocence, etc.) incidents like this become far more likely. That and it's starting to look like the governor and mayor did about all they could to encourage this confrontation, much like in the case in Berkeley. But why would an ostensibly libertarian site want to dig into those issues too deeply?

    "Instead, the city's pleadings said that its decision to revoke the permit was based primarily on the unmanageable numbers of people who would show up. An affidavit from the police chief said that they expected twice as many counter-protesters (2,000) as protesters (1,000). Yet, the city did not revoke the permits for the counter-protesters, too.
    ...
    In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an 'unlawful assembly' and clear the area.
  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Do you think white supremacy started last year or something? It has been around for quite some time, as I'm sure you well know.

    Yes, and it's an increasingly fringe movement, to the point that a 'Unite the Right' movement took months of PR and hype to manage to get about 200 people to go protest in Charlottesville. Two. Hundred.

    The alt-right in particular started sometime in the mid-00's - yes, it predated even Obama.

    Was this about the time Kanye told the world that GWB hated black people?

    So no, neither their ideology nor their movement is a response to BLM provocations.

    No, it's a response to the left's increasingly "If you disagree with me at all it's because you're a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot-of-the-month" attitude over the past decade plus. And now that the left is normalizing and moralizing violence in response to speech they don't like, and the media and Democrat politicians are at either tacitly encouraging it or at least not vocally opposing it, it'll get even worse.

  • Paul E||

    Also, Nazi's are socialists so yeah know... progressives. Just progressives that are pro-white rather than pro-black so everyone pretends that they must be on the right because everyone knows that Republicans hate blacks; we know this because they don't want to just give people free stuff.

  • marshaul||

    Nazis aren't progressives, they're merely collectivist.

    Playing pedantry with labels is pointless unless you're actually pedantic.

  • Cyto||

    This is a stupid response. Nowhere do I suggest any such thing.

    The idiot alt-right marches and their current notoriety is what I am clearly referring to. We spent the 70's, 80's and a bit of the 90's ridiculing their types into a deep dark corner.

    Confronting them head on and putting them on national TV has given them new life. They still can't muster more than a couple of hundred people, but that is up from 13 people two years ago.

    In a rare break of form, I'm going to go full argumentum ad verecundiam. I know what I'm talking about on this topic, because I've lived it. Back in the 80's north Georgia was Klan central. I walked into country bars with my black wife on my arm, into rooms that undoubtedly had more than a couple of Klan types. My wife and I planted our flag in the shadow of Stone Mountain. We had a nice view of the Confederate Monument from our front porch. There is no more "ground zero" for the Klan than Stone Mountain, and no more middle finger than a race-mixing family right on their doorstep.

    The demographics changed over the years, but we were among the first. I had every reason to have a small arsenal in case someone decided to have a bonfire outside.

    I'm no Medgar Evers. By the time we were a couple in the deep south in the mid 80's, open racism was dying. But I was at the Klan marches in Atlanta every year. Arm in arm with my wife, backs turned to the short-chromosome crew. And without anyone to fight, they went home.

  • Cyto||

    This wasn't an easy victory. It was hard-won. Because most people wanted to confront the racist marches and stop them. The politicians would deny them permits. And average folk wanted to go down and throw things at them and beat them up. Which is exactly what they wanted - a violent confrontation.

    But we've forgotten the lessons of two generations past. And instead of following the proven recipe, we've decided that what you really need to do is confront "racists" and bigots and shout them down and assault them.

    And what happened? Did the last 18 guys go away? No, now we've got a new bunch of folks who got "radicalized" by all this nonsense.

    I don't know any of these alt-right folks. Just what I see on TV. But I do know plenty of people who are frustrated and angry about all the rhetoric and race-baiting that has become the norm over the last several years. Remember, we live in a time where a campy gay guy who dates a black guy can not only be called a homophobic racist, but he can be violently confronted because of his virulent racism and homophobia.

    The alt-right idiots are trailing the trend by at least 5 years. They are the reaction. And the way it is being handled, they are going to continue growing for quite a while. We quite sensibly tried to put this evil back in to pandora's box, but a few politicians keep taking it back out so they can grab a bit of power.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    That was a very nice set of comments, Cyto. Thanks.

  • Paul E||

    People seem to think that demonizing white men as the cause of all the worlds problems wouldn't have a reaction at all. I'm pretty sure if we started blaming blacks for stuff like high murder rates and poor economic performance of whites BLM would torch entire cities to the ground. The fact that a small handful of idiots with tiki lights showed up to a Nazi party shows you the hypocrisy of the left. Even after being blamed for everything from Trans men not being able to peek at prepubescent girls, black QB's who insult the entire country not able to get a job, and not wanting to elect a corrupt incompetent communist as President and the most they could muster was a tiny billionth of a percentage of white men in the country.

    You tell me who the real radicals are.

  • Presskh||

    Great comment, Paul E.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The fact that a small handful of idiots with tiki lights showed up to a Nazi party

    Check this photo so you don't publicly humiliate yourself again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    P.S. The graphic atop this very page ALSO proves that Paul E lies about a "small handful" of nazis on a torch parade.

  • retiredfire||

    It is you, who have humiliated yourself, by claiming that is more than a small handful.
    And riddle me this: With no "counter" antifa people there, was there any violence by these supposedly deranged white-supremacists and neo-Nazi's?
    If the anarchist antifas has stayed away, the next day, there would have been the same amount of violence.
    One group was there to exercise their Constitutional right, the other was there to stop them from doing it.
    Which one was doing the wrong thing?

  • Michael Hihn||

    It is you, who have humiliated yourself, by claiming that is more than a small handful.

    I provide proof. You repeat the bullshit.
    200-300 is not a "small handful" Sport.

    MORE PROOF that you're a brainwashed goober. See the alt-right initiate the violence.

    Anyone else tempted to believe this psycho? Just click the original photo link to see how massive a liar he is.

    Mindlessly repeating tribal slogans on blind faith is kinda dumb, but typical.
    So, despite my attempt, you humiliated yourself even more this time.
    For the cause (white supremacy)

  • chemjeff||

    The point is, the idea of white supremacy has been around for quite some time, and BLM is a response to it, not the other way around.

    I'm not excusing the violence. I do disagree with the proposed timeline of "who responded to whom".

    I think the current alt-right antics are due to a couple of things: first, they think that they have a president who is "on their side" (whether he genuinely is or not is immaterial to them), and that we are getting more diverse as a nation, and they don't like it. I get it, somewhat. You go to certain Walmarts in certain areas and if you are a middle-class white yuppie, you might think that you have entered a foreign nation. But of course their proposed solution is not the correct one.

    I am sorry that you had to go through what you did.

  • Cyto||

    My point is, the current "alt-right" is not the Klan-Nazi coalition of the 70's. Those guys are gone. The "White Power" David Duke types are all in the rear-view mirror.

    These new guys are spewing some of the same stuff, modified for a more contemporary america, but they are motivated and energized by a new feeling of being wronged.

    I'll bet they still would have seen a resurgence due to the increase in immigration over the last decade and the very extended recession, but nothing like what we have seen with national notoriety. That required added layers of perceived wrongs - and then a final layer of people willing to have violent confrontations over race (#BLM) and politics (antifa). Now you have everything you need to get a bunch of right wing race-conscious dudes all riled up. Not a big bunch, mind you. But still, about an order of magnitude more than you could have managed 10 years ago. Maybe 2 orders of magnitude.

  • NoVaNick||

    My point is, the current "alt-right" is not the Klan-Nazi coalition of the 70's. Those guys are gone.

    Do you mean we don't hear of things like this anymore?
    /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

    Thank God we don't! Although the current reaction to the events in C-ville make what happened then seem pale in comparison.

  • Michael Hihn||

    My point is, the current "alt-right" is not the Klan-Nazi coalition of the 70's

    Far worse. And the south had always been THE most anti-Nazi until recently.

  • Cyto||

    Oh, and on the "go through what you did" front: What I learned is that there are vanishingly few overtly racist white people left in america.

    In 15 years exactly 1 white person said anything to us, and that was a drunk frat boy who yelled "Salt and Pepper!!! WooooHooo" out a car window.

    Black people saying something? Not all that uncommon, even in 2000. I had plenty of guys threaten me, and she had plenty of gross overtures and rebukes as a traitor to her race. I even resorted to telling a group of young black guys that they could leave me alone, or "we can all go to the hospital together." That was enough for them to come to the conclusion that I was probably crazy enough that they didn't want to get too close.

    But in post 1970 america, I didn't really go through much. People don't give a crap about race, not in their daily lives. At least, not most people. And certainly not in the "racist south", where the races have been living cheek by jowl forever. The only people who still feel empowered to hold racist views are college age black men and politicians. And I suppose now we have to add a couple of thousand idiots waving the "alt-right" banner.

    But you can judge just how racist we are by walking down the street. My church is a southern baptist church. An old one. A conservative, bible thumping one. And we have a lot of diversity. And lots of mixed race kids in the nursery.

    No, racism isn't back. But dang if we aren't trying to bring it back

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "The point is, the idea of white supremacy has been around for quite some time, and BLM is a response to it, not the other way around."

    No, the current round of neo nazi marches is a response to BLM and all the other Marxist 'kill whitey' racism going around. Up until recently, they were pretty dormant overall.

    Which brings us to the real threat, these Antifa people. Far more numerous and backed by communist traitors like Soros. They need to be destroyed as quickly as possible.

  • Presskh||

    Agree. The Antifa and Soros both need to be destroyed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Says the raging fascist thug(s)

  • DesigNate||

    I thought that BLM was a reaction to the institutionalized racism of how cops treat black people.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That's a nice story to try and gain sympathy, but it's really about more marxism. Just like it is with every leftist group.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Like the fascism in every rightist group.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    BLM is an opportunistic response (building the careers of lowlifes like DeeRay McKesson and Shaun Smith) to false perceptions based on lies about, among others, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray (and let's throw in Trayvon Martin for good measure). And while we're at it, scour the MSM for statements from Obama or his administration condemning riots, the destruction of public and private property and anti-police violence. But those omissions are OK; Obama is the first Black President and we spent 8 years forgiving him just about everything.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why is drool sliding off your chin?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    It is a stupid response but it's jeff so it goes without saying that it is stupid.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you EVER add anything of substance?

  • damikesc||

    No one in this sorry tale deserves to be let off the hook for their own free choices. No one forced the racists to protest. No one forced the antifa to engage in violence in the streets. They all did so by their own free choices, and they deserve to be condemned for their choices.

    Except everybody is anxious, yet again, to let antifa off the hook for what they did.

