To clarify, before I go off the handle -- is it your assessment that Trump "called illegal immigrants animals," or is it your assessment that media claims Trump called illegal immigrants animals? And/or that the latter was Trump's intent?
I might've misheard initially. I was pulling from memory and only the brief refresher when you posted it. Even if he doesn't call illegal immigrants animals he's got people who will do that for him, but more on that elsewhere. But for the sake of honesty, yes, let's say that I said that Trump called illegal immigrants animals and that I might've misheard or misremebered the sentence and context and that's on me and my bad there.
That's a pretty simplistic characterization. My point being, if you were to analyze any political speech by any politician, you could probably say the same thing about it. The Gettysburg Address was vague and full of exaggerations and fal.... well.... okay maybe not the best example. But you get my point, surely -- the criticism, as I'm hearing it anyway, sounds like "business as usual, but I dislike it."
The criticism isn't just 'I dislike it' though I do dislike it, moreso for how it was presented and how manipulative it was to the crowd and his base. At a time when the nation was still being like "Someone got hit by a car" and angry at the initial response to then have a rally to defend his statements and rile up the troops is a questionable move. To then purposely lie even about petty shit like the crowd of the rally and the 'crowd' of protesters further paints the canvas of this being an 'us against them' thing. Which then was only furthered when he called the rally a safe space as if people attending were in danger just for attending.
He knows what his people want to hear and he knows what his loudest critics want to hear and he gives it to both of them in one go.
My takeaways were (a) when he's defending his Charlottesville statements -- which I had no problem with -- he's doing it like he's debating on the internet, and it sounds dumb, and definitely not something he should've done for twenty minutes or whatever, because why. But then also (b), nobody has ever called people out on their bullshit the way Trump calls people out on their bullshit, and (c) end of the day, that single rally produced more energy than Hilary's entire campaign. The man is doing something right, in terms of leadership.
But the bullshit he calls people out on isn't even always accurate. He's taken 140 character shit posting and started doing it on an international scale. But it doesn't matter because he calls CNN or other critical outlets "FAKE NEWS" and the people eat it up and use the moniker to immediately dismiss those sources as accurate because they're 'fake' and have you tried getting your information from a trusted source like Breitbart have you heard of it it's a good source. Increasingly it feels like the guy can't take criticism and instead will spin it so it's their fault he's being criticized.
Yes, he's being criticized incredibly heavily but at some point you'd think he'd wonder why. The guy is doing something right to his supporters because as has become clear over these months: they'll support him no matter what he does or says. Because some people are still thinking that because he's not a career politician that he's the right guy to care about the average citizen or whatever the claim was.
I don't like the guy, that's sort of been made clear at this point, but I'm not someone that thinks everything he's done is wrong or bad or taking to the internet shouting about IMPEACH TRUMP. I disagree with many of his actions and responses to 'losses' (like the health care vote) but sometimes in the middle of his ramblings he says something I agree with. Often about the media and its selective coverage but hey, that's where my wheelhouse is.
If he were convicted for treatment of prisoners that'd be one thing -- his actual conviction, for which he was pardoned (as I understand it anyway) was for enforcing the law against the court's wishes. The court doesn't get to legislate. I don't have a problem with that pardon but I haven't looked into it much, Idunno. I could be convinced it's a dick move.
I mean he was literally violating the Fourth Amendment and various civil rights. And the pardon sends a certain message, namely that 'hey it's okay to literally break the law and profile people that might be immigrants because they're brown and look different. Arpaio's actions should not be praised at all; he literally abused his position and violated the law, something he is supposed to enforce. It is absolutely a dick move. Setting aside the process, which is different than how pardons usually go, how good does it look that someone who is largely reviled in his state and who is also actually literally a racist, xenophobe, literally set up a concentration camp for prisoners, inhumanely treated prisoners by subjecting them to temperatures so hot their shoes were melting, didn't investigate crimes like the rape of a child, improperly clearing seventy five percent of crimes without investigation or arrest, took political opponents to court not for anything legitimate but because they were in the way, and is also an Obama birther, is being pardoned.
Someone can claim that stopping brown people is doing their job if they're afraid that every brown person in Arizona is an illegal immigrant; they'd be insane but I can believe they'd think that fell into the job of a police officer. It's the other laundry list of offenses and the whole, you know, violation of civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment that combine make the pardoning a baffling move. Except it's not that baffling because Arpaio is in the right camp. And it's a camp where a man who abuses prisoners and doesn't investigate rapes and who illegally seizes brown people is allowed to walk free before even being sentenced.
If someone is fine with the pardon I have to wonder why. The court told Arpaio to stop the whole racial profiling and unlawful search and seizure and Joe blatantly told them no and continued to do it. And now he got pardoned so what's stopping other cops from detaining people suspected of being illegal immigrants for no reason other than they have a different skin color and facing no repercussions? Joe Arpaio was not an American patriot as the President claimed.
Also he blamed Obama so what the fuck, Joe, let it go.
<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>
I recognize exactly two of those names, and I only don't mind one of those. Milo's amusing sometimes.
I'm going to assume the two are Spencer and Milo. Disregarding Milo since he's an opportunistic little troll man the others are:
Andrew Anglin: Founder and editor of The Daily Stormer which is a white supremacist and Neo-Nazi news/commentary site which often had it's 'Army' attack people that Anglin disagreed with in true brigade fashion. The site helped in the organization of the Unite the Right rally and in the wake of Heather Heyer's death mocked her and wanted readers to attend the funeral and call her a fat skank. Other white nationalists have voiced issues with Anglin and The Daily Stormer because he was
too into Hitler's ideals and also enjoyed sex with Filipino women. One could put him in the same camp as Milo but...eh Milo is more actually a troll while Anglin's actually a white supremacist member of the Alt-Right.
Marcus Halberstram: Co-host of the podcast Fash the Nation which might not seem so bad until you remember that the podcast is hosted on Tge Right Stuff which is a white nationalist blog site that supports fascism, Neo-Nazism, and is in favor of ethnic cleansing to make the U.S. a white ethnic state. Might as well throw in Mike Peinovich in there since he founded the place (and is married to a Jewish woman, funny that). The podcast and site are friendly with The Daily Stormer.
Jared Taylor: White supremacist and white nationalist and founder of the publication American Renaissance which is a white supremacist magazine. He was a former director of the National Policy Institute and was on the board on the Occidental Quarterly. He claim to not be a racist while also being in favor of racial segregation and believing that blacks left alone means civilization disappears. Because they're uncivilized. He doesn't hate the Jews which I suppose is a point in his favor and he's been critical of The Daily Stormer. He, along with Spencer, have been seen as the more intellectual side of the alt-right movement but a white supremacist with a degree is still a white supremacist.
Vox Day: A white nationalist and misogynist who used to just be angry at SJWs. He's a writer and blogger and an alt-right activist who thinks women should be denied a vote and that women's rights are wrong calling them a disease. Their rights, I mean. Not women. He's mostly someone that's upset that science fiction is being more progressive and started his own brand of Sad Puppies. Not really on the same level as the people what run Neo-Nazi and supremacist websites but he's a known figurehead within the Alt-Right.
