So, When Trump Said ...

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

"there were GOOD PEOPLE on BOTH sides" of the Charlottesville brawl, was he saying "good people on both sides of the WHITE SUPREMACY issue," or "good people on both sides of the CONFEDERATE STATUES issue"?

Seems to matter a bit

Just wondered

 

[Marvin the Martian]

"there were GOOD PEOPLE on BOTH sides" of the Charlottesville brawl, was he saying "good people on both sides of the WHITE SUPREMACY issue," or "good people on both sides of the CONFEDERATE STATUES issue"?

Seems to matter a bit

Just wondered

It does matter, but the pro-statue people had assembled and been chanting "Jews will not replace us" long before the fighting. I would hope any "good people" on that side were long gone before the brawl. I will ask you, if you went to a protest and suddenly everyone marchng with you started chanting that, would you keep going or quit? At the moment of the brawl, I believe the two subsets you mention were down to the supremacist only.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

It does matter, but the pro-statue people had assembled and been chanting "Jews will not replace us" long before the fighting. I would hope any "good people" on that side were long gone before the brawl. I will ask you, if you went to a protest and suddenly everyone marchng with you started chanting that, would you keep going or quit? At the moment of the brawl, I believe the two subsets you mention were down to the supremacist only.

I wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Protests over Confederate memorials wouldn't get me off my couch.
I might attend a lecture ...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Protests over Confederate memorials wouldn't get me off my couch.
I might attend a lecture ...

Fair enough, but let's day the protest was something you did believe in and suddenly you noticed a lot of national socialists marching alongside chanting that. I do not know you, but I think you would be offended and leave.

I once attended an anti Reagan march, saw some friends and jumped in with them. Then I noticed the signs being held and decided I couldn't be a part of that, and hopped out and returned to spectator.

 

[T.M.P.]

of the CONFEDERATE STATUES issue

It had nothing to do with statues. Quit being naive.

They used the statue as a faux reason, in an attempt to legitimize their march. it wasn't their real purpose. Their only purpose was to be openly Nazi and racist because they believe Trump backs them and they wanted to show the world.

The statue issue is just noise, mostly created by overreaching over-reactionary liberals...

The alt:reich isn't the Republican party even though they are now part of it, nor were they there to represent conservatives, Republicans, or history. They were there to be repugnant evil POS.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It had nothing to do with statues. Quit being naive.

They used the statue as a faux reason, in an attempt to legitimize their march. it wasn't their real purpose. Their only purpose was to be openly Nazi and racist because they believe Trump backs them and they wanted to show the world.

The statue issue is just noise, mostly created by overreaching over-reactionary liberals...

The alt:reich isn't the Republican party even though they are now part of it, nor were they there to represent conservatives, Republicans, or history. They were there to be repugnant evil POS.

Have you seen the stories about the UTR chat transcripts? They did a lot of planning in Discord chat rooms, and the transcripts make it clear the purpose of the rally was twofold:

1. To latch onto the statue debate in order to make white nationalism appealing to conservatives.
2. To keep their Nazism as vague as possible in order to bait counterprotesters into being the bad guys (i.e., to subtly incite violence without starting it).

They obviously failed at #2, but the response of many on the right says they managed to make #1 happen to at least some extent.

Long story short, this was never a march about statues, and was always a march about white nationalism. From the very early stages of planning.

Here's an example of the many stories out there about the planning on Discord: https://www.bustle.com/p/leaked-uni...-violent-intentions-for-charlottesville-79647

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Have you seen the stories about the UTR chat transcripts? They did a lot of planning in Discord chat rooms, and the transcripts make it clear the purpose of the rally was twofold:

1. To latch onto the statue debate in order to make white nationalism appealing to conservatives.
2. To keep their Nazism as vague as possible in order to bait counterprotesters into being the bad guys (i.e., to subtly incite violence without starting it).

They obviously failed at #2, but the response of many on the right says they managed to make #1 happen to at least some extent.

Long story short, this was never a march about statues, and was always a march about white nationalism. From the very early stages of planning.

Here's an example of the many stories out there about the planning on Discord: https://www.bustle.com/p/leaked-uni...-violent-intentions-for-charlottesville-79647

I have been a military history geek for a long time, and I have met a lot of my fellow geeks who come in with a very pro-confederacy view. In fact I would say they outnumber us Unionists.

I have met my fair share of them who I niece are racist. But I believe most are earnest in their belief that they really do just want to see some ancestor's sacrifice honored. We can usually politely disagree on that point.

But it does pain me some to see groups with no real horse in the race enter in and blaspheme what they want. I may disagree with them, but their arguments should not be co-opted for evil.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have been a military history geek for a long time, and I have met a lot of my fellow geeks who come in with a very pro-confederacy view. In fact I would say they outnumber us Unionists.

I have met my fair share of them who I niece are racist. But I believe most are earnest in their belief that they really do just want to see some ancestor's sacrifice honored. We can usually politely disagree on that point.

But it does pain me some to see groups with no real horse in the race enter in and blaspheme what they want. I may disagree with them, but their arguments should not be co-opted for evil.

