Kirsten Gillibrand Polling At Near-Bottom, Wants To Give Voters Money To Donate To Their Preferred Candidates
[guest post by Dana]
It continues to be amusing to watch the 2020 Democratic candidates attempt to out-woke each other and commit to spending even more of taxpayers’ money as they seek the nomination. We’ve had everything, from navel-gazing Beto O’Rourke nattering on about his road trip (and sudden departure from the campaign trail to help find the family’s missing turtle), woke-but-tone-deaf Cory Booker promising some token woman out there the second-slot if he’s the nominee, Kamala Harris, once the chief law enforcement officer and top lawyer in one of the nation’s most populous states being unable to make up her mind as to whether convicted felons should have the right to vote, Elizabeth Warren promising to cancel almost all student loan debt while offering free college education at public schools, Joe Biden awkwardly still working out his issues with women, and his hands, and most unbelievably, self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders studiously avoiding the unfolding chaos in Venezuela during a 12-minute interview on CNN as pro-Maduro forces in an armored military vehicle plowed into protesters. And now we have Kirsten Gillibrand unveiling her first big policy plan. Gillibrand is currently in danger of not even making it to the debate stage, so why not go big:
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., unveiled a plan on Wednesday to give every voter up to $600 in what she calls “Democracy Dollars” that they can donate to federal candidates for office.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News to discuss the roll out of her first major 2020 policy initiative, Gillibrand said her “Clean Elections Plan” would help reduce the influence of big money in politics.
“If you want to accomplish anything that the American people want us to accomplish — whether it’s healthcare as a right, better public schools, better economy — you have to take on the greed and corruption that determine everything in Washington,” she said.
Under Gillibrand’s plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices.
There would be strings attached for both donors and candidates. The money could go only to elections in the donor’s state, although they could be used for House candidates outside the voter’s district.
Politicians would face much tighter limits on donations. To be eligible to receive “Democracy Dollars,” a candidate would have to voluntarily agree to forgo any contributions larger than $200 per donor. That’s a big drop from the current maximum of $2,800 per primary cycle and $2,800 for the general election.
Gillibrand predicted candidates would opt into the voucher system “because the potential of how much you could raise in this system is exponentially higher.”
And how much will the plan cost?
The campaign didn’t provide an estimate of the total cost of the plan, but said it would pay for the voucher program by limiting a corporate deduction for executive compensation, which it estimates would raise $60 billion over 10 years. Candidates, parties and outside groups spent a combined total total of $5.7 billion in the 2018 cycle and $6.5 billion in 2016. In addition to vouchers, the campaign said its plan would include a system to investigate and prosecute potential fraud.
Heh. It looks like fellow candidate Andrew Yang beat Gillibrand to the punch by proposing a similar policy on his campaign website. The only real difference being that Yang is proposing $100 a year, while Gillibrand’s number is $600.
I guess if I were polling as low as Gillibrand, I’d try paying people to vote for me too.
(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana
Yes, I know: Barr. But I just can’t gin up any interest…
Dana (779465) — 5/1/2019 @ 2:58 pmI think Trump’s “Let campaigns enlist foreign intelligence agencies as volunteers” plan is more innovative.
Dave (505f06) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:17 pmDana – Just one question? Do you respect the office holders of the senate?
mg (8cbc69) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:23 pm‘I think Trump’s “Let campaigns enlist foreign intelligence agencies as volunteers” plan is more innovative.’
Dave (505f06) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:17 pm
Glenn Simpson and both Ohrs — three thumbs way up.
Munroe (d1b3f0) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:35 pmYang wants to give every adult $1000/month, tax-free. Why he thinks kids grow up for free isn’t clear. Oh, we’d need a new VAT to pay for it. But $1000 a month! Why think past that?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:49 pmYes, I know: Barr. But I just can’t gin up any interest…
A horse that is so smashed into the ground that it’s not clear anymore where to apply the beating.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:51 pmI think Trump’s “Let campaigns enlist foreign intelligence agencies as volunteers” plan is more innovative.
