Neo-nazis white nationalist are bad they should be condemned

@bijouxbroussard this was the only answer that actually explained it to me

@bijouxbroussard Not to mention his body language when he was "condemning" them gave off the vibe that he was a hostage like in a POW propaganda video being forced to say things he did not mean. Hell even David Duke's words after seem to back that up.

@SW-User In UK politics May is under pressure (from within her own Conservative Party) for not going far enough and not naming Trump specifically.

Do you even know what moral equivilance means? Trump stressed that both sides created the violence and then went on about the 'alt left' with evidence free claims that they were agitators.

He deflected attention from the far right by saying that the left were the same or worse. They are not and the NAZIS are on record as praising his words.

@Burnley123 i left Europe an long time ago don't bring up that place the problem with American mostly the left is they are trying to Europize them self

@SW-User Okaaaaaay...

Britain is relatively Conservative and a close American ally. Even our right wing press have condemned trump, along with most US Conservatives.

So frankly your point about the US Liberal media overreacting to a Presidents 'mixed' condemnation of fascists is a load of old bollocks.

@puck61 i think there multiple perspectives.

sure. one is that all of these men are torpedoing the potus. they are speaking from a position of total malice and deceit.

another is that all of these men believe that the potus should have been even more strong in his condemnation. they are speaking from a position of moral conviction.

you've not seen me on here bashing trump and his supporters as others have, but i believe that the potus should have been even more strong in his condemnation. why? because of my upbringing within a family that embraced white supremacist views. i keep watching the white nationalist boards and chat rooms and the general vibe seems to be that our president has their back. i keep seeing james alex field jr. and see myself in him.

that's my life experience speaking to me.

@CopperCicada it's not about any party its about the orange idiot

@lorne13 He is a little less orange these days. I think the absurdity of his skin color sunk in.

@CaptainCanadia He did?

@CaptainCanadia when did that happen

His news conference on infrastructure, it's been all over the news. You can split hairs on it, but tons of people were horrified and the David Dukes and Richard Spencers of the world were delighted. So, y'know. telling.

Ah yes, the old tariff myth...

[quote]On 2 March 1861, the Morrill Tariff was signed into law by outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan to protect northern infant industries. A pernicious lie quickly formed around the tariff’s passage, a lie suggesting that somehow this tariff had caused the US Civil War.[/quote]

...

[quote]Because of the unfortunate timing of the Morrill Tariff’s passage – coinciding closely as it did with the secession of various southern states – this has remained perhaps the most tenacious myth surrounding the Civil War’s onset, and one that blatantly ignores the decidedly divisive role of slavery in mid-century American politics and society.[/quote]

...

[quote]
In debunking the tariff myth, two key points quickly illustrate how the tariff issue was far from a cause of the Civil War:

1. The tariff issue, on those rare occasions in which it was even mentioned at all, was utterly overwhelmed by the issue of slavery within the South’s own secession conventions.
2. Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage.

In other words, far from causing the Civil War or secession, the Morrill Tariff of March 1861 became law as a result of southern secession.
[/quote]

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/

Author cites some primary sources in there if you want to chase them down. Btw - this is the current consensus among professional historians.

As for states rights... the Confederate constitution doesn't provide for any more state rights - it actually takes one away, the right to outlaw slavery. That line of argument has always been bunk.

@QuixoticSoul you can find an source to go along with anything you say historic documents would be the way to go with this one bud

@SW-User I'm sure you read all the relevant primary sources and can provide citations proving me wrong.

Btw, if you want to read a more rigorous academic article published in a journal devoted to civil war research, you can start here:

https://www.academia.edu/2629054/The_Civil_War_s_Forgotten_Transatlantic_Tariff_Debate_and_the_Confederacy_s_Free_Trade_Diplomacy_Journal_of_the_Civil_War_Era_

@lorne13 he's racist? How do because he isn't liberal

@lorne13 That is not the media's job.

@Cierzo You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science functions. And yes, the consensus is very much real - at least, you know, among people who actually study the stuff.

@QuixoticSoul Keep your religion to yourself. Whenever I need a priest I know where to find him

@Cierzo Your misunderstandings about how science functions and poor epistemological foundations just keep multiplying.

Nothing religious about any of it.

@Burnley123 the first amendment protects people like white nationalist as it does the black nationalist

@Burnley123 No I tend to disagree with them on almost every issue but I can see why they feel the way they do and understand them. and I see the same as communism every time It has been tried it leads to deaths of countless people

@Firespirit But all white nationalists are bad and all of them do support violence.

@JoshuaCo19 not true defamation isn't protected by the first amendment

@SW-User Defamation doesn't apply when, you know, it's the truth.