    This isn't a one-off for the Blackshirt goon squad.

  • Michael Hihn||

    No one forced the antifa to engage in violence in the streets.

    It's called self-defense.

    I call you out.
    1) It was NOT "the antifa" (likely some crazies, but not an Antifa event.)
    2) They initiated no violence.

    Prove otherwise.

  • damikesc||

    They've initiated violence repeatedly.

    The only good antifa goon is a dead one.

  • Presskh||

    The group protesting the statue removal had the lawful permit to protest, while the leftist anti-protestors did not. There would have been no violence if the left had not shown up trying to unlawfully shut down a protest. They got what they deserved - it's a pity that a few more of them weren't taken out. Hopefully, this will go a long way towards ending the radical left's intimidation tactics towards those with opposing views.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The group protesting the statue removal had the lawful permit to protest

    The permit was for a RALLY -- in a specific park -- which they totally violated ... as PROVEN at the video link below.

    There would have been no violence if the left had not shown up trying to unlawfully shut down a protest.

    BLAME THE VICTIMS! Like the original nazis
    I'm calling out THAT lie with video proof.

    They got what they deserved - it's a pity that a few more of them weren't taken out.

    Fucking nazi

    How crazy is he? (lol)

    Hopefully, this will go a long way towards ending the radical left's intimidation tactics towards those with opposing views.

    Crazy enough to equate "intimidation tactics" with violent assault and even murder -- even wishing more had been killed. FUCK freedom of speech and assembly - they are the Master Race!

    Here's ANOTHER video exposing these psycho liars. Undeniable proof of who initiated aggression.

    HERE'S THE SICK FUCKS AT FOX NEWS PRAISING THE PLOWING OF CARS INTO PEOPLE ... AND ENCOURAGiNG MORE OF IT.

    The clinical definition of a psychopath is a total absence conscience ... thus of guilt, for anything.

  • retiredfire||

    Apparently blind as well as dishonest.
    Question: Those people blocking the way of the legally permitted - supported by the ACLU and the federal courts - marchers, what were they doing?
    Looks like preventing people from exercising their Constitutional rights of being able to move about freely.
    Stopping someone from going where they want is a criminal act.
    You commies don't want to admit it, but you are all criminals, at heart, and you try to cloak it in phony rhetoric of "defending 'our' values", when you are doing nothing but advocating anarchy.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Apparently blind as well as dishonest.

    I jammed it up his ass on who initiated the violence. But haters and bigots ignore proof (sneer)

  • damikesc||

    So, you're admitting to being a psychopath?

    Don't want violence --- don't start violence?

    But given antifa's proclivity for it, well, an eye for an eye is not a bad idea in this case.

    Every conservative in a antifa area should be armed to the teeth.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, you're admitting to being a psychopath?

    By linking absolute proof that you're bat shit crazy.

    Don't want violence --- don't start violence?

    Tell that to your fellow nazis who launched the violence ... as proven by the video.

  • damikesc||

    And plowing a car into people blocking the road and attacking cars is justified.

    Backing up and then hitting them again MIGHT be crossing the line, but that would be a case-by-case thing.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The fucking lliar NEVER stops

    damikesc|8
    And plowing a car into people blocking the road and attacking cars is justified.

    Prove it with a video ... like I jammed up your ass nine times now.
    Never happened
  • retiredfire||

    If you say that the "counter-protesters" initiated no violence, you are either incredibly stupid or simply not being honest.
    Anyone with half a brain cell knows why they were there, and it wasn't to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. It was to stop those who were, and they intended to do it by force.
    Be honest, if that is at all possible for a libtard.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If you say that the "counter-protesters" initiated no violence, you are either incredibly stupid or simply not being honest.

    I proved it dipshit. Video.
    (sneer)

  • damikesc||

    If you say that the "counter-protesters" initiated no violence, you are either incredibly stupid or simply not being honest.

    With Hihn, embrace the word "and".

  • Michael Hihn||

    TENTH time for the video link proving daikesc a psycho liar.

    1) Violence ENTIRELY by the fascists, Counter-protestors just standing there.
    2) NO baseball bats by the counters.
    3) ONLY fascists carrying clubs.

    daikesc is showing the same compulsive aggression that we watched his brothers launch in Charlottesvillle. Pathetic thuggery by the authoritarian mind of the KKK and Nazis.,.

  • ThomasD||

    Deny it all you want but this was exactly the sort of spotlighted stage they've been looking for for a long time.

    They are very much the totalitarian Ying to the antifa/BLM totalitarian Yang. Two sides of the same anti-individual liberty-statist-authoritarian coin.

    Yet some here want to persist in treating them differently. They are all our enemies and I for one hope they all lose.

    That Gillespie et al want to call out Trump in ways that they never called out Obama tells me that, all protestations to the contrary, they are really only interested in scoring partisan points.

  • Michael Hihn||

    That Gillespie et al want to call out Trump in ways that they never called out Obama tells me...

    LAME (aka bullshit)
    You mean the Kenyan? (lol)

  • chemjeff||

    but "he didn't condemn this using the exact words I want him to use" is really, really weak.

    Actually, it's more like "he didn't condemn using his own usual words for condemnation". We all know that Trump has the capacity to denounce his opponents in harsh belittling terms - McCain, Megyn Kelly, Rubio, Hillary, Judge Curiel, etc., etc. And yet when it comes to the darker elements on the right, his denunciations are, well, rather more mild. We don't see tweets from Trump denouncing Richard Spencer or David Duke as "sad losers who are sad. Sad!" Why not?

    And before you respond, I don't think it is because Trump is some sort of racist. I do think instead that he really doesn't care that much about it one way or another. My hypothesis is, Trump thinks that while Richard Spencer may be a racist, he doesn't bring negative publicity to Trump or stand in his way, so therefore Trump leaves him alone, and he doesn't really give a shit what kind of image that leaves with everyone else.

  • Praveen R.||

    I think Trump is a little bit of a racist, but not to the extent of the neo nazis. You can tell how easily he gets swayed by stories where the alleged perpetrators are a minority compared to a white person(unless that white person is his enemy).
    But yeah, I agree with your point that part of his reluctance here definitely has to do with the fact that he doesn't want o piss them off and he knows that is one part of the 35% that still supports him strongly. He definitely does not want to go into the 20s for strong support.

  • WakaWaka||

    Good feelz analysis

  • chemjeff||

    Well, that's not actually my point.

    My point is, I think Trump doesn't condemn the alt-righters in his usual inflammatory style because the alt-righters don't antagonize him directly. Because Trump is basically nothing more than a narcissist. The moment that Richard Spencer starts attacking Trump in person on Twitter, then Trump will turn into the biggest anti-racist you have ever seen and denounce Spencer in the harshest terms.

  • Cyto||

    This is probably a pretty good analysis.

    Trump is a con man. If you say "Trump is great", he'll say you are great. Watch his interactions with others.

    Penn Jillette got the Trump treatment. When they were on "Apprentice" together, they would complement each other whenever they could. But then Penn was asked if he would support Trump for president. He very nicely said Trump is great and all, but no, he wouldn't support him for president.

    And Trump unleashed a hailstorm of tweets saying the Penn is terrible, and his magic show is failing and he's awful.

    Look at his own team. The second they say anything that might be disparaging, they become the enemy.

    I think Trump's moral compass extends to "Do you support the Trump brand?" If yes, then he'll support you right back. If no, then he'll destroy you.

    I'm not sure, but I think that perfectly describes narcissistic personality disorder.

  • chemjeff||

    Yeah I think that is pretty much right.

    And because the alt-righters "support the Trump brand", Trump won't condemn them directly.

    But at some point, he really ought to. Because everyone else sees it as Trump playing footsie with racists and bigots.

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, but it won't buy him anything. Nobody really cares. It is all fake outrage.

    There is not one single Trump-detractor who is going to change their opinion and support him if he comes out and delivers a thundering rebuke of the alt-right.

    And there is not one single Trump supporter who is going to jump ship because he says "I condemn violence" instead of "I condemn racist groups".

    And with the current 4th estate commentariate, there isn't a chance in hell anything he says would be well received. Remember his inaugural address? Remember how they rushed out to condemn it as a dark view of America?

    He literally as no incentives to do "the right thing" here.

    None of these players helped get him elected. They all fought tooth and nail against him. The media, the Democrats, the Republican establishment. In fact, being against all of them is probably what got him elected.

    So he has every incentive to keep doing the wrong thing.

    Man, we are so screwed. Nobody holds any leverage on this guy to get him to head in the right direction.

  • chemjeff||

    This is what happens when you have a guy who is driven *only* by incentives. Too bad James Buchanan couldn't be here to observe the current spectacle.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    That seems pretty accurate to me as well.

  • WakaWaka||

    Well said

  • Michael Hihn||

    I think Trump is a little bit of a racist, but not to the extent of the neo nazis.

    He can't lose even the smallest parts of his shrinking base ... which is why he's NOT a President for all Americans. They only support him while he's an asshole (aka braying jackass)

    Today, he even caved to David Duke, Pathetic.

    His approval just crashed. Now under 30% of independents, so he's a walking corpse.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    A "walking corpse" doesn't have the power of the presidency. Oh, wait ... Gerald Ford. Never mind.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Take a wild guess on why I added "walking"
    So far, he's the greatest failure as a President. And he keeps attacking the same votes he needs.
    I was an Entrepreneur Coach/Trainer/Consultant for 35 years, whatever the business owners felt they needed. So I spotted Trump as a phony almost immediately. Family businesses tend to exist at the extremes -- vary into "participative" (entrepreneurial) )management ... or almost totally authoritarian. That's why it's impossible for Trump to govern. He's NEVER had the slightest clue how to be a LEADER. He always surrounded himself with ass-kissers, which is why mere disagreement totally destroyed him.

    Here's my guess on what Mueller is trying to connect. There came a time when all Trump's bankruptcies meant NO banks would lend to him .... so a Russian bank has been almost his entire lender for years. He owes EVERYTHING HE IS to the Russians. They own his very soul. That's why Putin is about the only person on earth Trump has never critcized.

  • retiredfire||

    But you love the Russians, especially when they were the Soviets.
    Why do you condemn them? Simply because you think Trump colluded with them?
    Or, if they are as wonderful as all you commies thought they were, until last July, why would it be a problem for Trump to do business with them?
    Or is this all because: Trump?

  • Michael Hihn||

    But you love the Russians, especially when they were the Soviets.

    You're drooling. Rusisians were never mentioned.

    Why do you condemn them? Simply because you think Trump colluded with them?

    Nobody was condemned, Slick..

