What in the Hell is Donald Trump Doing?

President Trump speaks to the press on Tuesday in New York

On Monday President Trump condemned white supremacists — two days after deadly protests in Charlottesville, VA sparked international outrage.

Today, President Trump reversed course and tried to place equal blame on what he calls the “alt-left” for the violence in Virginia. As the New York Times reports:

In a long, combative exchange with reporters at Trump Tower in Manhattan, the president repeatedly rejected a torrent of bipartisan criticism for waiting several days before naming the right-wing groups and placing blame on “many sides” for the violence on Saturday that ended with the death of a young woman after a car crashed into a crowd.

He said that “before I make a statement, I like to know the facts.”

And he criticized “alt-left” groups that he claimed were “very, very violent” when they sought to confront the nationalist and Nazi groups that had gathered in Charlottesville, Va., to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a park. He said there is “blame on both sides.”

“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Mr. Trump said. “This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

He noted that the first American president had owned slaves.

Mr. Trump defended those gathered in the Charlottesville park to protest the statue’s removal, saying, “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”

Uh….

Not long after Trump finished his remarks, this happened:

Yes, THAT David Duke.

78 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Early WormEarly Worm says:

    Trump is a narcissist. Probably has a genuine narcissistic personality disorder. Feel free to look up the symptoms and try not to conclude that you are reading from the opening paragraphs of Trump's biography. One of those symptoms is the inability to be accountable for any mistake or misstep. Do not try to understand him from the frame of reference of a well-adjusted person. He is mentally ill. 

  2. Diogenesdemar says:

    The Emperor has no clothes white robes.  Believe me!

  3. unnamed says:

    Where is Moldy to call Trump's behavior disgraceful?  Or is he still 100% with Trump?

  4. Nasty WomanNasty Woman says:

    Can't call him a nazi.  Obviously a white supremacist and following in his parents kkk teachings.  Racist in chief is his self annointed title.

  5. Gray in Mountains says:

    The "alt right" is, very simply, the GOP. the right flank of the GOP, but the GOP. If Trump takes out the GOP I'll thank him.

    What scum. Trump and Duke. Anyone, McConnell, Ryan, Gardner,Tipton, Lamborn, Buck who minimizes this crap deserves to lose. If you don't agree then you have to impeach. Get 'er done.

    • FrankUnderwood says:

      Actually we need to give the devil his due. Gardner did call out the white supremacists and nazis over the weekend.

      Remember, not everything Cory Gardner does is evil.

  6. Republican 36 says:

    Violence by anyone should be condemned but Mr. Trump apparently believes there is a moral equivalency between the alt-right neo-Nazis, white supremacists. the KKK and bigots on the one hand and their opposition on the other because individuals from both sides committed acts of violence last Saturday in Charlottesville. He is conflating violent acts and political and social beliefs. He believes violence allows him to condemn both sides but, without overtly admitting it, by doing that, he is promoting the racist and bigoted opinions of the right-wing as equally legitimate as the opinions of those opposing them. They aren't equivalent and in America never can be.   

    Mr. Trump doesn't understand the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, "equal rights" and "liberty and justice for all." Those principles can never be legitimately interpreted or used as an endorsement of bigotry or racial supremacy. Last Saturday, the alt-right and the bigots represented everything antithetical to those sacred American tenets. The opposition stood for everything good about them and the fundamental fact this country is for all men and women whatever their backgrounds.

    In Charlottesville, the people carrying Confederate flags and driving cars into their opposition dishonored the Confederate soldiers and their leaders, including General Robert E. Lee. America needs to be at peace with its history, including slavery and the Civil War. What author Shelby Foote, a Mississippian who wrote the Civil War trilogy that filmmaker Ken Burns based his Civil War documentary upon, said it best. He said the South realizes and accepts that slavery was wrong, including its after affects (e.g. Jim Crow laws and segregation) and the nation as a whole believes that soldiers on both sides fought bravely and honorably. We should let it rest there.

    So should the President. Whether inadvertent or intentional, his endorsement of bigotry and white supremacists is morally wrong and at odds with our founding principles.  

