Cyrus19 said:

Trump has emboldened the far right radicals with his election.

---

akira_akuma said:

Cyrus19 said:

Trump has emboldened the far right radicals with his election.

---

no. they were already emboldened. Trump not giving them what they want, caused their anger to boil over.

---

Cyrus19 said:

akira_akuma said:

Cyrus19 said:

Trump has emboldened the far right radicals with his election.

---

no. they were already emboldened. Trump not giving them what they want, caused their anger to boil over.

---

I disagree there numbers are still relatively small I think there was only like 600 in Charlotte thats not very many for the biggest racist rally in decades. However with Trump in office and his campaign rhetoric has inflamed them.

---

Quote:

Well the activity there really only picked up when the government agreed to remove a statue of Robert E Lee.

Who didn't have slaves. Who didn't even want to be involved, would have fought for the union, if his home state weren't about to get completely assfucked by the North. And they would have been crushed without him, even with how badly organized they were. And he agreed to fight for them because the primary reason for the succession was because the of the election. The south unanimously voted against Lincoln, yet he still won. They didn't feel represented, and more they felt they had the power to decide to break off from the union if they chose, as many powers in history behaved in a similar manner. And they didn't want Lincoln for a broader reason than slavery, they didn't want him because of what he was, a Union man that had ideas that would destroy southern economy. And that's exactly what happened.


And what was it that the liberal side was bitching about so much in November?
Right "not my president."


In morals Lee and much of the Liberal party agree. They're just too ignorant to see it.
And you can best bet "No taxation without representation" meant a whole hell of alot more to people whose grandfathers fought and died to make that ideal possible.


In essence the liberal party and the confederates are fighting for the same thing, the ability to overcome a power that governs them that they don't agree with. And, in essence, it was the democratic conquest that now makes it impossible for them to simply say "not my president" and break away. Funny how history works.


Ya know if we bothered too actually think and read what has actually happened in the world, to learn from the past, and to understand eachother, maybe we wouldn't have so many warring factions that thrive on hatred.

---

Quote:

Funny how history works.

---

Stonehenge said:

And we know why asante is on about this, no need to say more.

---

qman said:

The video wasn't accurate because it failed to show the violence coming from the other side, go on Utube and see the hours and hours of coverage from that day, the left was EXTREMELY violent as well, they only difference was the car incident, that's all.

Trump is exactly correct, BOTH SIDES are in the wrong in many cases that day.

---

Cyrus19 said:

qman said:

The video wasn't accurate because it failed to show the violence coming from the other side, go on Utube and see the hours and hours of coverage from that day, the left was EXTREMELY violent as well, they only difference was the car incident, that's all.

Trump is exactly correct, BOTH SIDES are in the wrong in many cases that day.

---

Trump has inflamed racial tensions.

---

And when Obama invited tons of people from Blacklivesmatters into the White House week after week, that's didn't "inflamed racial tensions"? 

When Trump invites violent members from the KKK into the White House, you might have a case.

CookieCrumbs said:

Ya know if we bothered too actually think and read what has actually happened in the world, to learn from the past, and to understand eachother, maybe we wouldn't have so many warring factions that thrive on hatred.

---

Nah, part of the individual state's rights being warred over was the right of the state to decide if men could impede the rights of other men by owning them.  What you left out is an important bit of the ideology of the period, and that is dangerously close to revisionism.  I certainly won't argue that the individual state's rights weren't a point of contention, but what triggered the debate in the first place?  You've all but answered that question in stating the fact that Robert E. Lee was nearly a Union soldier.
Also, most liberals are big government socialists.  I personally disagree that granting the federal government that much power in a country that has been in a bipartisan power struggle for essentially the entirety of its existence is a good idea, but I digress.

I suppose I should point out that anti-white racism championed by a large number of liberal and leftist media outlets is equally unacceptable.  Just wanted to address that before someone tries to make a talking point of the obvious.