Russia Loves Vance on Ukraine

[Some Schmo]

To be completely accurate, Trump was referring to some undetermined number of folks who were participating in the ‘Unite the Right’ rally protesting removal of a confederate statue as opposed to referring specifically to Nazi sympathizers as very fine people.

Yeah, if the argument is that he didn't explicitly say the exact words "Nazi sympathizers are very fine people" then zing! You got me.

It's hard to imagine anyone hearing what he said, however, and not know exactly what he meant, but sure, if you'd like to ignore all of Trump's other behavior, you could give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[Kishkumen]

Are you saying the press conference I saw, where he uttered the words, was fake? Are you saying I misinterpreted his words?

He said there were very fine people on both sides of the Charlottesville march. What was that march about?

I'm not going on what "I've been told." I saw him say it.

And here's a bonus question (if I am to take your advice seriously), how do you define "skeptical?"

His theory seems, in my opinion, rely on the assumption that we should always give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he effs things up and refuses to follow direction from those who understand modern statesmanship better than he does. I mean, the guy is, after all, just a real estate developer and con artist, not someone who ever gave real thought and study to what it meant to be president.

So, he says, "there were fine people on both sides," and he does not mean that "everyone on both sides was a fine person," but the fact that he is not careful and clear is held against him by his political opponents and the press. You see, the latter are holding him to a presidential standard because they assume that people who take on these responsibilities think their words and actions through sufficiently not to make such a dumb mistake.

Then he said there was "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides," once again refusing to call out the right-wing white nationalists and anti-Semites. This is because he sees left-wing protestors favoring the removal of Confederate statues to be as bad as the right-wing ones. I think there is an argument to be made that the ambitions of the left-wing protestors are unrealistic, but I don't think they are just as bad as the racist goals of the right-wing protestors.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is a simpleton who really is a bigot. I am sorry, but his actions regarding the Central Park Five show his bigotry in spades. We cannot expect him to get that what he is doing wrong, but that does not mean he gets a pass. It should mean that he does not get our votes.

Noteworthy is the fact that it took him a couple of days to condemn the racist groups:

“KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

But he did. The problem is that he was always slow to do this kind of thing, and he consistently seemed to equivocate. "Stand back and stand by" is another noteworthy example. I don't think Trump ever earned America's trust on this. The standard needs to be exacting because white supremacists consider any tardiness or gap to be evidence of support. It really is necessary to condemn this stuff swiftly and in no uncertain terms.

[Some Schmo]

Having a healthy dose of doubt - Especially so when I am being told anything from very untrustworthy sources like politicians and mainstream media.

That's it? Skepticism is just doubt?

Yeah, so that's a pretty big difference between us. I'm sure by your definition, you are more skeptical than I am.

My definition of skepticism is trying to make my mental model of reality match actual reality as closely as possible, so for me it's more about evidence and what can be demonstrated, and reserving doubt for unfounded claims.

I do agree that losing trust in a source causes doubt, but you and I have to be careful about that, because someone you don't trust might accidentally say something accurate. I struggle with this all the time.

[canpakes]

To be completely accurate, Trump was referring to some undetermined number of folks who were participating in the ‘Unite the Right’ rally protesting removal of a confederate statue as opposed to referring specifically to Nazi sympathizers as very fine people.

Yeah, if the argument is that he didn't explicitly say the exact words "Nazi sympathizers are very fine people" then zing! You got me.

It's hard to imagine anyone hearing what he said, however, and not know exactly what he meant, but sure, if you'd like to ignore all of Trump's other behavior, you could give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

You can probably gauge how much benefit should be afforded him by reading the paragraph that follows. : D

[Kishkumen]

Okay - When do you think Vance will be getting his first batch of felony charges?

When he commits his first batch of felonies.

This is the theory of "lawfare." Phony charges are used to persecute the innocent Trump and his virtuous allies who are only victimized because they are noble patriots fighting the "deep state." Clearly too few people understand how our legal system works and how difficult it would be to move the process so far along with no evidence. I mean, I think I *barely* get it.

Here is a good rule of thumb:

1. Trump and his allies lost almost every case they brought regarding the 2020 election. Why did they lose so many cases? Lack of evidence.

2. How many federal and state indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas have tainted the record of the Trump administration? Many. Very many.

3. Is every presidential administration found to be that corrupt? No. In fact, Trump's crew had record-breaking criminality.

You don't get those results because of the "deep state" (another conspiratorial and stupid term that is even worse than "uniparty"). You get there because evidence was there and it was presented competently to the court.