    Or, if they are as wonderful as all you commies

    Crazty, fumbfuck psychotic says I'm a commie .,.. because I don't swallow his shit.

    Bend over It will go in easier, (laughing)

    Here's the web archive of my poiitical writing. Check the ones on Taxes, Health Care and New Federalism ... while everyone here joins me in laughing at you (except your fellow thugs)

    (sneer)

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The neo nazis weren't the problem. It was antifa. They got exactly what they wanted. Even managed to martyr one of their own in the process. Which I'm sure their evil leaders are gleeful about. Antifa made damn sure the whole ting spun out of control. Without them it was just a bunch of reviled fringe douchebags making idiots out of themselves.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The neo nazis weren't the problem. It was antifa.

    (laughing)

  • retiredfire||

    You're a commie, thus you know that to be truthful about what you want would repel most Americans.
    The truth is alien to you and you think someone telling the truth is a laughing matter.
    Got it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're a commie

    I already jammed that up your psychotic ass here
    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6933360

    And here's a video with absolute proof of who launched the violence.

    (sneer)

  • damikesc||

    Actually, it's more like "he didn't condemn using his own usual words for condemnation". We all know that Trump has the capacity to denounce his opponents in harsh belittling terms - McCain, Megyn Kelly, Rubio, Hillary, Judge Curiel, etc., etc. And yet when it comes to the darker elements on the right, his denunciations are, well, rather more mild. We don't see tweets from Trump denouncing Richard Spencer or David Duke as "sad losers who are sad. Sad!" Why not?

    What influence do Spencer or Duke have? Why GIVE them legitimacy by attacking them in the first place?

    My hypothesis is, Trump thinks that while Richard Spencer may be a racist, he doesn't bring negative publicity to Trump or stand in his way, so therefore Trump leaves him alone, and he doesn't really give a shit what kind of image that leaves with everyone else.

    Trump hasn't attacked Nick Gillespie, either. Because Nick isn't any more relevant than Spencer. Trump does limit his attacks to people with some actual notoriety/fame.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Trump has no idea who Richard Spencer is. He knows about David Duke because the media had a shitfit over him during the campaign.

    These people are simply not important enough to be noticed. There are so few of them Trump could end each tweet with trumpish invective against them and it would have no effect whatsoever on his base.

    Because they're not it. They're not capable of being a 'base' for any national or statewide office.

    Trump's not 'leaving them alone'. They're too small for Trump to even see.

  • Michael Hihn||

    He knows about David Duke because the media had a shit over him during the campaign.

    You've been brainwashed AGAIN!

    When he was asked about Duke's endorsement, he pulled a typical bullshit evasion, said he never heard of Duke. Within 24 hours, he was proven a liar again. He'd spoken of him for years,

    Sorry.
    But Donald may give you a cookie!

  • damikesc||

    When he was asked about Duke's endorsement, he pulled a typical bullshit evasion, said he never heard of Duke. Within 24 hours, he was proven a liar again. He'd spoken of him for years,

    Negatively, mind you. He'd spoken of him negatively.

    Funny you forgot that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Only after his lie was exposed.

  • ThomasD||

    Thoughtcrime. That's what you are on about. Nothing more.

    Pathetic but unsurprising.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thoughtcrime. That's what you are on about. Nothing more.

    Pathetic but unsurprising.
    Umm, he made an observation. No crime, thought or otherwise.

  • ThomasD||

    " My hypothesis is, Trump thinks that while Richard Spencer may be a racist, he doesn't bring negative publicity to Trump or stand in his way, so therefore Trump leaves him alone, and he doesn't really give a shit what kind of image that leaves with everyone else."

    So to Chemjeff Trump is 'guilty' of 'permitting' someone to have wrongthink for not calling him out over it.

    Yeah, that would be thought crime.

    Not exactly a libertarian approach to free minds.

  • ThomasD||

    Or does Chemjeff really want the President to be the thought police? Clearly he was more comfortable with Obama getting onto people he disagreed with, but does he really want this President playing that game too?

  • Michael Hihn||

    So to Chemjeff Trump is 'guilty' of 'permitting' someone to have wrongthink for not calling him out over it.

    That's pathetic. even from you, the opposite of what he said

    And you need to learn what a thought crime is.
    Hint: "leaves him alone" is hardly a thought crime.

    Anything else I can help you grasp?

  • Trigger Warning||

    Good point, Cyto.

    I don't understand how so many leftards simultaneously hold the view that all races are equal human beings, and then subdivide the entirety of human existence in categories of race. The most common reason I hear is "because some races were marginalized and subjugated by others." Which is true. But...why does that mean EVERYTHING has to be about race, all the time?

  • ThomasD||

    The left is also the group that will tell you gender preference is fluid but race is an immutable aspect of existence.

    Stating that we are all of one race - the human race - and encouraging that we all be recognized and treated as such being wholly anathema to them.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Stating that we are all of one race - the human race - and encouraging that we all be recognized and treated as such being wholly anathema to them.

    (snort) You ALSO don't know what White Supremacy is?

  • BambiB||

    There was no great temporal need for him to say anything - other than political pandering.

    Except it's what Americans have come to expect. We've had decades of "form over substance", so reality doesn't mean anything. It's only the appearance that counts.

    Trump may be an "11th order douche", but on that same scale, Obozo must surely have been a 40th order douche (whose major "quality" was an ability to lie more smoothly) and Hitlery was off the scale.

    You're right regarding the motivations for the reaction. Racism seemed to be at a low point until it was revived by black racists.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Reason: "Mr. President, now is not the time for a measured response condemning violence in general before knowing all the details of the event. Now is the time to virtue signal!"

  • damikesc||

    Yes, Mr. President, it is imperative that you not mention that one side has been violent for months. You must stick to our preferred narrative.

    Does Nick have a Libertarian bone in his body? He's a younger Bernie at this point.

  • Red Twilight||

    Libertarians for white supremacy, unite!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    #Resist

  • damikesc||

    I'm sorry, where did I say that white supremacists are good guys?

    Sorry, if I'm consistent in saying both groups are useless. You, clearly, disagree.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm sorry, where did I say that white supremacists are good guys?

    What you said was far more shameful than that,

  • damikesc||

    Did I say I agree with you on anything?

    Because that'd be shameful.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Because that'd be shameful.

    How many times must I jam the proof of who initiated the violence up this bigots sorry ass?

    The thugs will deny absolute proof. Everyone else is invited to see the video, to confirtm how totallyt psycho is damikesc.
    (sneer)

  • BambiB||

    Let's see...

    One group had a parade permit.
    The other group did not.
    The second group tried to block the first group.

    Who's in the wrong?

  • Michael Hihn||

    VOMIT

    Who's in the wrong?

    THE ONES WHO INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, SLUGGO
    NOBODY NEEDS A PARADE PERMIT TO STAND IN THE STREET.

    THE VIDEO OF THE ASSAULT PROVES ... PROVES ... PROVES .... THE NAZIS CAME FOR VIOLENCE. THEY EVEN HAVE SHIELDS, LIKE COPS USE FOR RIOTS. --- SHAME ON YOU -- THE SAME AGGRESSION WE SAW FROM YOUR ILK IN CHARLOTTESVILE

    ELEVENTH POSTING OF ABSOLUTE PROOF

  • damikesc||

    I've not seen Nick condemning Democrats for not speaking out against Hodgkinson. Which they still have not done.

    Or against antifa. They haven't done so, either.

    Or against BLM. Still no condemnation there.

    So, logically, we have to assume Nick supports THOSE groups.

  • Red Twilight||

    Why would they condemn BLM for white supremacists? Oh wait, you mean what Hannity shows you as BLM activism.

  • WakaWaka||

    Dude, they shot five cops in Dallas. No one blamed black lives matter, but by Nick's logic we should have

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dude, they shot five cops in Dallas

    Exposing you brainwashed puppets is SO easy,

    President Barack Obama, who was in Poland for a NATO meeting, condemned the "vicious, callous and despicable attack. "I believe I speak for every single American when I say that we are horrified over these events and that we stand united with the people and the police department in Dallas," the president said.

    Source

    Anticipating your next round of bullshit
    1) BLM was never explicitly identified as a factor in Dallas. The shootings were by anonymous snipers.
    2) In Charlottesville, they marched, as a group, SELF-identified as Nazis and KKK, and explicitly supporting Trump.
    3) There is NO evidence -- none -- of Antifa group involvement -- which involves their flag and/or symbol, because terrorists groups, like them and the alt-right, WANT TO GET CREDIT.

    Adding further shame to the alt-right, a doctored photo was posted all over the, showing an Antifa protestor (with insignia) beating a cop. Their puppets believed it ... even though no cop was beaten or even attacked.! (OMG)

    FACT: They're all the same, right and left, goobers driven to hysteria and lame excuses, eager to be manipulated.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    There's certainly no violence to criticize BLM over. This is totally different, cuz stuff.

  • Michael Hihn||

    There's certainly no violence to criticize BLM over

    None at your link. Only that ONE of the snipers was black .... so what kind of shameful bigot would claim that means BLM? You white supremacists and Klansmen are a disgrace to American values.

    (If all blacks are BLM, then all of you goobers are Supremacists, by YOUR standards)

  • retiredfire||

    The bullshit you spout is so far, from what are American values, that you deserve to be what you generally are - ignored.
    Crawl back under your commie rock and keep your ridiculous ideas of what America stands for - which AIN'T what Marx/Lenin advocated - to yourself.

  • Michael Hihn||

    My stalker -- retiredfire --- makes a total ass of himself AGAIN!

    Crawl back under your commie rock

    I jammed that batshit crazy commie insanity assault here.
    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6933370

    And here
    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6933360

    Including absolute proof of who started the violence. (snort)

    HOW STUPID ARE THESE GOOBERS? They run up and down the page. SCREECHING that the other is the aggressor .... as the goobers initiate nonstop aggression! (They've always been retarded.)

  • BambiB||

    BLM "justifies" violence
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07.....interview/

    On BLM denouncing violence (not!)
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/.....index.html

  • Michael Hihn||

    YOU FUCKING PSYCHO

    BLM "justifies" violence

    So do you,.
    BLM is not an issue here, shameful racist.

  • BambiB||

  • Michael Hihn||

    FUCKING PSYCHO PART TWO

    More "achievements" of BLM

    BLM is not the issue here, shameful racist.

  • BambiB||

  • Michael Hihn||

    FUCKING PSYCHO IN DESPERATION, PART THREE

    Who is doing the attacking here?

    NEVER SAYS. MORE PROOF OF YOUR RACISM.
    Black Lives Matter is not the issue here, shameful racist.