I don't think the real problem is that these people came in and co-opted the cause. We all knew that white nationalists existed. You and I personally have had many a detailed discussion about them, and only the most delusional people thought they were gone. So, they exist, we have to face that, and that's not ultimately a big surprise.

The real problem is, after they co-opted the cause, many conservatives felt the need to offer them some form of defense, usually in the form of equivocation about how evil they are or by deflecting attention to some leftist group that did something bad. In other words, in my mind, as bad as white nationalists are (and they are a greater bad than just about any other bad) the scarier bad that is more relevant to our modern world is the failure of mainstream conservatives to respond the way decent people should have responded.

 

[T.M.P.]

I have been a military history geek for a long time,

Me too.

It's just that the CSA, like Nazi Germany, is more "interesting" as a study. And, in gaming, better (funner) to play.

They were most often outnumbered and relied on better strategy and tactics (and for the Germans better equipment) to be successful. The Union and Allies were imho boring.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Me too.

It's just that the CSA, like Nazi Germany, is more "interesting" as a study. And, in gaming, better (funner) to play.

They were most often outnumbered and relied on better strategy and tactics (and for the Germans better equipment) to be successful. The Union and Allies were imho boring.

In gaming, some of my most liberal friends prefer to play Germany or CSA. Part of it is the challenge of the underdog. Part of it is in both cases they tend to drive the action while the other side tends to react.

 

[DrHoops]

Rebels are always badboy cool. Kinda like when people used to root for Jesse James, John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, or Al Capone. Somehow it's more fun to wear the black hat. But then when you really think about it, they were all awful people.

I think there's a lot of that in the CSA fans.

Me too.

It's just that the CSA, like Nazi Germany, is more "interesting" as a study. And, in gaming, better (funner) to play.

They were most often outnumbered and relied on better strategy and tactics (and for the Germans better equipment) to be successful. The Union and Allies were imho boring.

 

[T.M.P.]

Part of it is the challenge of the underdog. Part of it is in both cases they tend to drive the action while the other side tends to react.

Good point, agree. And in the case of Germany they had way cooler equipment. vbg

With the one Civil War game I've played the Rebels had superior movement and cavalry. Not sure how accurate that is.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Good point, agree. And in the case of Germany they had way cooler equipment. vbg

With the one Civil War game I've played the Rebels had superior movement and cavalry. Not sure how accurate that is.

Very accurate. One Union cavalry officer was Judson "Kill Cavalry" Kilpatrick. His nickname came from his own men, who were the cavalry spoken of. Oh, the union also had Custer. The rebs were far ahead in cavalry. Horse riding had been a sport for southern aristocrats. Westerners from the north tended not to ride, they used plow horses. Buford was one of the few union commanders who understood cavalry in the first half of the war.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't think the real problem is that these people came in and co-opted the cause. We all knew that white nationalists existed. You and I personally have had many a detailed discussion about them, and only the most delusional people thought they were gone. So, they exist, we have to face that, and that's not ultimately a big surprise.

The real problem is, after they co-opted the cause, many conservatives felt the need to offer them some form of defense, usually in the form of equivocation about how evil they are or by deflecting attention to some leftist group that did something bad. In other words, in my mind, as bad as white nationalists are (and they are a greater bad than just about any other bad) the scarier bad that is more relevant to our modern world is the failure of mainstream conservatives to respond the way decent people should have responded.

Of course you are right. I am just suggesting racists, and enablers, have harmed people on the conservative side. It is tough, believing in confederate monuments does not make one racist, but racists do believe in those monuments.whatever debate we could have had has been spoiled by the racist movement.

 

[T.M.P.]

Very accurate. One Union cavalry officer was Judson "Kill Cavalry" Kilpatrick. His nickname came from his own men, who were the cavalry spoken of. Oh, the union also had Custer. The rebs were far ahead in cavalry. Horse riding had been a sport for southern aristocrats. Westerners from the north tended not to ride, they used plow horses. Buford was one of the few union commanders who understood cavalry in the first half of the war.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. Still appreciate the reply. I just realized I've never read a thing about Northern cavalry, except for Custer.

I knew the Confederate cavalry was superior, but in this game the infantry's movement was also. Which I question because they weren't really a trained army. If I had to guess, I would think they had superior movement in the beginning of the war and as the union army became more professional, it would have the better. Or maybe it had something to do with supply and logistics? I just found it odd. Armies march in repetition for a reason. Order = speed.

To add to what you were saying above; the South also had Stuart and the Texans and one of two geniuses of the war in Nathan Bedford Forrest. (referencing Foote.)

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Very accurate. One Union cavalry officer was Judson "Kill Cavalry" Kilpatrick. His nickname came from his own men, who were the cavalry spoken of. Oh, the union also had Custer. The rebs were far ahead in cavalry. Horse riding had been a sport for southern aristocrats. Westerners from the north tended not to ride, they used plow horses. Buford was one of the few union commanders who understood cavalry in the first half of the war.