What makes you think this is the first time? Obama seemed right cozy with them. In fact, that “I’ll be more flexible after the election” remark might have been part of the payment.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/1/2019 @ 3:55 pmSo she is a natural blonde!
nk (dbc370) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:04 pmToday is Holocaust remembrance day.
felipe (023cc9) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:13 pmTo be fair, Gillibrand’s not offering to pay voters to vote for her using her own money.
She wants to use taxpayer money for that — which, of course, is worse.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:48 pmThis is another Dem scheme to work around the Connecticut Compromise of 1787 that gave each state representation in the House proportionate to its population, but every state two and no more than two members of the U.S. Senate: By paying voters per capita, you’ll end up paying out lots more (i.e., widening the graft) in New York and California than in, say, Oklahoma. The Dems are all about the tyranny of the majority these days.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/1/2019 @ 4:51 pmStop pretending the goal is to get big money out of federal politics. If that were true, Gillibrand and friends would be working overtime to ensure that federal politicians didn’t control other people’s money. But, as it is…
Dana (779465) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:01 pmBeldar @11. Which would allow the Democrats to allocate more of the old-fashioned money to elections in the smaller states.
nk (dbc370) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:18 pm@1. That’s pretty ‘Lindsey’ excuse; welcome to Team Trump! 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/1/2019 @ 5:19 pmJim Geraghty at NRO points out that Seattle did something similar in its city council elections:
OK, granted, people pay more attention to federal elections — especially Presidential elections — than they do to city council elections, but I think this just illustrates the progressive dream that more people would participate in the political process if it weren’t dominated by big money interests is a load of manure.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/1/2019 @ 6:31 pm@1. That’s pretty ‘Lindsey’ excuse; welcome to Team Trump!
Or it just means that Dana realizes there is enough bedwetting going on over this issue elsewhere that there is no reason to obsess over it here.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/1/2019 @ 6:43 pmThis actually makes sense. I am surprised Kirsten Gillebrand endorsed this because inside politcians avoid this idea, or anything resembling it. It has been around. It makes much more sense than matching funds, with preliminary qualifications. It was one thing endrsed by Mark Green, who wanted to limitt contributions to candidates aperson could vote for.
Now many more people would be eligible to give money than would. People could expect solicitations.
This could also be done with dollar for dollar tax credits.
Saammy Finkelman (385c0e) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:39 pmCandidates still need seed money.
Saammy Finkelman (385c0e) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:40 pmI don’t know how much crack dealers discount food stamps at, but I’d want at least fifty cents on the dollar back from the precinct captain for my donation. In Hershey bars.
nk (dbc370) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:45 pmBigger states need bigger camapaigns. As it is,big states doon’t have competitive elections for the U.S. Senatte. The biggest prooblem with this ides is that the vouchers might be to small to get more candidates into the race. Seattle’s $25 was ridiculous. Incumbents ans peopleconneced to politics were safe,
Saammy Finkelman (385c0e) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:50 pmEverybody will remember how McCain was hoist on his own fine gold (sic) petard when he took $80 million in government money to run against Obama who forsook government money to take in $800 million in private money. Which is why my first reaction was that this is dumb instead of sinister as Beldar suggested.
nk (dbc370) — 5/1/2019 @ 7:57 pmIf you start off with a big bankroll.
The plan probably has afew loopholes to let people get started, like aopre-existing campaign fund.ontributions from other politicians or political parties or perhaps unions, personal wealth etc.
There needs to be unlimited contributions till the candidate has raised the first $1 million or so…
Saammy Finkelman (385c0e) — 5/1/2019 @ 8:04 pmI’m guessing that Biden has a big lead because most of the left-leaning independents are supporting him (and his announcement that confronted Trump on Charlottesville was politically smart) and the true-believing progressives are spreading their votes out among the more liberal candidates. Gillibrand isn’t that liberal, so I’ll take her funding plan as act of desperation. She may be paying the price for saying that Hillary’s husband should have resigned for his serial sexual abuse.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/1/2019 @ 11:25 pmBernie sanders has no problem raising money from his supporters. Groper joe has no problem raising money from special interests that funded clinton. What is gillibrands message? I am a liberal too! happy may day!