    At Dartmouth

    Black Lives Matter is not the issue here, shameful racist

    DESPERATION (SNEER)

  • damikesc||

    How many Dems had to answer for Hodgkinson? Answer? None.

    How many Dems had to answer for antifa? Answer? None.

    Why is it ONLY Republicans who have to "answer" for people the media assumes is part of their base? Antifa has been violent for months now...not one Democrat has condemned them. Not one.

  • ThomasD||

    Bernie flat out refused to bear any responsibility when directly asked about the actions of one of his supporters.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bernie flat out refused to bear any responsibility when directly asked about the actions of one of his supporters.

    So you say Trump is no better than Bernie!!!
    You new at this?

  • damikesc||

    Well, Trump is better than Bernie because he doesn't advocate a system designed to oppress people as Bernie does.

    But here --- this is a guy who has no ties to Trump as opposed to a guy who volunteered for Bernie.

    Bernie should apologize for what he did. But he didn't. And won't. Because the only negative to Bernie was the lack of success.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Well, Trump is better than Bernie because he doesn't advocate a system designed to oppress people as Bernie does.

    Tell that to ThomasD, who said the exact opposite.

    We libertarians see both Bernie and Trump as power-crazed authoritarians.

  • Red Twilight||

    Why would they condemn BLM for white supremacists? Oh wait, you mean what Hannity shows you as BLM activism.

  • ||

    Yeah, being pissed off that cops are killing people in your community, is JUST LIKE being pissed off that people are walking around, being like, black and stuff.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Those cops totally deserved it. Did you see the skirts they were wearing?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, that's what they're pissed off about Hazel. FFS, you're just awful.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    If you paid any attention, you might have noticed that folks here at Reason are also upset about police violence. But for some reason, we keep suggesting reforms that plausibly relate to the problem. Things like ending the drug war and decriminalizing other petty vices, stopping agencies from using their constituencies as revenue farms, increasing accountability for violent officers, training police to de-escalate situations rather than provoking confrontation, etc. And BLM chants "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" Tell us again how BLM is totally justified in what they do.

    And let me elaborate on what Last of the Shitlords said. You are awful, Hazel, for constructing the flimsiest strawman I have ever seen. The alt-right would not be a movement on the rise if they were nothing but a bunch of idiot racist fucks, and that's something the left needs to grapple with. They're winning people to their side because they have legitimate points about what the social justice left is doing: stifling speech, getting away with violence, eroding rule of law, and above all else, endlessly demonizing white men. There is no shortage of kool-aid drinkers who think that white males have enjoyed the moral franchise for too long, and it's time to stop treating them as human beings with rights.

  • ||

    I've been around here far longer than you, and am more concerned about the drug war and decriminalizing petty vices than any alt-right commenter I've ever seen.

    The only thing we ever hear from the alt-right is how black people deserve the treatment they get at the hands of police because of disproportionate crime rate - which includes victimless crimes like drug dealing. They feel their "speech is being stifled" by the "social justice left" because they can't handle being called names on the internet. Yes, they are idiot racist fucks, and moreover, they are whiny pussies who probably have tiny dicks and/or can't get laid which is why they have a raging cuckolding fetish.

  • hello.||

    The only thing you ever hear is whatever you feel like hearing. You're a typical histrionic left wing cunt, only with a 50 point IQ deficit to boot.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I think you're being generous in your estimation of Hazel's IQ.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is the intelligence level of the alt-right

    Hello
    You're a typical histrionic left wing cunt, only with a 50 point IQ deficit to boot.

    Last of the Shitlords
    I think you're being generous in your estimation of Hazel's IQ

    But they are NOT bullies, thugs and aggressors, punishing anyone who dares to differ from their diktats. (lol) Brownshirts, just like their brothers in Charlottesville.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    By continuing to intentionally miss the point, you're demonstrating exactly why the political winds are blowing as they are.

    "They feel their 'speech is being stifled' by the 'social justice left' because they can't handle being called names on the internet."

    Sure, name-calling on the internet is the only thing they've ever had to deal with. They're just a bunch of racists and they can't handle being called out on it. They've never had talks shut down by violent protests. They've never been assaulted on stage by members of BLM. Oh, wait. No. That's the exact opposite of the truth. When you refuse to even acknowledge that these things are happening, you only prove your opponents' point and drive more people to their side.

    Also, I never intended to imply that the alt-right care about criminal justice reform. I was referring to libertarians there.

  • BambiB||

    I've seen a number of police murders of blacks - and they largely went unpunished. That's something that needs to be taken up with the legislature and the courts - because in most cases, the pigs get a slap on the wrist, lose their job and head on down the road 30 miles to get another cop job.

    OTOH, we're not talking "victimless crimes" when we mention that the 13% of the population that is black commits 51% of all MURDERS and commit other crimes (robbery, battery, etc.) in similar proportions.

    The average black is more than 8 times more likely to be involved in a homicide than the average firearm and more than four times more likely to commit murder than the average white. BLM would call that "profiling". I call it statistics.

  • Crying Zelda Morning Link||

    "stifling speech...above all else, endlessly demonizing white men".

    So your biggest problem with them is...their speech?

  • Procyon Rotor||

    The difference is, they're saying that because the alt-right is racist, their speech should be prevented with violence. I'm saying that because social justice is racist, we should stop taking them seriously and giving them power to control our institutions. I would feel the same way about the alt-right, except they're already in the position of almost no one taking them seriously and not having the power to control anything.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You get it. The goobers do not.

    They confuse defending hare speech with defending the hatred.
    Kinda retarded that way.

  • damikesc||

    Yup, cops killed in their cars had it coming. Serves 'em right for existing.

  • ||

    Case in point. Black people have nothing to complain about! War on cops!

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Hazel, if sitting in your car is what it takes in your mind to deserve being murdered, then I don't see BLM's point anymore. By your logic they all deserved it at some point or other in their lives.

  • hello.||

    "Killing cops who are sitting in their cars doing nothing" actually means "Black people have nothing to complain about!"

    You just have to run it through the English to mindless cunt filter.

  • damikesc||

    Case in point. Black people have nothing to complain about! War on cops!

    So, the cop had it coming?

    That your argument?

  • Michael Hihn||

    That your argument?

    Have you always been so retarded?

  • Praveen R.||

    Hey you Trump"ettes":
    1) It's not nitpicking when Trump has had a clear history of responding immediately to attacks he feels are done by bad guys. it's not even funny how often he tweets to express his outrage at some thing trivial or something important. It doesn't matter. He likes to tweet using specific names.
    2) He sure did not waste time tweeting about some CEO of Merck quitting his council but he never tweeted about the killer of the Heather Heyer specifically.

    Come on. You think we are idiots? Call it like it is. Trump sure had a problem alienating the alt white right on this issue and tried to be gloves off as long as he could until his own party had to pretty much indirectly pressure him to doing this.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Uh oh, gonna need another beer summit.

  • WakaWaka||

    Oh, so words are responsible for violence. Then Bernie is responsible for those representatives being shot and black lives matter is responsible for the cops in Dallas being shot.

  • damikesc||

    Waka, that's different. For reasons.

    Only right-wing rhetoric is dangerous. Nobody spouting left-wing rhetoric has ever done anything unpleasant.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Oh, so words are responsible for violence."
    Not in a criminal sense, but generally speaking yeah, they really can be. Strictly speaking, look at wars. Someone gives an order, someone carries out the order, and violence happens. Moving away from organized violence, we see people spreading ideas, other people absorbing those ideas, and a small fraction of folks acting on the ideas.

    Heck, since we're talking about racism and racially-motivated violence... that has to be taught. People don't just come along and think "my problems stem from black people". Someone has to blame them, scapegoat them, make them the enemy rather then just your neighbor.

    So yeah. Words are responsible for violence. Not solely responsible, not criminally responsible, but responsible none-the-less.

  • hello.||

    Moving away from organized violence, we see people spreading ideas, other people absorbing those ideas, and a small fraction of folks acting on the ideas.

    But enough about Islam.

  • Praveen R.||

    Bullshit, I did not even talk about suppressing free speech or try to blame Trump for encouraging the violence in this incident. But he sure as hell did nothing productive either. Look at what preoccuped him in his tweets. I am for alt right people speaking in colleges. I think the left , especially the ones engaging in PCness go overboard in trying to ban people from speaking at colleges. We are talking about the double standards of Trump. he tweets every time he gets outraged at something and names names. And now he claims that him not tweeting about which specific side he blams more in this is part of his "even handed" nature which we all know is not part of his real nature.

  • retiredfire||

    But, if you want to be honest - alien concept to libtards - the real blame, here, was not with the group that sought and was granted, after going to federal court, with the ACLU on their side, a permit to march and rally in Charlottesville.
    If you want Trump to do as you say and shown targeted condemnation, then you have to accept that he would call out the counter-protesters, who were there, without permission and intent on stopping the lawful ones, by any means necessary.
    His being even handed, was a gift to the alt-left, there. You should be happy with that.

  • hello.||

    He likes to tweet using specific names.

    It's positively shameful that he didn't use the exact name of the perpetrator before it was known to anyone. It's also shameful that he didn't use the exact names of all 200 other white supremacists in attendance who didn't injure or kill anyone.

  • lap83||

    I condemned racism before it was cool

  • josh||

    I just can't get that worked up about all this. I denounce the hate and violence, but beyond that, this is all much ado about nothing pretty much. People want to either make this into a movement that is creeping into the mainstream, or shout to the world -See! We told you Trump was the pied piper of racism!- and all without supporting evidence. Trump is indifferent, and I think that's worse, but this isn't the rebirth of the White Citizen's Council, and is basically a distraction from the million other things I'd classify as actual problems.

  • chemjeff||

    We told you Trump was the pied piper of racism!- and all without supporting evidence.

    I don't think Trump is the "pied piper of racism". But it is also true that Trump has had to be dragged into denouncing the Spencers and the Dukes of the country by name, when he has generally no problem at all denouncing other people over far more trivial concerns. And the alt-righters and racists know this, and think as a result that Trump is on their side. Now *I* don't think Trump is an alt-righter. But at some point, Trump has to have his "Sister Souljah" moment.

  • josh||

    I agree 100%. Within a politician's base, they have a core group of supporters that are most loyal. For Trump, that's the Spencers and Dukes of the country, and Trump won't denounce them because he views adulation as the thing worth having, and it's just everyone else with the problem. This is one of those times where a skilled politician is preferable.