    • DavieDavie says:

      But as pointed out above, Trump, the ultimate narcissist, does not know or care one whit about anything you just mentioned.

      Quoting Mike Littwin:

      Not only is Trump morally and intellectually unfit for the job, not only does he feed conspiracy theories, chase down innocent immigrants, play chicken with nuclear-armed nations, attempt to quash climate science, but he’s the president who would have us think he can make America great again with a wink and a nod to torches and many-sidesism.

      While

      …Republicans who have enabled Trump, who have sat by silently as Trump defiles his office

      How long will the Generals — Kelly, McMaster, etc. be able to contain Trump, who truly is mentally ill, and quite unstable?

  7. Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

     

    Messages and Papers of the PresidentsAndrew JohnsonAndrew JohnsonFont Size:mediumlargemaximumPrint

    Share
     

    The American Presidency Project

    Promote Your Page Too

    By the President of the United States of America
    A Proclamation

    Whereas the President of the United States has heretofore set forth several proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to persons who had been or were concerned in the late rebellion against the lawful authority of the Government of the United States, which proclamations were severally issued on the 8th day of December, 1863, on the 26th day of March, 1864, on the 29th day of May, 1865, on the 7th day of September, 1867, and on the 4th day of July, in the present year; and

    Whereas the authority of the Federal Government having been reestablished in all the States and Territories within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is believed that such prudential reservations and exceptions as at the dates of said several proclamations were deemed necessary and proper may now be wisely and justly relinquished, and that an universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good:

    Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

    In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

    Done at the city of Washington, the 25th day of December, A. D. 1868, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

    ANDREW JOHNSON.

    By the President:

    F. W. SEWARD,

    Acting Secretary of State .

    Citation: Andrew Johnson: "Proclamation 179—Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War," December 25, 1868. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360.

    • Old Time Dem says:

      A pardoned traitor is still a traitor.

       

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        What's the point with the proclamation from long deceased President Johnson?

      • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

        I would think that the people who fought and suffered through the real horror of the Civil War, could forgive/pardon, it speaks a lot of the character of men in those days. Today it is necessary to hold on and to the hate to use it as a political wedge. It speaks to the smallness of character in our age. Keep holding on old timer.

        • Old Time Dem says:

          You're an apologist for slavery and white supremacy.

          • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

            Hold on old timer!

            • Old Time Dem says:

              Confederate monuments weren't erected by Southerners because they were forgiving anything. They were erected to celebrate slavery and white supremacy.

              The Confederacy was a rebellion against the United States, fought for by traitors to preserve the "right" of the Confederate states to enslave human beings. That the United States was magnanimous after the defeat of the slave-holders is neither here nor there.

              If you support traitors, fine. Embrace what you want. But it makes you a shit stain.

              • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                Yup. Fascinating article about the historical Robert E Lee here. :

                … “Lee believed that the erection of Confederate monuments would keep alive the wartime passions that he was trying to eradicate.”

                Lee happened to visit a Virginia lady eager to show him a ragged tree in her front yard, Flood says. Its limbs had been blown off by Union artillery, its trunk battered. The woman looked at Lee, expecting him to sympathize over this sacred memento of the war.

                “Cut it down, my dear madam, and forget it,” Lee said.

                • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                  A typical lee story, mj.  I have a book on the last five years of his life.  He was tireless in trying to heal the wounds of the war.  It is to his credit that there was no large scale guerrilla style resistance after Appomattox.  Jeff Davis wanted such resistance.  Lee, for good military reasons to complex to detail here but for humanitarian readons as well, forbade it.

                  There is a story of a young man returning home only to be berated by his father for not taking to the mountains for guerrilla warfare.

                   "General Lee told us to go home and that the war is over," the son replied.

                   after a moment's thought, the father said, "Well, if that's what General Lee said, that's what you must do."

                   he truly was a great man, especially at the end of his life.

              • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

                The two major periods when the vast majority of Confederate monuments were dedicated: first around 1900, when Jim Crow laws began and the KKK reemerged.