lany (27c8ef) — 5/1/2019 @ 11:28 pm23 many states don’t allow independents to vote in their primaries. blacks will turn from biden to black candidates like 2008. many states that allow independents voting in democrat primaries are liberal and bernie won them in 2016.
lany (27c8ef) — 5/1/2019 @ 11:33 pm“Glenn Simpson and both Ohrs — three thumbs way up”
I know she’s smaller potatoes but I really want to see her face the music. She’s a crappy communist intellectual of the kind that is deeply burrowed in academia and increasingly in USG and causes a great deal of mischief, and acts like she can with impunity.
The things the Ohr couple got away with were outrageous, in the fullest sense of the word. She and her partners in crime worked for a private company but were given, without holding clearances, access to TS//SCI compartmented information on American citizens in order to create agitprop – and then when discovered by the NSA, the DIRNSA himself cut off access to FBI over that egregious crime (yes, crime). Then immediately, her husband circumvented that ban and used HIS access from DoJ to thwart Admiral Rogers, which naturally he would BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE LOOKING OUT FOR IT SINCE DISCOVERING THE FIRST CAPER, you idiots, which caused him to cut all of DoJ off from NSA collections.
The NSA cut an entire cabinet department off from intelligence products over criminal misuse and attempts to thwart the first ban. Let that sink in. That’s where official corruption got to under the liberals. And this rotten woman and her rotten husband were in the middle of it. May her head be the first of many to roll.
Piping Hottakes (fade0b) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:40 amI wonder if I can take one of those vouchers and get drugs for it.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 1:27 amYou probably couldn’t, because you don’t have the connections, but I’d bet that half the Democrat base could.
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 5:40 amYou could do it the Chicago Way: Campaign workers get “walking around” money. A campaign worker for Chauncey Gardener knocks on your door and tells you that you can make a $200.00 donation to his campaign, and it won’t cost you a cent, by signing your Gillibrand Voucher over to him. You say, “I’ll do it for $100.00 cash in hand. That’s $100.00 to you and $100.00 to me.”
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 5:52 am@23 Starting a campaign with the “fine people” hoax is risky. Even Jake Tapper has walked that back. I think the only media person still spinning hard on that one is Cuomo.
His make America moral again is unoriginal, laughable coming from him, and a little creepy in general. I’m not sure he’ll have the energy to make it through the primaries but if he does it will only be because the rest of the field is so week.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 6:03 amMAMA!
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 6:20 amIt’s not a “hoax” and I read the transcript. Tapper didn’t walk it back. Trump said that he saw people other than neo-Nazis protesting monument removals in Charlottesville, and that it was these nebulous others he was talking about. The problem is they weren’t there. There no “very fine people” like that. It was 5×5 tiki-torch bearing white nationalists. Unite the Right–and no one else on the pro-monument side–got the permits to assemble.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 6:37 amIf you’re an otherwise reasonable guy but joined those neo-Nazis on that weekend, you’re not “very fine” because you shouldn’t be joining a rally that had nothing to do with monuments and everything to do with them letting their racist flags fly. Trump said, “I saw the same pictures you did.” Trump was as truthful about what he said he saw in Charlottesville as when he said he saw Muslims in NJ cheering when the buildings went down, which he also never took back.
I do agree that Biden’s MAMA line is a lead trial balloon.
David Burge
@iowahawkblog
Gotta say that “I’m going to take your money, then give you a voucher that you can use to buy me things” is the Washingtoniest idea I’ve ever heard
__ _
Razor
@hale_razor
Candidate Proposes Plan to Redirect Taxpayer Cash to Candidates
__ _
Jason Snyder
@SnydyMan
Nothing says “Democracy” quite like forcing me to give money to politicians.
__ _
Shannon Fisher
@SexpertShannon
Or politicians taxing me so I can get it back from them just to “donate” it back to them!
__ _
Swin Lovewhistle
harkin (a741df) — 5/2/2019 @ 6:47 am@Lovewhistle
Yea what do they think this is? A public employees union?