[Some Schmo]

This is the theory of "lawfare." Phony charges are used to persecute the innocent Trump and his virtuous allies who are only victimized because they are noble patriots fighting the "deep state." Clearly too few people understand how our legal system works and how difficult it would be to move the process so far along with no evidence. I mean, I think I *barely* get it.

Here is a good rule of thumb:

1. Trump and his allies lost almost every case they brought regarding the 2020 election. Why did they lose so many cases? Lack of evidence.

2. How many federal and state indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas have tainted the record of the Trump administration? Many. Very many.

3. Is every presidential administration found to be that corrupt? No. In fact, Trump's crew had record-breaking criminality.

You don't get those results because of the "deep state" (another conspiratorial and stupid term that is even worse than "uniparty"). You get there because evidence was there and it was presented competently to the court.

It's like all of these people are judging the case and think they know better than the 12 people actually sitting in the room forced to consider the case. This might be the doubtful skepticism I've been recommended.

[ceeboo]

Yeah, if the argument is that he didn't explicitly say the exact words "Nazi sympathizers are very fine people" then zing! You got me.

It's hard to imagine anyone hearing what he said, however, and not know exactly what he meant, but sure, if you'd like to ignore all of Trump's other behavior, you could give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Snopes - Fact Check

No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People'

Claim:
On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people."
Rating:
False
False
About this rating

Context
In a news conference after the rally protesting the planned removal of a Confederate statue, Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters. He said in the same statement he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be "condemned totally."


In an Aug. 15 news conference, then-U.S. President Donald Trump was asked to comment on the event and famously said there were "very fine people on both sides." This response received widespread backlash; many claimed Trump had put neo-Nazis and counterprotesters on the "same moral plane."

Specifically, Trump's critics claimed he called the neo-Nazis and white supremacists at the rally "very fine people." This claim spread like wildfire, with then-presidential candidate Joe Biden making Trump's comments on Charlottesville a cornerstone of his campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a speech that "nobody who breaks bread with antisemites like Nick Fuentes, and who called white supremacists in Charlottesville 'very good people,' or who, as was recently reported, said disgustingly that Hitler did some good things, has any right to lecture Jewish Americans about their personal political beliefs."

[canpakes]

Having a healthy dose of doubt - Especially so when I am being told anything from very untrustworthy sources like politicians and mainstream media.

What is mainstream media? When do sources with large user bases but not using standard broadcast TV or newspapers as their format also come under your scrutiny?

Do you believe that smaller media sources and/or differing mediums that have their own large user bases, and also catering specifically to that base for the same reasons of business and profit, are somehow guaranteed to provide more truth or fact? Or can many of those ‘alternative’ sources also sometimes be a ‘very untrustworthy’ source of disinformation?

Use of the term mainstream media, as a vague complaint about vague grievances, seems lazy these days.

[canpakes]

Yeah, if the argument is that he didn't explicitly say the exact words "Nazi sympathizers are very fine people" then zing! You got me.

It's hard to imagine anyone hearing what he said, however, and not know exactly what he meant, but sure, if you'd like to ignore all of Trump's other behavior, you could give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Claim:
On Aug. 15, 2017, then-President Donald Trump called neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, "very fine people."
Rating:
False

Right. Trump only stated that some people attending a rally organized and attended by neo-Nazis and white nationalists and in favor of keeping a Confederate-themed statue in place, were ‘very fine people’.

You can see how reasonable folks could become confused about why that was necessary and what the hell he was referring to, given who you’d expect to show up to a rally organized and attended by neo-Nazis and white nationalists. : D

[Res Ipsa]

When he commits his first batch of felonies.

This is the theory of "lawfare." Phony charges are used to persecute the innocent Trump and his virtuous allies who are only victimized because they are noble patriots fighting the "deep state." Clearly too few people understand how our legal system works and how difficult it would be to move the process so far along with no evidence. I mean, I think I *barely* get it.

Here is a good rule of thumb:

1. Trump and his allies lost almost every case they brought regarding the 2020 election. Why did they lose so many cases? Lack of evidence.

2. How many federal and state indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas have tainted the record of the Trump administration? Many. Very many.

3. Is every presidential administration found to be that corrupt? No. In fact, Trump's crew had record-breaking criminality.

You don't get those results because of the "deep state" (another conspiratorial and stupid term that is even worse than "uniparty"). You get there because evidence was there and it was presented competently to the court.

The irony of Law and Order night at the RNC was delicious.