  • damikesc||

    I don't think Trump is the "pied piper of racism". But it is also true that Trump has had to be dragged into denouncing the Spencers and the Dukes of the country by name, when he has generally no problem at all denouncing other people over far more trivial concerns. And the alt-righters and racists know this, and think as a result that Trump is on their side. Now *I* don't think Trump is an alt-righter. But at some point, Trump has to have his "Sister Souljah" moment.

    Democrats have not criticized antifa.

    They have not criticized Hodgkinson.

    They have not criticized BLM.

    They have no problems doing so to people they don't like.

    I, uh, note you aren't holding Dems to the fire over this...

  • Michael Hihn||

    I, uh, note you aren't holding Dems to the fire over this...

    Because you're full of shot. Like being a lying cocksucker on who initiated the violence in Charlottesville?

    This is the fifth time I've linked you to a video with absolute proof.

  • damikesc||

    So, again, no condemnation of antifa, the attempt to flip the House thru assassination, et al.

    Got it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, again, no condemnation of antifa, the attempt to flip the House thru assassination, et al.

    You can't intimidate me. thug. This is about Charlottesville.
    And the assassination is crazy, even from you.

    If I was am asshole like you, I'd ask why you REFUSE to condemn the fascsists for the violence they launched ,.. as proven all ten times i I posted the proof for you.

  • damikesc||

    You can't intimidate me. thug.

    If my comment was taken by you to be "intimidation", then you're a more precious little snowflake than I could have imagined.

    If I was am asshole like you

  • damikesc||

    Grr, comments.

    Michael, you are a unique and special asshole. Nobody is an asshole like you.

    And I have condemned all fascists. They should all die.

    You just want to condemn SOME of them. Which is adorable.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So, again, no condemnation of antifa,

    Only bigited assholes condemn groups -- like blacks and gays.
    As a libertarian I judge events and individuals on their actions. It's called Justice.

    On that basis, I judge YOU as subhuman vermin, STILL defending violent assault on innocent victims ... even after you've seen video PROOF ... now FOURTEEN times (vomit) that the violence was ENTIRELY launched by your fellow Nazis, Jew and Black haters. YOUR scum CAME for violence .. carrying the same shields that police use for riots. THEY had the ONLY clubs. Their victims were just standing their. (Fuck you too, Donald Trump)

    HOW DARE YOU bully me ... for what was NOT even an antifa event ... while you shamelessly defend aggression and assault ... and cold-blooded murder?

    Here's an overhead drone video of your hero committing the murder and mayhem that YOU defend .. MORE UNDENIABLE PROOF that you and your fellow BARBARIANS are … subhuman scum.

    (vomit)

  • damikesc||

    Only bigited assholes condemn groups -- like blacks and gays.
    As a libertarian I judge events and individuals on their actions. It's called Justice.

    Antifa are GENETICALLY tied to antifa? That's your new argument here?

    How does homosexuality or race have anything in common with participation in a politically violent group of fascists?

    On that basis, I judge YOU as subhuman vermin

    Truly biting and withering comment. I am deeply wounded that a chimp like you doesn't think I'm a human.

    YOUR scum CAME for violence

    I thought you judged individuals by their actions. Are you unable to be consistent for a single post now, son?

    HOW DARE YOU bully me

    Snowflake gotta snowflake, I guess.

    for what was NOT even an antifa event

    Yes, the loathesome fascists had no permission to be there while the loathesome racists did. Using your logic, the Japanese didn't REALLY attack Pearl Harbor because it wasn't their base.

    while you shamelessly defend aggression and assault ... and cold-blooded murder?

    One of us is defending fascists, son. It isn't me, son.

    And keep posting links. I don't click on your links. Don't need all that porn on my system.

  • ||

    LEAVE DONALD TRUMP ALONE! *sob*

  • WakaWaka||

    Maybe just follow consistent principles? For you cosmos it's always principle> principals. That's why you guys are just leftists, no matter how much you like Uber and food trucks

  • WakaWaka||

    *principals> principles

  • hello.||

    PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME!

  • ||

    What President's say is over rated anyway.

    And it's weird that a libertarian (well, ostensibly anyway) would have such an article.

  • ||

    Presidents.

  • chemjeff||

    It is overrated. I agree.

    But, for better or for worse (mostly worse), the president is now regarded as some sort of National Father Figure. I wish he wasn't. Really I don't. Presidents are scummy politicians, all of them, who shouldn't be revered in any way shape or form. I do think that Trump - and Obama, and Bush, and every other president - does have some obligation to at least recognize this obligation and act accordingly. I would expect a Libertarian President to say "I'm not your daddy, I really don't care what the shitburgers in Charlottesville do, as long as they aren't infringing on other people's liberties they can do as they please, if you are looking for moral guidance, go talk to your own daddy". But Trump is no Libertarian, he is acting according to (sigh) a more traditional understanding of the presidency.

  • WakaWaka||

    Chemjeff, I don't agree with your perspective a lot, but I think your spot on here

  • chemjeff||

    Well I appreciate it.

  • ||

    'Tis true and accurate methinks.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Exactly, Rufus.....looking for a politician to have a moral compass is so stupidly delusional it's difficult to even fathom.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And it's weird that a libertarian (well, ostensibly anyway) would have such an article.

    If you weren't so totally clueless about libertarians, you'd know about the Non Aggression Principle.

    Here, the violence and aggression was initiated ENTIRELY by the facsists ... as proven by this video.

    And it's weird that any responsible human (well, ostensibly anyway) would not denounce the violence and aggression.
    So why haven't you?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Fuck You, Nick. What a disgrace.

    An idiot in a Challenger is a pebble in the quarry of Charlottesville.

    One side wanted to keep Confederacy memorabilia. One side didn't. Some elements of one side came prepared for violence. Some elements of the other side came prepared for violence. And they got violence.

    I am 100% certain Antifa went to Charlotte to initiate violence. I am not 100% certain the "Confederates" were preparing to initiate it, but they were certainly prepared to throw down.

    None of it is the President's business. This is entirelly Charlottesville's domain. The citizens of Charlottesville erected a statue and the citizens of Charlottesville can choose to remove it. If the citizens of Charlottesville wish to debate the choice, so be it. The Mayor and police of Charlottesville disgraced themselves.

    I repeat, none of it is the President's business.

  • Cyto||

    I'll add a couple of thoughts.

    This isn't Charlottesville's domain - at least not exclusively. I'd wage that 90% of the principals involved were from elsewhere..

    And we have mayors all over the south looking to get in on that good, national TV coverage by inviting the same folks to come protest in their towns when they remove their monuments. Genius move!

    Charlottesville desperately wanted to avoid being labeled a racist city, so they moved to erase the civil war reminders. And then they moved to keep racist protests out of their city. Which predictably gave great weight to labeling their city as the racist city where racists come to protest.

    And then they ostensibly wanted to avoid violent clashes with the police... so they allowed violent clashes between protesters!

    So I agree that the failure of governance in Charlottesville was epic.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I agree with everything you said except:

    *This isn't Charlottesville's domain - at least not exclusively. I'd wage that 90% of the principals involved were from elsewhere..*

    It doesn't matter where they are from. That's why I used the word "domain". It is the Domain Keepers job to maintain order and protect rights. They failed.

    If the marchers (Confederates) had their march and there was no violence. Nobody would be demanding that Trump denounce the KKK or Nazis. Any more than you or I are required to make a daily denunciation of myriad evils in the world.

    It is the violence which suddenly seems to require a Presidential Statement (don't ask me why).

    It seems perfectly legitimate to ponder what caused the violence, and in lieu of knowing all the facts, to make a vague statement like Trump did initially. But really, less is more, and nothing would be even better.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Further note: I have read a few places, but don't know the veracity, that the pro-Confederacy march only drew about 200 supporting participants. This is a really poor turnout. Even if 100% were from out-of-town, it is a small number.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And then they ostensibly wanted to avoid violent clashes with the police... so they allowed violent clashes between protesters!

    Launched entirely by the fascists/racists

    So I agree that the failure of governance in Charlottesville was epic.

    Yeah. What did they expect from 200-300 Nazis, White Supremacists and KKKs? Apparently, they never imagined vermin like that would launch the violent aggression they did.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    If some antifa punk tried to assault me, I would probably break his fucking neck. They're violent, raging, treasonous trash, and like all garbage, they belong in a landfill.

    Fuck antifa.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If some antifa punk tried to assault me, I would probably break his fucking neck. They're violent, raging, treasonous trash, and like all garbage, they belong in a landfill

    But .you're okay with white supremacists launching far greater violence and aggression, As proven by the video that captured the lead up and the assault?

    Are YOU a white supremacist? A Nazi?

  • Azathoth!!||

    You can actually be 100% certain that the 'Unite the Right' group did not go with the intent to initiate violence--though the were definitely prepared for it to erupt.

    How?

    There have been 2 marches since that one in Charlottesville, initiated by leftists, that were anti-Trump, anti-right, and responsive to Charlottesville.

    There were no crowds of raging right-wing counter protesters at either. No one tried to stop them from voicing their opinions. Not Republicans, not right or alt-right people, not even actual Nazis or klansmen. There was no organized effort to deny the leftists their civil rights.

    That about says it all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You can actually be 100% certain that the 'Unite the Right' group did not go with the intent to initiate violence--though the were definitely prepared for it to erupt.

    So why dd they initiate so violent an assault? Umm, they are Nazis, KKKs and White Supremacists.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Bombaldi is STILL so TOTALLY full of shit on who initiated the violence.

    Here's a video with absolute proof ... which you will also ignore for your moral sickness.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Trump has AGAIN done what he attacked Obama for doing. Not saying "radical Islamic terrorism."
    Then he shamefully refused to do the same. Terrorism may not be precise for this event. But "from many sides" is the same lame excuse used for every fuckup and atrocity, by him and his base.
    "The left does it too."
    "What about Hillary?"
    "Mommy, he did it first."

    On the evidence, If Hillary murdered somebody, Trump could feel justified in murder. "What about Hillary?" And he DID boast that he could commit murder, He COULD commit murder, in broad daylight, and not lose a single supporter, be bragged. Think about that, He publicly described his base as raging, immoral assholes, and they didn't mind! Many are PROUD! That was our first warning. It's getting worse.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Wait, are you suggesting that all those pasty white Antifas are terrorists and are using violence to intimidate society's behavior?

    Finallly someone has the balls to say it.

  • Cyto||

    I wish I had the video from the antifa-nazi clash. It is exactly as you describe.

    There's this one little kid front and center in the anarchist group who looks just about like me from my college days. He's little, with very smooth, pale skin and very young looking, so he kinda looks like he might be a girl dressed in his too-big black helmet and all black "intimidating" tactical outfit.