_
“Trump was as truthful about what he said he saw in Charlottesville as when he said he saw Muslims in NJ cheering when the buildings went down, which he also never took back.”
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 6:37 am
Speaking of hoaxes, not walked back:
Munroe (6877ae) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:21 amhttps://dailycaller.com/2019/05/01/sandmann-covington-catholic-nbc-universal/
@32 Scott Adams does a good job breaking down the “fine people” hoax.
There were other groups there, Adams has a link to an NYT article that interviews a representative from a non-neo-nazi group who was there to protest. Which groups got the permits to assemble doesn’t tell you there were no other people there.
Adams addresses this issue of staying at the rally even after you see the neo-nazis. He has some good points but I’d make one other one. I don’t accept the rule that everyone has to leave once the neo-nazis show up. Why would I let neo-nazis control who gets to protest an issue?
But here’s the point and I’ll quote from the link above:
If you are arguing that the President made a mistake about what he saw, or is lying about what he saw then that is a different claim from he called neo-nazis fine people.
Where do you land on antifa? Are they the fine people on the other side of this issue?
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:24 amIt shouldn’t be hard to very clearly and forcefully denounce White Nationalism and racism. Period. Without musing about how George Washington also had slaves, and without pointing out the problems of the other “side.” It shouldn’t be a strain to figure out how to do that.
*Then* you can point out and denounce the violent tactics of the other side.
Instead Trump comes out of the gate talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. Doing a linguistic ballet of equivocation.
As for this statement: “the facts of exactly who attended do not matter to the hoax question because the President clearly stated he believed some non-racists were attending to protest the statue question.”
It’s so ridiculous it shouldn’t need addressing, but it’s the President’s job to know the facts before opining on them.
JRH (52aed3) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:55 am@36 It’s so ridiculous it shouldn’t need addressing, but it’s the President’s job to know the facts before opining on them.
There were non-neo-nazis there to protest on both sides of the issue. That has been documented.
But this is not the subject of the claim. Stop changing the claim. The claim is that the President said neo-nazis are fine people. He did not. He literally said:
but the lie continues that he said the opposite.
Why is it so hard to look at this and say the President did not say neo-nazis are fine people? The evidence is right there in his quote.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:10 am“Why is it so hard to look at this and say the President did not say neo-nazis are fine people?”
I didn’t say that. I said he didn’t forcefully denounce them and that he equivocated.
I could say, “You know, some of those Wermacht troops were fine people. And FDR was a philanderer and a war profiteer. So really, I think you had fine people on both sides of that conflict.”
Now if you say I have praised Nazis I can call you a liar.
JRH (52aed3) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:19 amI’m giving Scott Adams and the NY Times (pay wall. can’t see it) the benefit of the doubt that there were regular ol history buffs at the rally who just loved them some statues and were not racist. Were there more than a handful? That seems like a stretch.
JRH (52aed3) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:23 amWhy did Reagan lay a wreath at Bitburg?
Munroe (1bc8c3) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:25 am“I don’t accept the rule that everyone has to leave once the neo-nazis show up. Why would I let neo-nazis control who gets to protest an issue?”
The event was organized by neo-nazis.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:30 am@38 I said he didn’t forcefully denounce them and that he equivocated.
Fair enough. Whether his condemnation was forceful enough or unequivocal are things reasonable people can disagree on. The condemned totally seems at least unequivocal to me.
But that isn’t the “fine people” hoax.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:32 am@39 Were there more than a handful? That seems like a stretch.
It doesn’t matter how many were there. The claim is that the President said neo-nazis are fine people and he did not.
@41 The event was organized by neo-nazis.
I’m not sure everyone who came to the event knew that. It’s also not reasonable to assume that everyone who came to the event should have known that. Even if someone did know it’s still possible they wanted to protest on either side and not allow the neo-nazis to control the issue.