                Then during the Civil Rights Movement.

                That timing tells us this is not about heritage.

                 

                 

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        Absolutely true, Old Time. Whether that traitor's name is Jefferson Davis or Bradley  Manning.

        • Old Time Dem says:

          Is there a movement to erect statues in town centers to Chelsea Manning?

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            If you'll recall, mj, I prefaced my comment that the left was the first to go violent with the comment " For what its worth. "  I agree it doesn't really matter.  The right is evil but not stupid:  it knows it gains moral authority from being attacked and playing the victim.  The hard left, in contrast, isn't evil but is stupid, and happily gives the right what it wants. So the two get along great.

            The real losers are the 80 percent or so of the counter protestors who did follow martin luther king philosophy and were generally ignored by the press salivating over the goons.

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            It's worse than that, Old Time..Chelsea nee Bradley Manning is in an upcoming Vogue, prancing about in her best women's clothes while being hailed as the nation's second most famous transexual.

            the second most famous trans is a traitor, the most famous trans loves Donald Trump.

            Pardon me while I puke.

            • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

              cook, please help V's digestion by giving him some examples of heroic good guy transfolk. I can think of a few I've seen being interviewed, but don't recall the names or organizations.

            • Old Time Dem says:

              In other words, Manning's situation has nothing to do with Confederate monuments. Thanks for the unneeded update.

              • Diogenesdemar says:

                or this diary . . . 

                or with anything really . . .

                fuxsakes!?!

                In honor of this thread, an August 15 logical analogy

                                   Michael Bennett  :  Zappy

                                                         ::

                                   Chelsea Manning : V'ger

                • Old Time Dem says:

                  Some RWNJ pundit claimed that leftists were flocking around Lenin statues in the US. There appear to be 5 public Lenin statues in the US, only one of which is on public grounds. Of the other four, one is a headless, pigeon-shit encrusted statue that advertises a Russian-themed restaurant, another is in the Tropicana casino for unknown reasons, one is on top of a New York luxury apartment building called "Red Square," and the fourth is a bust at an art gallery in LA.

                  The public statute is in Seattle, and is apparently treated ironically (as maybe everything is in Seattle): he's dressed (appropriately or inappropriately) for holidays.

                  So yeah, Lenin statues and Vogue articles are just like Confederate monuments.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                Well, old time, you brought up the subject of pardoned traitors still being traitors.  Manning is a traitor who was serving 30 years in prison when Obama pardoned him, so just following your logic.

                • Diogenesdemar says:

                  Speaking of following people . . . 

                  . . . did I ever tell you the story about my Uncle wandering around town for hours in his pajamas in the middle of January?

                • Old Time Dem says:

                  I suppose your comment would make sense if I (or anyone) were advocating erecting Manning statues, naming public schools and highways after her, or having state holidays for her. But noone is, and of course you know that.

                  Further, your comment is the most stupid kind of "whataboutism."

                  • Old Time Dem says:

                    Also, your comment on Manning drips with anti-trans bias (she's "prancing about in her best women's clothes while being hailed as the nation's second most famous transexual"). That's not a good look for you, or anyone.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      You are i n a particularly nasty and stupid Mood tonight, Old Time, and your Foray Into Lenin Is pointless In the extreme.  In contrast, a feature In Vogue dedicated to a person whose sole claim to distinction Is being a traitor certainly says something about our modern values– something pretty ugly.  Then you say Mannings treason Is Ok because he is Now a she So all is forgiven.  A terrible thing, chronic political correctness.  Or is it just general dementia?

                       

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      P.S., The Washington Post, swooning over the manning spread in Vogue, actually did call this convicted criminal "The nation's second-most famous transexual."

                       Of course, " second most famous traitor" while accurate would not have been as hagiographic.

                    • Diogenesdemar says:

                      The fact that Vogue magazine even exists speaks volumes about our society . . . 

                      . . . the fact that anyone gets worked up about, or even cares, what gets published in Vogue magazine speaks volumes more. 

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      Well, when treason becomes a fashion. Accessory, the book is pretty near its end.