    After the attempt to use their shield to ram through the protesters is rebuffed, he engages in a taunting match with this big, goofy looking Nazi dude. The guy is easily twice his size, and he keeps jumping out and wagling his head as he taunts him, like a schoolboy on the playground trying to provoke a fight. He even hocks up a big loogie (big enough to be easily seen in flight in the video) and nails the big goofy nazi up around his neck.

    But even though they were young and pasty, they did manage to initiate a violent confrontation that left several folks from both sides bleeding. And pepper sprayed. They came prepared with pepper spray and water for washing their eyes out. So everyone got a dose of pepper spray too.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I wish I had the video from the antifa-nazi clash. It is exactly as you describe.

    Which is why you have no video. Were they ALL pasty?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    What is being asked is: Aren't whites who use violence to intimidate "white terrorists" no matter which group they belong to?

    If you are calling Trump a coward for not calling it what it is, can't you (being more enlightened) at least call Antifa a terrorist organization?

  • Michael Hihn||

    What is being asked is: Aren't whites who use violence to intimidate "white terrorists" no matter which group they belong to?

    Of course. What does that have to do with my objection?. Or this event? Can you show that happened?

    If you are calling Trump a coward for not calling it what it is, can't you (being more enlightened) at least call Antifa a terrorist organization

    Trump is as much a coward as he accused Obama of. Antifa CAN be a terrorist organization .,. just like the KKK and white nationalists can. But -- enlighten yourself -- it was not an Antifa event.

    I still don't see the bogus video. Do you? Is it as fraudulent as the Antifa beatng a cop photo?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "It was not an Antifa event"

    HolyFuck.

    Let's take this to its logical conclusion.
    Hihn has a party.
    I show up and attack him.
    My defense: It wasn't my party.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "It was not an Antifa event"

    HolyFuck.
    Let's take this to its logical conclusion.

    (snort)

    Hihn has a party.
    I show up and attack him.
    My defense: It wasn't my party.

    Call our a liar., This is what you get.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Snorting ad hominems is a weak response. "It was not an Antifa event" is supposed to explain why Antifa was there in force?

    Just speak directly, please.

  • J Mann||

    I'm not sure, Tom, but I think than Hinh is saying that he is a liar, and what you get for calling him out is a non-sequitur. If so, he's hinting that his whole persona is a troll, and you fell for it.

    It doesn't make much sense, I grant, but no other construction really parses at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'm not sure, Tom,

    Your retardation is obvious!

    but I think than Hinh is saying that he is a liar,

    You start our sane .... but can't hide the truth.

    If so, he's hinting that his whole persona is a troll, and you fell for it.

    WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE, GOOBER?

    It doesn't make much sense, I grant, but no other construction really parses at all.

    EVIDENCE IS NOT NEEDED BY BRAINWASHED GOOBERS,

    (Tone and boldface in defense of aggression ... by a self-righteous retard who don't need no steeenkeeng evidence.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    . "It was not an Antifa event" is supposed to explain why Antifa was there in force?

    Wipe the drool from your chin.

    Just speak directly, please.

    YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT.
    NOW can you grasp what would be obvious to any sentient being?

  • hello.||

    ALL BOLD AND CAPS IN RESPONSE TO 91% OF RON PAUL CHRISTIAN TALIBAN WHO REJECT THE LABEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (sorry, I just shit my pants again)

  • Michael Hihn||

    More aggression (yawn)

    Hey, dumbfuck, nobody knows what you're babbling about with "91% OF RON PAUL CHRISTIAN TALIBAN WHO REJECT THE LABEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

  • Michael Hihn||

    Wait, are you suggesting that all those pasty white Antifas are terrorists and are using violence to intimidate society's behavior?

    Post again, after your high wears off.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Empty response. Ad hominem: "Are you high?"

    Display your intelligence by explaining why Antifa is not a terrorist organization.
    I am literally waiting for you to enlighten me.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    It's just a hihnfection, gobble some antbiotics and sleep it of.....do NOT engage.

  • Michael Hihn||

    t's just a hihnfection, gobble some antbiotics and sleep it of.....do NOT engage.

    MOAR aggression by a serial stalker, who celebrates feeding humans into wood chippers. (shudder)

  • hello.||

    BOLDFACE AND BROKEN HTML LINKS IN RESPONSE TO SOILED ADULT UNDERGARMENTS

  • Michael Hihn||

    Empty response. Ad hominem:

    I gave as I got. To your original bullshit here. (smirk(

    Display your intelligence by explaining why Antifa is not a terrorist organization.

    When you make such a bat-shit crazy assumption ... AGAIN ... I'd have to be even crazier to imply anything so fucking stupid.

    Is it even possible for you to avoid such amateurish intimidation?

    I am literally waiting for you to enlighten me.

    You'd just launch more crazy bullshit.

    You're noe 2-for-2 on smart-ass fuckups.
    Boldface in defense of repeated aggression and (inept) intimidation

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Empty response.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Can you explain how Antifa does not fit the definition of a terrorist organization?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Can you explain how Antifa does not fit the definition of a terrorist organization?

    Call you out AGAIN, you lying sack of shit.

    WHERE DID I SAY, HINT OR EVEN IMPLY THAT?
    1) Find the comment that you claim exists.
    2) Post a link.
    3) Right-click on the "#" after the date, puts in\T into your clipboard. Then simply paste into your reply. (smirk)

    For example, this is where I first called out your bullshit on that same question.,
    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6931589

    FOURTH REQUEST: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT THIS WAS AN ANTIFA EVENT??
    Be a man. Defend your crazy assertions.

    WHY ARE YOU STALKING ME, AFTER YOU WERE PROVEN A LIAR SO MANY TIMES?
    PUNISHMENT?

  • hello.||

    BOLDFACE IN DEFENSE OF LYING 91% CATO PAULISTAS WHO REJECT THE LABEL!

    Learn how to copy and paste random non/UC-y!sense and you can win arguments just like me

  • Michael Hihn||

    Learn how to copy and paste random non/UC-y!sense

    My OTHER stalker even denies absolute proof. (yawn)
    They travel in a pack, like wild dogs

  • Carlos Inconvenience||

    The "bible" of the libertarian movement is outraged a federal official didn't exercise sufficient prior restraint.

    Just admit you're now a prog magazine and let us know who we can contact for subscription refunds.

    Thanks

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's not Reason's fault that you were suckered into believing Ron and Rand Paul are libertarians.
    We've been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for a mere 48 years now.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Is the "We" Reason.com or a royal "we'?

    Am I supposed to know who you are and that you represent Reason?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is the "We" Reason.com or a royal "we'?

    How many times can you be totally illiterate on one page?

    Am I supposed to know who you are and that you represent Reason?

    Wipe yhe drool from your chin. I'll TRY to dumb it down, but you've already revealed your TOTAL ignorance of libertarianism.

    1) Reason is not 48 years old.

    2) You drooled that Reason is now a :"prog" magazine. Not libertarian. ... NOT KNOWING WHAT LIBERTARIAN MEANS/

    3) It's LIBERTARIANS who have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 48 years,

    4) PAY ATTENTION.. The "We" came immediately after I described what is NOT libertarian - which is .... MY TOPIC! So I told you what IS libertarian ... because you clearly don't know.

    No offense intended, but I am very concerned for your mental well-being. This is your THIRD fucked up reading on what I said. Following these:

    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6931545

    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6931512

    (Tone and boldface in defense of a third aggression. So far)

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Thanks for clarifying.

    I read what you wrote, thus the confusing.
    Now I know that "we" means the Libertarian Party.
    That is different than libertarians.
    And that is different than "you".
    Due you really refer to the the Libertarian Party as "we"?
    Odd

  • Tom Bombadil||

    *Do you

  • Michael Hihn||

    How retarded can a retard get?

    It's LIBERTARIANS who have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for 48 years,

    Now I know that "we" means the Libertarian Party.

    I NEVER SAID PARTY!

    that is different than libertarians.

    The party is not 48 years old either!

    Due you really refer to the the Libertarian Party as "we"?

    Only to a fool.
    PROVES my point! You attacked Reason for no longer being libertarian .. and I keep proving you have no idea what a libertarian is.

    You have a SERIOUS reading/thinking disability.
    YOU STILL REFUSE TO SHOW WHERE I SAID THE ANTIFA IS NOT A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ... AND I EVEN SHOWED YOU HOW TO POST A LINK TO YOUR "PROOF"
    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6932540

    AGAIN proven a liar

  • hello.||

    BOLDFACE AND BDA SEPPLING IN RISPONSE 2 AGGRESSION

    (sorry, I have hard time operating my keyboard when all the flows into my throbbing hard micropenis)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Where?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I used to come to REASON to read libertarian essays.
    Sadly, those are very rare these days.

    I now come to REASON to read libertarian commentators rip LINOs new assholes.

  • Cyto||

    In defense of the reason writers, that is going to happen any way. Libertarians are a very prickly bunch when it comes to deciding who is libertarian enough. I think most of us can only identify one true libertarian, and then only when looking in a mirror.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Yes, Libertarians are a prickly bunch, wonderfully so.... however, my point is that when (now occasionally) someone at REASON rights a rational essay consistent with libertarian ideas, the commentariat largely agree with and expand upon the essay. When an essay is "bullshit", the writer is torn to pieces. What I've seen is the ratio of rational to "bullshit" (from a libertarian perspective) swing dramatically toward "bullshit".

  • Cyto||

    You sound like one of those nutty Glibertarians.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Well, I'm sure what I described is part of what pushed the Glibs away. So, in that sense, I guess I am "nutty" too, but I didn't join the exodus.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Speaking of the Glibs. After Cyto's mention I went for a quick visit to the website. Quick glance tells me I'll go back. Looks kind of fun. I haven't been there since the exodus and the early days of Glibs.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    You'll loves it. Pssst...they have avatars.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I do see a lotta of the old guard over there at Glib. We are weaker apart. Reminds me of the division in HS casual basketball league -- team split down the middle senior year, both off-shoot teams made it to Semi Finals and thought we were going to butt heads for the cup. We both lost in the semi's. The original team would have won it all.

    Libertarianism is too weak to be casting off members with endless purity tests -- leave that shit to the Catholics, Muslims, and SJWs.

  • hello.||

    Libertarianism is too weak to be casting off members with endless purity tests -- leave that shit to the Catholics, Muslims, and SJWs.

    Basic criteria aren't "purity tests". If you don't believe in Jesus the Catholics probably should reject you. If you don't believe in Mohammed the Muslims probably should reject you. If you don't believe in cultural Marxism the SJWs probably should reject you.