Phil Sheridan says hi.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Sorry, I worded that poorly. Still appreciate the reply. I just realized I've never read a thing about Northern cavalry, except for Custer.

I knew the Confederate cavalry was superior, but in this game the infantry's movement was also. Which I question because they weren't really a trained army. If I had to guess, I would think they had superior movement in the beginning of the war and as the union army became more professional, it would have the better. Or maybe it had something to do with supply and logistics? I just found it odd. Armies march in repetition for a reason. Order = speed.

To add to what you were saying above; the South also had Stuart and the Texans and one of two geniuses of the war in Nathan Bedford Forrest. (referencing Foote.)

Ah, good points. The rebel army was strange. As you note, discipline would seem to favor the north who tended to be by the book. But the south was different in a crucial way, they marched at a speed many could not keep up with. It was expected they would catch up as they could. As a result, the head of the rebel army would arrive faster but much of it would arrive later as they caught up. Foote did discuss this phenomena.

Another factor was where the battles were fought. Most of the war was in the south where southern armies would know the roads and shortcuts. In addition, they were better adjusted to the climate.

If you have read about Shiloh, Lee Wallace shows the problem with the knowledge of terrain. Wallace was stuck out on his own, and the nearest union army to him had a specific path to reinforce him if he were attacked. Instead it was Grant's main body that was attacked. Wallace was ordered to their aid, but the only route he knew was his own relief route. He took it, it was way out of the way and would ruin his career until fate stepped in in '64.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Have you seen the stories about the UTR chat transcripts? They did a lot of planning in Discord chat rooms, and the transcripts make it clear the purpose of the rally was twofold:

1. To latch onto the statue debate in order to make white nationalism appealing to conservatives.
2. To keep their Nazism as vague as possible in order to bait counterprotesters into being the bad guys (i.e., to subtly incite violence without starting it).

They obviously failed at #2, but the response of many on the right says they managed to make #1 happen to at least some extent.

Long story short, this was never a march about statues, and was always a march about white nationalism. From the very early stages of planning.

Here's an example of the many stories out there about the planning on Discord: https://www.bustle.com/p/leaked-uni...-violent-intentions-for-charlottesville-79647

Out of the 63,000,000 people who voted for Trump, how many do you claim are racists/Nazis/white supremacists?

 

[RBB89]

"there were GOOD PEOPLE on BOTH sides" of the Charlottesville brawl, was he saying "good people on both sides of the WHITE SUPREMACY issue," or "good people on both sides of the CONFEDERATE STATUES issue"?

Seems to matter a bit

Just wondered

You're seriously still doing this?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Out of the 63,000,000 people who voted for Trump, how many do you claim are racists/Nazis/white supremacists?

I don't.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

You're seriously still doing this?

Doing what?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Out of the 63,000,000 people who voted for Trump, how many do you claim are racists/Nazis/white supremacists?

I don't know how many are outright racists/Nazis/white supremacists, but the other ones who aren't are at least ok with it on some level.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Rebels are always badboy cool. Kinda like when people used to root for Jesse James, John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, or Al Capone. Somehow it's more fun to wear the black hat. But then when you really think about it, they were all awful people.

I think there's a lot of that in the CSA fans.

That's a good point. Whenever I saw somebody with a Confederate battle flag on their truck or person, I never first thought of racism. Instead I thought of rebels, contrarians, and mavericks. Kinda like the Duke boys/General Lee image. That's not to say that some of those people weren't racist, but not all of them. Being a rebel is still something to be admired in many quarters. Now, of course, we have made that particular image of a rebel something akin to the swastika, which itself has an innocent meaning.

Funny how the left, who just few decades or so ago, adopted and even idolized the images of Che Guevara, a cold blooded killer, and Mao Tse Tung, a horrible mass murderer. That always seemed to be okay. Still is okay for the old hippies.

 

[T.M.P.]

Out of the 63,000,000 people who voted for Trump, how many do you claim are racists/Nazis/white supremacists?

Guessing 10 to 15% in varying degrees from Meh to Heil Yea!

 

[zeke4ahs]

We need to stop using white supremacist and racist interchangeably. There's a pretty big difference. While I don't think a very big percentage that voted for him are white supremacists, I do think a much bigger number are racist. And many of those would deny that they are.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

Out of the 63,000,000 people who voted for Trump, how many do you claim are racists/Nazis/white supremacists?

The better question is how many still support him after he defended Nazi's and the Klan.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

We need to stop using white supremacist and racist interchangeably. There's a pretty big difference. While I don't think a very big percentage that voted for him are white supremacists, I do think a much bigger number are racist. And many of those would deny that they are.

Here's an interesting poll: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reuters-poll-white-supremacist-views_us_59bc155fe4b02da0e141b3c8

1) "Only" 8% support white nationalism? That actually sounds like quite a bit to me.

2) 39% think whites are "under attack"? I bet it's the same people who think Christians are "under attack" even though both groups basically get everything they want. How many white people have been pulled over for "driving white"?

3) 16% thinks blacks shouldn't marry whites? Yowza.