                    • Old Time Dem says:

                      For some reason I can't reply to Voyageur's comment directed towards me, so I'll do it here.

                      Nowhere do I defend Manning. Specifically, nowhere do I "say Mannings treason Is Ok because he is Now a she So all is forgiven."

                      You're an asshole, and judging from your random capitalization, a drunk asshole. Fuck off.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      The caps problem is a bug on the Fire that hits occasionally.  Of more consequence is that amid your many attacks on manning's critics you have never uttered an word of criticism about either of the two most infamous traitors of the 21st century, Manning and Snowden.  A blogger, like anyone else, is best known by the company he keeps.  Your silence in this case speaks volumes.

                    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

                      yes

                      Thank you, OTD. for saving me and M.J. the trouble.
                      V, I don’t like to fight with people here, (that’s what my wife is for) but you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Chelsea Manning. I’m not crazy about her either, but she was punished for what she did and President Obama exercised “the benign prerogative” and pardoned her. She’s a free woman and probably would like to go on with her life as best she can. What pisses me off is that you keep deadnaming her. That is beyond disrespectful to her as a person, no matter what you may think of her as a soldier. Knock it off!
                      There, M.J. I think we both feel better now.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      Sorry, Cookie, but at the time he committted treason  Bradley Manning described himself to the world as a gay man.   I see absolutely nothing in his subsequent sex change that expiates that treason.  Nor does a pardon change things.  He remains an odious piece of filth who dishonored every honorably serving soldier and veteran in this country.

                      To give him or, if you ptefer, her celebrity status and gush over her hairdo, as Vogue did, is vomitous.  If legal freedom is the test, I await Vogue's puff job on o.j. Simpson.

    • Republican 36 says:

      President Johnson's proclamation pardoning those individuals who rebelled is meaningless in the context of what Trump did Saturday and today. Johnson's pardon didn't then or now justify the rebellion or white supremacy. So answer this: Do you support white supremacy, racism, the KKK or David Duke?

      • Genghis says:

        The proclamation wasn't Johnson's idea, either. When Lee surrendered his army, the surrender instrument included a provision that all CSA officers and soldiers would "be allowed to return to their homes, and not be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside." Similar parole terms were included when other CSA armies surrendered to other USA commanders in the field.

        Johnson wanted nothing more than to arrest CSA commanders and execute them for treason. U.S. Grant, looking at the issue from an exclusively military standpoint, argued that such actions would violate the terms and conditions of the parole conferred in the surrender instrument. Grant ultimately won the argument.

        But yeah, you're absolutely right. Johnson's pardon and Trump's unhinged white nationalist apologetics have exactly diddly shit to do with one another.

      • FrankUnderwood says:

        It isn't meaningless if your brain – like that of the Powerful Pear – has been fossilized circa 1867 and reflects the best in mid-19th century thinking.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      I guess that explains the big rush of construction for all those Nixon monuments?

      It probably also explains all the monuments to the slaves those pardoned, good-hearted ex-confederates erected in every town square in every burg south of the Mason-Dixon Line . . .

      . . . Oh, wait, no President ever pardoned the enslaved’s “treason”, — they were only just emancipated — nowhere near the same moral equivalence as those brave boys in gray, huh?

      You really are a disgusting piece of pfruit, Pfruit.

      • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

        Maybe you and Old Time can get a couple of helium balloons and tie a list of all the things you hate and let it go. On second thought it might need to be a weather balloon with the list you have to attach. If that doesn't work you can contact Banger, he has lots of experience in helping disturbed people feel better about themselves.

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          Please be sure to let us know how any of that works out for your seething white-resentment . . . 

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            Whatever experience I might have in helping "disturbed people" obviously hasn't worked with you, Prune. 

            • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

              The operative word is "help". If you want to fly above the rest of us lowly Pols, you might want to avoid gratuitous rancor such as what you directed at Moldy a few post back, without him even posting. Personally I was taken aback, that's the type of response I expect from the regular contributors, not from the esteemed CHB.

          • Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

            I don't hate anyone, even you, or the other PolCats. Opposing views are part of life, punching people, destroying property, should not be.

  8. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Oh crap. I have to say it. On this one point, Trump is partly right.

    Many – not all-  of the Antifa  (anti-fascists) are violent – even "very, very violent". They pick fights. They're of the same demographic as the alt-right white supremacists – they are usually white, young, and male. Like their counterparts on the right, they love the press and the press loves them. What would you rather have for your 9:00 news shot- 100 staid, non-violent protesters chanting the same chants over and over, or some buff young fighters swinging and wrestling each other for opposite sides of a cause?

    I've watched enough video of antifascists to see that they actually pick fights – they're out in front, taunting, spitting, and swinging in the Charlottesville videos. There are conflicting reports from press about "who started it" – the violence.

    And no, Vger, I'm not interested in arguing with you again about this – we're actually both citing the same source (Washington Post) , maybe the same article, but from different interviews with different people.  It doesn't matter who threw the first punch or squirted the first Mace. The "unitetheright" guys wanted a bloody confrontation to go with their "clash of civilizations" Nazi-inspired nonsense – and the anti-fascists were happy to give it to them.

    This is one reason Martin Luther King was right in insisting on nonviolent resistance – to be credible, a protest movement must take and hold the high moral ground. If they (we) want the general population to trust them, they (we) must prove to be trustworthy. We don't do that by dressing in black, and trying to pick fights with right wing nuts.

    And, to argue the other side, Malcolm X was also right when he said

    We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

    If your opponent is bringing shields, clubs, and body armor, and we intend to face them, we'd better be wearing face and head and body protection as much as possible. I don't see a purpose being served in getting my head split open. Let the young, hormonally driven hotshots take some blows – let us older folks back them up, but not engage. Does that sound like cowardice? Yes – because it is.

    Obviously, I'm of two minds about the antifa, and the anarchists. I'm pretty sure that they're heavily infiltrated with provocateurs  and ego-trippers – people who want to be on the news, who taunt and provoke and throw shit (literally), knowing that those majority nonviolent people will back them up and take the heat, being slower to run away and less agile.

    Those provocateurs reek with white and class privilege. They have funds to bail out of jail – they can be articulate in their own defense, they can be gone from their jobs for weeks without losing everything.

    They weren't around when Deandre Harris was almost beaten to death by five Nazis with sticks.

    Getting back to Trump – the Yammerer doesn't ponder all these nuances which trouble me – he's just looking for someone to blame, someone to take the heat off of himself for not being Presidential, for harboring Nazis and alt-rightists in his own Cabinet. My qualms and his qualms don't share a continuum.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      If you'll recall, mj, I prefaced my comment that the left was the first to go violent with the comment " For what its worth. "  I agree it doesn't really matter.  The right is evil but not stupid:  it knows it gains moral authority from being attacked and playing the victim.  The hard left, in contrast, isn't evil but is stupid, and happily gives the right what it wants. So the two get along great.

      The real losers are the 80 percent or so of the counter protestors who did follow martin luther king philosophy and were generally ignored by the press salivating over the goons.

  9. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Someone should inform our president that George Washington was not around during the lead-up to, and, the Civil War. I doubt anyone in their right mind would want to take down a statue of Washington. But with the alt-right feeling its oats, one never knows.

  10. Diogenesdemar says:

    A postulated explanation . . . 

    https://newrepublic.com/article/144317/trumps-racism-myth-cultural-marxism

    . . . but, honest to god, I'm having a bit of trouble with this article, only because I can't wrap my head around the possibility that there's the remotest chance of anyone really being this totally fucking stupid . . . 

    . . . YMMV

    • Old Time Dem says:

      The Higgins memo is truly the product of an unhinged mind. That its author worked for the government, let alone at the highest levels of the NSC, is mind-boggling.

    • DavieDavie says:

      Ok, let's just cut to the chase (great article, btw)

      The fact that Trump reportedly loved this memo is deeply disturbing. It’s one thing to say that the extent of racism, sexism, and homophobia can be debated. It’s much more extreme to argue that racism, sexism, and homophobia don’t exist at all, but are illusions created by crafty thinkers to fool the masses.