  • Bra Ket||

    Seems like it went downhill after the whole registration thing and all this new site-monetizing crap. So my guess is it's the same basic reason, money. Pleasing regular commenters is a lot less profitable than acquiring vast new swaths of readers because your Trump-crushing zinger got you linked on some high traffic site.

  • ThomasD||

    So, they've chosen the Andrew Sullivan business model.

    Ugh.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I now come to REASON to read libertarian commentators rip LINOs new assholes.

    (snort) It was your asshole ripped, when we saw, beyond all doubt, that you have no clue what a libertarian is! http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....nt_6931596

    (walks away laughing harder)

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Libertarian Party = libertarian?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Libertarian Party = libertarian?

    Yes ... but you fucked up by assuming libertarian = libertarian party.

  • hello.||

    2742% of libertarians REJECT the TEA PARTY Paulista CHRISTIAN TaLiBAn LABEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (walks away urinating)

  • ThomasD||

    Reason's version of libertarianism has become kinder gentler statism.

    The kind that grants you limited, modified permission to possess and consume suitably taxed marijuana obtained from government approved and government regulated sources.

    The kind that recognizes open borders when it comes to cheap labor but not open borders when it comes to paying taxes.

    The kind that picks winners and losers in a clash between violent statist totalitarians.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sorry, we always saw you alt-righters as thugs.
    Perhaps you were duped by one of founders of the alt-right, Ron Paul.

  • ThomasD||

    Fuck off lunatic.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MOAR BULLYING AND AGGRESSION

    Fuck off lunatic.

    While he PROUDLY defends aggression and murder (shudder)

    UNDENIABLE PROOF ,.... NOW SIXTEEN TIMES,

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    It's always a pleasure to someone virtue signaling about violence on right from the pedestal built in no small part by the SDS, the Weather Underground, the SLA, et el.

    Some of us are old enough to remember how the Side of the Angels actually came to prominence themselves.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's always a pleasure to watch fascists evoke their lame excuses -- with all the proper slogans and soundbites.

  • XM||

    Trump was a day late in mentioning "white supremacy" or "Neo Nazis", after a torrent of criticism by media who harbored preconceived notions about him a racist monster. So there it is. Factually, there was nothing really questionable about his earlier "violence from all sides" comment, the tragic incident not withstanding.

    Meanwhile Obama (to the best of my knowledge) has never said "Black Lives Matter must stop their violent rhetoric", even though their sympathizers have executed a number of officers - including the Dallas shooter, who literally said he wanted to kill white cops. De Blasio skipped town the day after Mistosis Familia was shot. The pissed off officers turned their backs on him AGAIN. Not a drop of outrage or admonishment from the media.

    There are no sides to take when a Islamist guns down 50 people at a gay nightclub. But behold the deflection from the left - gun violence, "white Christian terrorists", pink washing, Islamophobia, on and on. Sorry, but their attempt to turn the table on us won't fly. They turned a blind eye to injustice for so long, whether it's terrorism or Campus rape hysteria, and they don't get to lecture us.

  • Michael Hihn||

    When you learn the difference between what you call "violent rhetoric" and people dead and injured by physical violence .... then I'll stop laughing at your shameful inhumanity.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    This is The Jacket from above:

    "President Trump surely isn't responsible for the car that killed Heather Heyer, but his rhetoric has helped to fill its gas tank."

    Note the use of "rhetoric".
    Maybe you can discuss at the next cocktail party.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing) ANOTHER dumbfuck assumption!! I put "VIOLENT rhetoric" in quotes.
    You cited only "rhetoric"
    Again, BLATANTLY stupid!

    Lemme show -- again -- how fucking stupid you continue to be in every one of your crazy assaults

    1) Look for the only place where the exact quote appears, "violent rhetoric."

    2) " Meanwhile Obama (to the best of my knowledge) has never said 'Black Lives Matter must stop their violent rhetoric."

    Ready? (snort)

    When you learn the difference between what you call "violent rhetoric" and people dead and injured by physical violence .... then I'll stop laughing at your shameful inhumanity.

    Now sign in again as "hello" to back up your mindless savagery and raging hatred.
    Two raging psychos.

  • hello.||

    BOLDFACE IN RESPONSE TO AGGRESSIVE VIOLENT RHETORIC!!!!!!!!!!!!

    DISAGREEING WITH ME IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!

    NOW DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VIOLENT RHETORIC AND PHYSICAL VIOLENCE??!?!?!!#*!*!!!???!!!!!!!?

    (laughing so hard I farted)

    (wait, it was actually a torrent of soupy diarrhea)

    (it tastes delicious!)

  • Michael Hihn||

    DISAGREEING WITH ME IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!

    (laughing at the aggressor) Unprovoked personal attacks are aggression, Sparky. Your continuing VERBAL aggression is not physical aggression, Educate yourself. Definition

  • DaveH||

    The cult of the presidency: it is expected, nay required, that the consoler in chief offer the politically correct platitudes.

    Gimme a break!

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're already broken. Beyond repair.

  • XM||

    Also, Speaking as a non white person who had to deal with some borderline racist white people in the past, the left's obsession with white supremacy is baffling to me.

    Reportedly there might be around 100 thousand hate group members in this country. Even with the militia folks it's a negligible number out of 300 million population. This gathering was "the largest white supremacist gathering in a decade!" because these people usually don't have much numbers. The GAO report being floated around now says that right wing groups killed 15-20 people a year.

    Last week one of my dad's swap meet buddies were shot in the back of his head by a black guy at his home in a burglary. Apparently it's becoming common for robbers to actually follow swap meet merchants back home to steal money, which put the entire building was on high alert. Something like this probably make up 50% of violence committed against people of color, minimum. No one seems to care, though.

    These hate rallies are usually nothing. There was one in orange county not that long ago and I barely noticed it. Heck, for most people in LA the giant immigrant rallies are but a one day blip. It's a country with a 300 million, you're going to see some crooked people make noise sometimes. In a stable society, they can't amount to much.

    Reason is very good with putting things into perspective and putting stats in context when it comes to hate crimes and mass shootings, I think another informative article is in order.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Good perspective, XM, thanks.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    The lefty cabal aided and abetted by most of academia is a far greater threat to the Bill of Rights than a handful of booger diggers from bumfuck.

    Yet in the real world these antifa pukes wouldn't last five minutes. All you'd need to do to delouse would be to kick them in the cunt and send them down the road walking backward kicking horse shit.

    So I really can't see getting exercised about the booger miners or the man bunned hordes of hipster doucherati. Virtue signalers gonna virtual signal, in any case, but it's sad to see it here.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This from somebody who celebrates chopping up live humans in wood chippers.
    And assaulting people by "kicki(ing) them in the cunt."
    PROUD of being a thug.
    (puke)

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Are you really taking Preet's position?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you really taking Preet's position?

    ANOTHER dumbfuck question - reversing what I said. (He's ignorant of what wood chipper means in this commentariat, which literally means feeding live humans into a wood chipper. It's from a while back, involved a legal challenge to free speech at Reason. Quite a controversy.

    But bullies cannot help screeching on things they know nothing about ... punishing me for exposing his bullshit earlier .... now stalking em down the page,

    Always reversing my words, as proven here.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I'll just finish with a quote from somebody above:

    "When you learn the difference between what you call "violent rhetoric" and people dead and injured by physical violence .... then I'll stop laughing at your shameful inhumanity."

  • Michael Hihn||

    ANOTHER FUCKUP!!!

    ."When you learn the difference between what you call "violent rhetoric" and people dead and injured by physical violence .... then I'll stop laughing at your shameful inhumanity."

    (lol) Typically brainless. (Those are my words, misapplied by an ever-confused cyber-bully )

    Here's what I said .... just above for any other retards

    This from somebody who celebrates chopping up live humans in wood chippers.
    And assaulting people by "kicki(ing) them in the cunt."

    Is anyone else fucking stupid enough to see me equating that with actual physical violence? Did he fuckup the issue AGAIN?

    Does this retard confuse free speech with ... adulthood? Is he defending threats of death and physical violence? Why? Because the alt-right believes Trump that Political Correctness means not being a raging asshole, when educated people know it means over-sensitivity.

    Anyone else think PC means not being a hate-spewing, foul-mouth asshole?

  • hello.||

    BOLDFACE IN RESPONSE TO CUNT KICKING

    I LITERALLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM OR NUANCE

    WOODCHIPPER TEA PARTY TALIBAN PAULISTAS REJECT THE LABEL 267% OF EVERY OTHER TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • constitutionwielder||

    The tragedy in Virginia was the inevitable result of a white welfare state that felt threatened.
    Despite popular quips about minorities and hand outs, the most pervasive entitlement program in America is the freedom and justice that is disproportionately adjudicated to white people.
    As black Americans have been historically subjugated to a racially skewed justice system, disproportionate public school funding, and lack of representation.

  • hello.||

    Cool story bro.

  • Trigger Warning||

    I am going to tell my chikdren that the first 20 years of tye millennium established this as the Century of Wrong Words.

    Words. An English professor should know better. Or maybe not.

    Nick, shitty leftard libetarianism is not the cure for shitty rightard libertarianism.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Children

  • Memory Hole||

    These right wing morons like Sean Hannity and company, Rush and company and some here even among the comments literally regularly equate Nazis with BLM without blinking as if protesting police brutality is the same as advocating for Nazism. But these diseased thinking right wingers really believe it and they practice this false equivalency all day in other ways too. The utter stupidity of these people even allows them to pretend like these Neo-Nazis and supremacists are leftists and that allows them to pretend like they themselves are the victims. Trump plays the same game and other games where he allows himself to be attacked by the victims if these right wing fascists without denouncing the fascists. Trump will then eventually denounce his fascist supporters but only after he's had it both ways and clearly marked himself Trump as the chief enemy of the enemies of these racist fascists. Trump has played this game before.

  • hello.||

    The k/d for BLM vs American Nazis is disproportionately in favor of BLM. But then that's probably because the poor nergro gets disproportionately arrested when he commits mass murder while the white man commits mass murder with impunity in Trump's America.

  • eyeroller||

    Here's your homework, Nick: write 1,000 words about how the president should not try to be moralizer-in-chief.

  • Curt||

    "President Trump surely isn't responsible for the car that killed Heather Heyer, but his rhetoric has helped to fill its gas tank. "

    Seriously, Nick? This might be the single weakest pile of shit that I've ever seen attached to your name. Usually, I'm pretty happy to badmouth all the right-wing Trumpkins who like posting here. But, this?!?! It's like you went out of your way to prove their argument.