But that doesn’t change the original claim. The claim is that the President said neo-nazis are fine people and he did not.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:44 amWhy should people be allowed to give to Reps OUTSIDE their district? Sounds fishy to me. And why make it so complicated? Skip the primaries, the just allow people to give voucher $$ to the R or D or 3rd party candidate in their state or district.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:03 amC-ville shows the power of the MSM. It was a manufactured – fake – media event. 100 Nazis battling 1000 antifa, about the statue for a General that’s been dead for 150 years. Yet, the media and the D’s went bananas so we’re still talking about it.
Absolutely zero to do with real life or what the Federal Government and Trump should or should not be doing. IRC, the MSM asked Trump at least every other day if he “Disavowed the KKK, neo-nazis, etc” and he would do so. Why were they doing it? They were hoping that after being asked 49 times in a row, Trump would slip up and get angry or say “Oh, that’s not important” so they could play the headline “Trump says fighting Neo-Nazis not important”. C-ville was just the MSM attempt to “get Trump” after they failed before.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:09 am“If you are arguing that the President made a mistake about what he saw, or is lying about what he saw then that is a different claim from he called neo-nazis fine people.“
It’s all they have so they’re going to hang on to it like pit bulls and spout it like howler monkeys.
In his own comments he said he wasn’t talking about Nazis so to say he was is some sort of 3-level tiddlywinks.
harkin (a741df) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:24 am@38 I didn’t say that.
btw; I didn’t say you did. This is a weird thing that seems to happen because we can’t judge pacing or context on these posts. Yes, I linked to you’re comment and was responding to that. But I can still ask an open question that expands the scope of the conversation or is in the same general area and not at the same time be trying to claim you said something.
And the question is still hanging out there; why is it so hard to look at this and say the President did not say neo-nazis are fine people?
It’s fine if you don’t want to answer. It’s not directed specifically to you. It’s just an open question.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:35 amIt’s good spin, but if the guy whom Adams interviewed couldn’t figure out that the Unite the Right headliners were neo-Nazis, then he’s neither “very fine” nor very smart. Same with the foolish young lady from Wichita, KS. The only groups who obtained permits to assemble on the “pro-monument” side were white nationalists. More Trump:
The video the night before showed skinheads holding tiki torches, chanting “blood and soil!” and “Jews will not replace us!” Unite the Right had a permit and so did the counter-protesters (where permits were required), so was full of s**t on the subject.
Trump is either (1) lying directly or (2) lying because he doesn’t care enough about the truth to check his facts. Either way, not a good character trait, especially for the most powerful human being on the planet. As for Antifa, criticism of Party A ≠ defense of Party B. I’ve argued quite a bit with my progressive friends that Nazi-punching by Antifa and their compatriots is counterproductive and tactically stupid.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:36 am@48 Are you still of the opinion that DJT said neo-nazis are fine people?
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:39 amI’m saying that Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one side he is, the other not. He’s been so factually bereft–and then telling us not to believe our lying eyes–that you could call it either way, which is not a good thing, and enough to say it’s not a “hoax.” In that respect, JRH is right. He equivocated regarding the events that Friday night when the situation easily called for an unequivocal response. You know it’s not a “perfect” response when he has to keep going back to the well to explain hisself.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:51 amAnd the question is still hanging out there; why is it so hard to look at this and say the President did not say neo-nazis are fine people?
Because if DJT did not intend to say that NeoNazis are fine people, then there are two alternatives you can choose
1)He doesn’t have the mental capacity to recognize NeoNazis when he sees them or
2)His regard for facts is so minimal that when caught in a blunder he just denies it, and doesn’t care if anyone believes him.
Given that he is POTUS, the first option should be rather frightening, don’t you think?
Kishnevi (8c41bd) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:53 amThe second option is consistent with his past behavior, but again, do you really want that in a President.
@50 You know it’s not a “perfect” response when he has to keep going back to the well to explain himself.
The well has to be returned to because people keep lying about what was said. With that as the standard, there is no perfect response.
@51 there are two alternatives
There are more than two choices. Another alternative is that there were non-neo-nazis who could be considered fine people on both sides of the statute protest. This has been documented. We can certainly debate how many, etc., but that is a different issue.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:11 am“I’ll do it for $100.00 cash in hand. That’s $100.00 to you and $100.00 to me.”