      The memo offers a clue to the extent of Trump’s bigotry. It’s not just that he’s a visceral bigot, but also, on some level, intellectually committed to bigotry. With the encouragement of white nationalist advisers like Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka, Trump is attracted to ideas that absolve society of the need to deal with racism, sexism, and homophobia. There’s no surprise that a president who “gushed” over the cultural Marxism memo had to be dragged kicking and screaming into saying “racism is evil,” since on some level he probably doesn’t think racism even exists.

  11. JohnInDenver says:

    As best I can tell, one person died. She was a paralegal, attending a demonstration, and from the few comments of those who were there with her, was protesting, and was responding to the police declaring the assemblies illegal and requiring everyone to leave. She CERTAINLY not violent.

    Trump hasn't called her mother. I have no sense that he had ANYONE from his Sad!-ministration call and offer condolences to her family.

    Trump didn't offer condolences to her co-workers. He did not praise the first responders and the medical personnel who worked to prevent other deaths from the car's impact on people leaving the demonstration area.

    Trump hasn't outlined any path for reconciliation or even suggested ways to avoid future confrontations and violence.

     

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      In contrast consider this statement from a movie star about a stunt performer in his movie:

      "Today, we tragically lost a member of our crew while filming Deadpool. We're heartbroken, shocked, and devastated… but recognise nothing can come close to the grief and inexplicable pain her family and loved ones must feel in this moment.

      My heart pours out to them — along with each and every person she touched in this world."

      From the vulgar talking yam: "my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know"

    • The realistThe realist says:

      Well said, John. Your comments are a good reminder of an important point about #TrumpsterFire – he has no innate ability to be sympathetic or empathetic. He could well be a sociopath (in addition to all his other disturbances such as narcissism and possible dementia). I feel sorry for his young son (too late for the grown children he raised), though I don't have the sense there's much of a relationship between the son and "father."

  12. lilyflower says:

    I honestly believe he is not well mentally.

  13. Old Time Dem says:

    Voyageur:

    Of more consequence is that amid your many attacks on manning's critics you have never uttered an word of criticism about either of the two most infamous traitors of the 21st century, Manning and Snowden.  A blogger, like anyone else, is best known by the company he keeps.  Your silence in this case speaks volumes.

    You hijack a thread about Confederate statutes because Manning is in Vogue and somehow that is like being Jefferson Davis, and somehow you can divine my thoughts  about Manning and Snowden?

    Fuck off, asshole. 

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      You actually hijacked the thread, by arguing that a pardoned traitor is still a traitor.   I agreed that Manning's treason was in no way mitigated by his pardon.   You reverted to left wing asshole mode.   Go soak your head in a toilet bowl.

      • Old Time Dem says:

        What are you talking about? I was responding directly to PP's post of Andrew Johnson's pardon, which he apparently thought meant that its ok to celebrate Confederates because they were pardoned. You then engaged in pointless "whatboutism" concerning Manning because there's an article about her in a fashion magazine.

        No one–including me–has said anything favorable about Manning in this thread, yet you persist in your remarkable delusion that anyone is supporting her.

        You, quite simply, are a troll. Fuck off, asshole.

        • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

          Welcome to the Gaslight Zone, OTD. Do not trust the evidence of your own eyes and brain. While it may be perfectly obvious to any sane person reading the foregoing thread that Voyageur will bring up any opportunity to bash Chelsea Manning in particular, and transgender folk in general, you cannot trust the evidence of your own eyes and brain.

          What you said is not what you said. What you think is not what you think. He knows what you think.  What you wrote was something completely different and bizarre, even if you have the words in front of you. Because you….are in the gaslight zone.  Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaah.

          V's not a troll, he's just a chain-jerker and gaslighter. When he’s right, as he often is, he’s knowledgeable and a wordsmith. When he’s wrong, he doubles down and gets ugly. Don't let yourself get sucked in. I've had to swear off arguing with him for weeks at a time. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.