  • ||

    Reason advocates War on Racism. Calls for President to do more to prevent this scourge.

    Nevermind that racism is a vague notion that contorts to fit all the regionalism and ethnocentrism that exists intrinsically within a society *and always will*. Nevermind that the US is an exceedingly diverse and exceedingly tolerant society and that diversity or lack thereof itself is no guarantee of any sort of peace.

    Racism exists even within races. S. Americans, Mexicans, and Spaniards don't necessarily consider themselves to be equals and/or of the same race. Neither do Blacks Americans and Africans. Large swaths of S. Asia are openly derisive of people nominally of the same race. Even in more racially homogenous and less diverse regions people like Anders Breivik kill scores of people for race-related issues. The Sudanese people have been at war with themselves entirely without Western intervention for nigh on a century. Ethiopia is little different. Turks and Armenians, Serbs and Bosniaks, etc., etc., etc.

    Arguably, the colonialism/imperialism that kicked off much of this strife was an attempt at cultural unification. Reason, pretty clearly in this case, is siding with our One World counterparts who are either less culturally diverse, give precisely *zero* shits about free speech, or both.

  • Ron||

    go ahead and call out the white supremist but lets not give a pass to the antifa who have now been given cover and even approval of their methods for shutting down other people by the media, professors and even some politicians

    The neo nazis are pussies but I fear the Antifa for they have been absolved of any responsibility for the violence and are now the arbiters of what is correct speech. Fear those who now control the narrative.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    So this is where Gawker moved to.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The violence in Charlottesville was kicked off by Antifa. But we don't hear anyone telling them to cool their jets.

    The MSM, now joined by Reason, tells us Trump is an enabler of white supremacist violence by not condemning the white supremacists, but the MSM at least was conspicuously silent about Obama, Holder, et al at the very best failing to condemn black violence against whites. But that's OK

    Perhaps the worst part is that the fight to take down confederate memorials is posed as a fight against monuments to slavery. That's BS. Tear down the Lincoln Memorial if that's your view, because he himself started the war for reasons having nothing to do with slavery and only took the most modest of steps with the Emancipation Proclamation because of the exigencies of war. That war was not about ending slavery but about crushing the South (viz, Sherman's "March to the Sea"). The Southern people, white and black alike, suffered horribly from Lincoln's mad adventure and are suffering still.

  • skunkman||

    Great, so now Reason has turned to the same tactics as the dishonest mainstream media. I didn't vote for the fool and am no fan at all, but the complaints about his response are idiotic. He denounced them from the very beginning. Maybe he bungled his words and maybe he did better later, but he made it clear that hate groups were bad. But there is no possible way for media to leave his exact words alone. It wasn't any different when Obama was President with the right wing media outlets, nothing he said could ever be acceptable.

    Reason, you should be better than this. The story ISN'T Trump. The story is a small white supremacist group went protest. Every single one of them were loser scum that in no way represent the overwhelming majority of white people. Counter protesters showed up, some with good intentions and some with bad. One lady was murdered and over 99 percent of all Americans want that person thrown in jail for life or worse. That is the primary story.

    The secondary story is the media that continues to fuel the fire in an attempt to make themselves valuable. The car goal is to incite. It is despicable.

    Who cares what Trump says. No matter what he says the people that hate him will criticize and the few that still like him will love it.

  • Praveen R.||

    Ypou sound like a defense lawyer. he did not make it clear that the hate groups were bad until someone in his staff decided to make it easy. And when he finally denounced it by name, was it any different than someone forced to say sorry to you when you very well know he or she is not really sorry. If you have any common sense, that's what Trump had to do. a forced clarification. But he sure did jump on twitter to make fun of the CEO who left his council. Funny what makes him angrier than a lady getting mowed down by a nazi fan.

  • ThomasD||

    Gillespie Marks Himself As A Useful Idiot, part MCLIV.

    Two sets of violent groups opposed to individual liberty show up armed, armored, and ready to rumble.

    There is a rumble, with subsequent mayhem, destruction and death.

    And Reason wants to make this about Trump.

  • skunkman||

    Exactly. It is abject dishonesty to promote that these groups aren't all bad and focused on squashing liberty. The essence of the "Trump didn't initially speak out as forcefully as he should have" is that there is some kind of special requirement to state the obvious, that white racists are bad and that the counter protesters are justified because of that. Heck no. The white racists are ignorant trash whether or not the opposition shows up.

    Much also has been said about antifa. That group may or may not have been involved, but let's stop calling them anti-fascists because they are nothing but fasicists. Isn't ironic that they hate each other when they are the same. Life isn't always good vs bad. Sometimes it is bad vs bad.

  • Tony||

    How would it have hurt any of you retards again if the president had done literally the easiest political action in the history of the universe (denounce Nazis)?

  • skunkman||

    Let me preface this by saying I think the President is doing a poor job and I didn't vote for him. But the reality is that he did denounce nazis, he called them hate groups and lumped them in. While i agree he should have been more clear, i also think that it was an impossible poison to be in. Nothing he said was going to avoid criticism. My point is that the issue shouldn't be about a few words spoken by a below average President. The issue is extreme hate groups on both extremes being legitimized by the abhorrent media (one thing I agree with Trump on) and an emasculated law enforcement presence.

  • Tony||

    The problem is falsely equating, you know, fucking Nazis with ant-fucking-Nazi protestors. And the idiot potus doubled down on it just a little while ago.

  • hello.||

    The problem is falsely equating, you know, fucking Nazis with ant-fucking-Nazi protestors.

    True. The anti-Nazis have been responsible for far more violence, including dozens of murders. Equating 200 white supremacists with a national army of paramilitary thugs who have beaten and killed hundreds of people would be irresponsible.

  • Red Twilight||

    And today, he took it back:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....guilt.html

  • Dave Boz||

    The Nazis and the Commies get together and fight, and Reason wants to pick a side?

    WTF. Who did you root for in the Iran-Iraq war?

  • Red Twilight||

    The side that did not have its star warrior beat his mom in Ohio, drive to C'ville and then run over a crowd because they were insulting the master race.

    Which side did you pick?

  • hello.||

    The side that did not have its star warrior beat his mom in Ohio, drive to C'ville and then run over a crowd because they were insulting the master race.

    So that would be the side that had its star warrior beat his wife, drive to Washington D.C. and then open fire on Republicans practicing baseball?

    Wait, no, you must mean the side that had its star warrior slink around downtown Dallas assassinating cops.

    It must feel great to have that moral high road covered.

  • Praveen R.||

    Did you see democratic politicians utter both sides nonsense when that baseball shooting happned?

  • Dave Boz||

    What's the analogy here? Antifa rioters = congressional baseball team?

  • Red Twilight||

    Too little, too late?

    LOL. No, more like Nick and Todd spoke too soon. Drumpf doubled down:
    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....guilt.html

  • Michael Hihn||

    THAT is impeachable.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Trump caved in to David Duke. He has no choice. His small and shrinking base cannot afford to lose even a small faction. He's always been a President to ONLY his own base .,.. which confirms his fucking incompetence. His approval had ALREADY hit its lowest level after Chancellorsville. Now below 30% among independents -- who decide elections in these days of a growing majority sickened by BOTH parties,

    At what point does the GOP Congress realize they CANNOT be re-elected unless they dump Trump?
    He's already made Obamacare approved by a majority of voters. How much more can he destroy individual liberty?

    But Pence could be even worse, a different cohort of hatred and authoritarianism.

  • Robert||

    Did the president really need a teachable moment to denounce neo-Nazis?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Turns out he didn't. He caved to David Duke. A few giant steps toward impeachment.
    So far, Trump has attacked virtually everyone except Putin and Duke,

  • p90afficionado||

    You guys are so full of yourselves. Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton get REAL!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ummm, if you conflate Gary Johnson with Hillary Clinton, YOU need to get real!

  • Josh Melton||

    This is an awful article; maybe Nick Gillespie and Todd Krainan just did a copy/paste from the regular news? I always love subscribing to Reason because they're amazing. But, this is a slack. The first story about what Trump did or didn't say is a load of garbage. It's a dodge from the actual incident and any real journalism on the people and groups involved in it. Speaking of which, story two; the alleged vehicular homicide. Last time I checked, innocent until proven guilty is still very relevant in our country, and it offers us the opportunity to defend people against accusations that lack full insight into what happened. It further allows clarity in the pursuit of charges (1st degree murder vs manslaughter). A video and a high school teacher's relationship doesn't mean everyone has the right story. I'm just another opinion, but expected more from the Reason staff.

  • cravinbob||

    This can be the best example of what one might describe as "tragically immature bordering on insanity". I refer to the writer's pretentiousness at feigning humanitarian practices thinking it hides his true motive of assigning guilt to someone he hates. I don't think a person can be any more crass or despicable. I have always known that those who accuse without shame or proof others are actually harboring a guilt or fear of being found out of their own past indiscretions. I will retract the "guilt" because sociopaths do not feel guilt and are unaware too often that their affliction is obvious. It does not stop them either way.
    The downside of the Internet is ignorance and evil are masquerading as journalists. Poorly as well. Journalism should never take sides as it then becomes a drama queen bitch fest and boring as fuck.

  • ckenney||

    I'm done with Reason. If Nick Gillespie doesn't know the difference between Hitlarian Nazis and the pathetic people in Charlottesville, his understanding of history is flawed. The American society is as dull witted about SJW protesters like Germans were with Hitler. What we witnessed is a cultural divide that will be represented by someone. To suggest that those troglodytes in Charlotteville will represent the liberty gives them more credit than they deserve. Further, to suggest that Trump has any intellectual understanding for the circumstance is either naive, or a typical media trope which Gillespie seems to be arguing for - why? How can you give any credence to a rich kid that went to military school and had to do what a certifiable father compelled him to do as first born. I thought this was a place for reason, evidently only when it doesn't cost money.

  • ckenney||

    I'm done with Reason. If Nick Gillespie doesn't know the difference between Hitlarian Nazis and the pathetic people in Charlottesville, his understanding of history is flawed. The American society is as dull witted about SJW protesters like Germans were with Hitler. What we witnessed is a cultural divide that will be represented by someone. To suggest that those troglodytes in Charlotteville will represent the liberty gives them more credit than they deserve. Further, to suggest that Trump has any intellectual understanding for the circumstance is either naive, or a typical media trope which Gillespie seems to be arguing for - why? How can you give any credence to a rich kid that went to military school and had to do what a certifiable father compelled him to do as first born. I thought this was a place for reason, evidently only when it doesn't cost money.

  • tinder download||

    very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online