At the crack house, they’d settle for a twenty.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:25 am“people keep lying”
Very concerning.
Here’s a Trump response to a question about why he took so long to call out the neo-nazis.
“I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct — not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement.”
This is clearly a lie. Trump makes statements all the time without knowing the facts. Are you equally concerned?
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:28 amIf you’re an otherwise reasonable guy but joined those neo-Nazis on that weekend, you’re not “very fine” because you shouldn’t be joining a rally that had nothing to do with monuments and everything to do with them letting their racist flags fly. Trump said, “I saw the same pictures you did.”
I agree with this, entirely. But I wish the press felt the same way about people marching behind the hammer-and-sickle and claiming they too are “very fine” Progressives and not part of that Communist group.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:29 amBTW, it dosn’t matter who WAS there, just who Trump THOUGHT was there when he made his comment. That he was incorrect, incurious, or just outright stupid when he said it is an entirely different conversation.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:32 amThis is clearly a lie. Trump makes statements all the time without knowing the facts. Are you equally concerned?
That he lies to cover up mistakes? No more than normal. We disagree on why we don’t like Trump as President. You, because he’s not Hillary Clinton, me because he’s not Ted Cruz. To you, he’s an unmitigated disaster, to me he’s a walking, tweeting opportunity cost.
Oh, wait, that’s a mitigation, isn’t it?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:36 amWhy did Reagan lay a wreath at Bitburg?
Two reasons. 1) to signify that World War Two was over. 2) because he found out about the SS burial site after making the commitment and backing out would undermine point 1).
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:38 am“That he lies to cover up mistakes?”
“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”
“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:03 amJRH is being a communist antifa apologist:
“It shouldn’t be hard to very clearly and forcefully denounce White Nationalism and racism. Period.”
Trump did. Why are you loudly acting like he didn’t?
“Without musing about how George Washington also had slaves, and without pointing out the problems of the other “side.” It shouldn’t be a strain to figure out how to do that.”
NUANCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY IS RACIST AND IF YOU DON’T DENOUNCE EXACTLY HOW WE WANT YOU TO WE’LL CALL YOU A RACIST REPEATEDLY!!!
“*Then* you can point out and denounce the violent tactics of the other side.”
White nationalists have always been a tiny minority of extremists. Antifa is much larger in numbers , funding, and implicit social and media approval.
“Instead Trump comes out of the gate talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. Doing a linguistic ballet of equivocation.”
A Communist always sees truth and fairness to both sides as ‘equivocation’.
“As for this statement: “the facts of exactly who attended do not matter to the hoax question because the President clearly stated he believed some non-racists were attending to protest the statue question.””
And that was quite the fair assumption, given that radicalism of the Communist or Nazi variety always tries to hide their extremists behind more mainstream cover.
“It’s so ridiculous it shouldn’t need addressing, but it’s the President’s job to know the facts before opining on them.”
It’s the President’s job to maintain order in the moment and prevent mass hysterias and manufactured outrages from spiraling out of control and threatening the general welfare.
Communists don’t care about that, because obviously they love chaos and destruction that can’t be easily traced back to them. Normal people just living their life, however, know that letting hateful extremists run amok is neither moral nor legal.
Commie Smasher (c2c6e2) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:13 am@54 At this point we are debating an entirely different issue. I also like how you pulled my quote out and spun it around.
Paul thinks it isn’t a hoax. JRH has participated but I’m not sure what his position is on whether this is a hoax or not.
Davethulhu, do you believe the President said that neo-nazis are fine people?
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:22 amDon’t understand why people – not on this forum – keep insisting Trump refused to condemn Nazis at C-ville. He did. Its been pointed out, again and again. Its been quoted. Scott Adams has 10 Videos on it. Trump also said he’s “fine people on both sides” excluded Nazis. So, keep up this “We just don’t understand where Trump stands?” or “Trump said Nazis were OK”?
Fortunately, these people are showing up less and less on TV.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:30 amAnother alternative is that there were non-neo-nazis who could be considered fine people on both sides of the statute protest. This has been documented.
