Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (179276)	8/30/2020 10:20:04 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 358715

"What did these supposedly 'good people' believe they were doing when they were chanting 'Jews will not replace us!' and 'Blood and soil!'"? I believe they believe that Rat wasn't saying, "Rat bought a gun to deal with motherfuckers like you, just in case." A futile gesture, but what boy my age didn't dream of turning the tide at the Alamo and saving Davy Davy Crockett?

To: Sam who wrote (179276)	8/30/2020 11:58:25 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358715

I don't know, Lane, should we be so circumspect about dog whistles? I don't see how it advantages the cause to lie about what he said in that particular place and moment. He has provided so much fodder to choose from, so many actions, so many statements, so many dog whistles that could be highlighted, instead or en masse. Relying on an untruth and trying to make a gotcha out of it makes no sense to me when there is a load of potential gotchas out there waiting to be appropriated for the cause. Also, lying is disreputable. Trump is mega disreputable in that regard. So, how does going after him with an easily provable lie advance the message that he is is the one too disreputable to re-elect? It's handing the other guys a what-about. That is an unforced error, seems to me. What did these supposedly "good people" believe they were doing when they were chanting "Jews will not replace us!" and "Blood and soil!"? What did Trump believe they were doing? That's not the point. Simply choosing to refrain from uttering this one particular lie does not diminish the overwhelming case against him. Omitting this one piece of supposed evidence doesn't make either the white supremacists or Trump any more reputable. Imagine a jury trial with overwhelming evidence but one witness gets caught telling an unnecessary lie. That discredits the witness and gives a jury permission to disbelieve all the other testimony if it is so inclined. Prosecutions have been lost on less.