There were no nonNeoNazis [say that three times fast!😁]
at the UnitetheRight rally. Paul posted appropriate links.Trump was referring specifically to the rally, not the general movement to preserve the statue. There were no members of Daughters of the Confederacy or similiar present at the event Trump talked about.
So either
Trump thinks NeoNazis are fine people
Trump can’t recognize a NeoNazi when he sees one
Or
Trump thinks admitting he made a mistake based on insufficient data is worse than being seen as someone who condones NeoNazis.
Those are the only three possibilities. You are welcome to pick any of the three. But all three mean that saying Trump said neoNazis are fine people is not a hoax,
Kishnevi (782bbb) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:40 am“That he lies to cover up mistakes?”
Or that he lies for other reasons. But admit it D’thulhu, none of this is your issue with Trump. It just a convenient attack. Your main problem is that he ran as a Republican. If he was a Democrat, filling the courts with “progressives” and forcing action on global warming you would have no problem with any of his lies.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:42 am“Davethulhu, do you believe the President said that neo-nazis are fine people?”
I believe that if you exclude the neo-nazis and white nationalists from the people attending the rally, what remains is an empty set.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:44 am“If he was a Democrat, filling the courts with “progressives” and forcing action on global warming you would have no problem with any of his lies.”
I voted for Bush in 2000 because I was disgusted with Clinton. Not everyone is a moral void.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:46 am@63. Thank you. Not a hoax.
Also, Trump is not stupid. He knows exactly how to use his words to achieve a desired effect.
JRH (52aed3) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:46 amBTW, I’m seeing the Old Commie trick of “winning by repetition” more and more. Basically, the Democrats/MSM/Whoever attack someone – Like Trump for instance – and its proven wrong. But instead of stopping, they just keep repeating the Hoax/Like over, and over and over again. So, public discussions on the issue become like the movie “Groundhog Day”, we get the same charges, the same facts showing its false. Then tomorrow, the same people act like the conversation never took place, and make the same charges over again.
Eventually, X portion of the public believes the lie. Simply through repetition. Again, the Commie originally came up with in its in the 20s and 30s, but its become more and more prevalent in the 21st Century.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:47 amAgreed, Kevin. I remember all too well the liberals who protested at anti-war rallies organized by ANSWER, a bona fide communist front group, back in 2003. Instead of apologizing for their bad judgment, too many leftists went the other way and became apologists for communism.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 11:54 amThe press link for everyone there was a neo-nazi is from VOX. The press link for someone who was there from a group that was not a neo-nazi was from the NYT. Given those two facts either the NYT article has to be a fabrication or the VOX report is incomplete.
Paul and JRH are now in the not a hoax camp. Davethulhu is answering a different question but it seems safe to take that as a yes.
That is fascinating. The quote in question is:
Paul, JRH, and Davethulhu; we’re talking about the same quote, right? Am I misquoting that? You read that quote and you think Trump said neo-nazis are fine people?
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:04 pmSorry if I was unclear.
When Trump said “I’m not talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists” a literal reading would be that he just excluded the entire rally, leaving zero people to be part of the “fine people” group.
Ordinarily this would be a conundrum, but if you remember that Trump is a notorious liar, it becomes much clearer. Trump was just excluding the worst of the neo-nazis and white nationalists, the ones marching with nazi flags, or chanting “Jews will not replace us”, or driving into counter-protestors.
So, yes, he was saying that some neo-nazis are fine people. #notallneonazis
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:25 pm‘When Trump said “I’m not talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists” a literal reading would be that he just excluded the entire rally, leaving zero people to be part of the “fine people” group.‘
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:25 pm
Maybe if Trump specifically called the neo-Nazis “animals”, it couldn’t possibly be misinterpreted and everyone’s all smiles… or maybe not.
If he said “I like libs who grasp context”, this would also seem to be an empty set.
Munroe (7a9a57) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:41 pm“Maybe if Trump specifically called the neo-Nazis “animals”, it couldn’t possibly be misinterpreted and everyone’s all smiles”
Maybe this is a straw man argument.
Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:47 pmRepeating a lie doesn’t make it true. That seems obvious – but some people don’t understand. Some weak minded people think the opposite. Namely if they hear something again and again repeated or raised with great confidence, they think “Oh, that must be true. Or why would someone on TV keep saying it? If it was false, they wouldn’t keep saying it.”
That’s why lie by repetition works. Of course, it works better with stupid people or people in high-trust societies. People in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia were mostly uneducated and not media savvy. So the Government could just repeat: “Jews Bad” or “Kulaks Bad” and most people would buy it, if it was said enough times.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/2/2019 @ 2:13 pm“There were no nonNeoNazis”
Yes there were, Kish. At the time, plenty of more mainstream people were showing up to populist events specifically to publicly demonstrate against the Antifa types, rather than for any specific Nazi agenda. As it turns out, just like the Nazis, antifa are hateful, violent, and criminal people whose announced presence sparks reciprocal outrage even among people who wouldn’t normally march together.
“So either
Trump thinks NeoNazis are fine people
Trump can’t recognize a NeoNazi when he sees one
Or
Trump thinks admitting he made a mistake based on insufficient data is worse than being seen as someone who condones NeoNazis.”
‘I’VE CAUGHT HIM IN MY UNBREAKABLE LOGIC TRAP NOW…JUST AS LONG AS I KEEP REPEATING THE “NO NON-NEONAZIS” LIE I CAN FINALLY CATCH DRUMPH!!!’ thinks Kishnevi, with absolutely no sense of irony, humor or other historical parallels.
Commie Smasher (570592) — 5/2/2019 @ 3:02 pm@75 Careful Commie Smasher, the Strawman-V MANPADS have been activated. They’ll get you if you aren’t on your toes.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 3:51 pmAnd the question is still hanging out there; why is it so hard to look at this and say the President did not say neo-nazis are fine people? Kishnevi (8c41bd) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:53 am
And he ddin’t, because he specifically distinguished betwene the neo-Nazis and the other people at the demonstration.
He got caught in a blunder, because while “fine peopple” opposed the tearing down of the statue – it’s still not down because of a lawsuit citimg a 1904 Virginia law that was amended in 1997 that says that war memorials cannot be removed, damaged or defaced by any authtority than the state government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/charlottesville-confederate-statues.html
This is the legal brief, as linked by the New Yrk Times:
https://uvallsc.s3.amazonaws.com/archives/statues-guide/Plaintiff%27s%20Brief-Virginia%27s%20Veterans%20Monument%20Protection%20Law%20and%20the%20Dillon%20Rule%20%26%20Exhibits%201-12_0.pdf
So by this it has to be considered amemorial to Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
This rally seems to have been an almost pure white supremacist/Neo-Nazi one, although I have not read any statement clearly to thet effect. But nobody in the other party tried to make things clear to Trump, nor did people in his own party want to tangle with him – and maybe, if you investigate, you would discover that there were indeed some pro-statue “fine people” at the site that day. Maybe only 85% of the people attracted there that day were white nationalists or worse.
Wikipedia includes this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/2/2019 @ 4:08 pm71. Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 12:25 pm
Well, that’s the question. Was it zero, or were there maybe ten or twenty or fifty?
No he wasn’t. Trump knew nothing about the rally, and if he found out later, he knew many people did not. He was excluding the kind of people who sued over the statue. Only they didn’t articipate in that rally.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/2/2019 @ 4:12 pmTrump was perhaps confounding both sides of the issue, with both sides of the rally.
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/2/2019 @ 4:13 pm41. Davethulhu (fab944) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:30 am
That’s right. It was actually the third protest against tearing down the status.
Although the other two weren’t so great either.
It is ridiculous to make Trump say something he did not say.
How’d all thsi get into this thread?
Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 5/2/2019 @ 4:16 pmso McAuliffe and signer, sacrificed heather heyer for this, in their zeal to secure another term, for quilted northam,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charlottesville-confederate-statues-are-protected-judge-rules-n1000526
narciso (d1f714) — 5/2/2019 @ 4:43 pm