Considering President Trump condemn both groups for their actions, I'd say he disassociated himself from both groups fairly well.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, that's not good enough for the modern liberal it seems
@Ze Grammar Nazi, Exactly. Just because he doesn't condemn them to death doesn't mean he supports them. Do I agree with each of those groups? Fvvvvvck no. But do I think they should both be able to PEACEFULLY protest their ideas. Of course. (yes please downvote a comment not wanting people to be condemned to death and wanting peaceful protest. typical.)
@Ze Grammar Nazi, the guy took days, even though he's never missed an opportunity to lash out with criticism without researching. He said there were "fine people on both sides." Before he condemned them specifically he was *directly asked* if he will condemn them by name. He refused to do so. White supremacists came out and said "he didn't denounce us, bless Donald Trump for his support." So no, I'd say he didn't disassociate from both groups fairly well. Republicans as well said his response was horrible, so don't make this a liberal thing.
On the campaign trail the same exact thing happened. He was directly asked to denounce David Duke's support and he said "I don't know enough about him." David Duke said in Charlottesville that they are fulfilling Trump's promises. I don't think Trump supports these people, but he definitely knows they support him. And it shows.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, yeah, but that doesn't make good news
@Blue Shirted Guy, what about all the dozens of times before Charlottesville when he specifically condemned white nationalists and Nazis, oh wait that's not good enough because "LOL everything Trump does is bad no matter what XD" that's the fantasy you live in.
@Captain Swordsman, Trump could condemn them 1,000 times, that doesn't change the fact that his *initial response* was to refuse to condemn them by name (when asked directly to do so) and then to say "there were fine people on both sides." It took him days to condemn, when he is notorious for bashing people with little or no research.
Neo-Nazis came out and said "Trump comments were good. He refused to answer a question about White Nationalists supporting him. When asked to condemn, Trump just walked out of the room." Others blessed him. David Duke thanked him. On the campaign trail, he did not condemn David Duke immediately when asked. It is always after facing criticism when he decides to say anything. He has never tweeted out condemnation of them by name, but has tweeted dozens of times about Obama's birthplace.
Liberals and conservatives alike have bashed Trump over this. I don't think he supports Nazis, but I think he is aware of their undying loyalty to him.
@Blue Shirted Guy, if there was ever a time for immediate, direct, and powerful condemnation of these people, it was after Charlottesville. A non-answer when asked to condemn Nazis is an answer.
@Blue Shirted Guy, he should have condemned the violent counter protesters in masks and the media. Without them there would not be any violence. Those POS are paid to show up at every rally to cause violence.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, I personally think Trump is a bit of a tit - but I still get annoyed by the media at times. After the riots he said something along the lines of "Nazis are bad, but not everyone there was a Nazi, so we shouldn't condemn everyone as a Nazi". The media here largely interpreted that as "Trump says we shouldn't condemn Nazis".
I don't support Trump (nor do I condemn him - I'm not American, so he literally is 'not my President') but I do support honesty in the media.
@Blue Shirted Guy, so as you said multiple times he usually bashes people with little to no research, and everyone complains when he does, but this time he waited before saying anything about it, and now y'all are mad about him NOT just jumping into it and bashing everyone?
@TheyCallMeTaterSalad, exactly I don't support white supremacists but they have a right to peacefully assemble and protest same as anyone. They were allowed to protest for whatever reason. Counter protesters who want to show up and yell and holler at another group and starts escalating into violence. Both sides were wrong to fight but they had as much a right to protest as any other group
@Snowballs, the violent counter-protestors are scum, but to say there wouldn't be violence whatsoever is just silly. We're discussing Charlottesville, not every peaceful rally like Boston those idiotic thugs show up at.
The problem is not that Trump condemned both sides, it was *how* he condemned both sides. I just listed the examples in my response. He was making an equivalency. Also, with David Duke and the like shouting their support for him, you'd think he'd IMMEDIATELY separate himself from any praise coming from that side.
I also suggest people read the statements from the rabbis in Charlottesville that day.
@Richard Cypher, you missed my point. Just because he waited doesnt mean he was using the time to put in thoughtful research. We all know he didn't do that. He never has.
If there was any time to come right out and condemn something/somebody, it was right after Charlottesville. And Trump, of all people, didn't. That's extremely telling.
@Blue Shirted Guy,
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
- Maya Angelou
@Blue Shirted Guy, should he have condemned them by name asap? Yeah, definitely. Was it stupid not to? Yeah, no doubt. Did he make it seem like he supported them at all? F*** no. He made it seem like he was discussed by them. And he brings up both sides because the counter protesters came with the intention of causing violence. Idk why he didn't just condemn them by name, but he definitely showed he didn't support them. Oh, and no offense, but that's one of the dumbest f***in things I've ever heard. Just because someone shows you "who they are" doesn't mean that's really them. Wether they are faking, or shy, or acting, etc, it makes no sense, because offten people aren't really who they appear to be at first.
@The white dude, if "he definitely showed he didn't support them," then white supremacists and neo-Nazis wouldn't have been thanking and blessing him after his speech. And again, it's fine that he brought up both sides. It's *how* he did so.
Also, you are taking her quote WAY too literally haha. She was a poet and activist. Her words weren't meant to be applied to things like some shy guy that gives off a weird first impression on a date.
@Nellybert , I think that's fair
@Blue Shirted Guy, like Obama to Fox news no matter what he does, *How* he did it won't be good enough for you
@Medic135, instead of just claiming that, why don't you present thoughts as to why you thought his response was sufficient? Or refute some of the points I made? It's fine if anyone disagrees with me, but I'd much prefer having a debate with some critical thinking being exchanged.
@Blue Shirted Guy, I think you come here just for the debate, and anything someone says you don't like will be met with a similar response to your last one. Nothing anyone says is a real argument to you, your whole point is a matter of opinion but if someone refutes with an opinion as well then that's not a valid enough argument point for you
@Medic135, this topic is literally one of opinions. I provided actual statements from white supremacists both during the rally and after, and mentioned rabbi's statements from Charlottesville. I mentioned how Trump refused to condemn them by name when directly asked, and how he didn't condemn David Duke on the campaign trail in an interview when directly asked. I stated that both republicans and democrats are criticizing him. These are *facts* that I'm *using to support my opinion.*
That is how critical debate works. I haven't insulted anyone, and I'm open to hearing anyone's thoughts. But I have every right to refute what they say. I try to do so respectfully. If you have a different opinion, I ask that you use some evidence to emphasize it.
Also, I've been here for years. The frequent political posts are a pretty recent phenomenon. Sure I participate in a fair share, but I wouldn't use a funny pics app if I simply wanted to debate people on the internet.
@Medic135, and again, please refute my points or present your own. I try my best to respond to everyone.
@Blue Shirted Guy, yes he is under fire. He didn't denounce David duke when asked in fact I'm pretty sure he refuses to do whats asked of him by media out of spite. There, your facts are correct. Back to opinion world, no he probably should have said something quicker about it but the fact is he DID say something. But that's just not good enough for anybody and it's being made into some big deal and it isn't. It's like Fox news vs Obama all over again nothing the man does is good enough and it's all the end of the world
@Blue Shirted Guy, I think it's more like he's trying to be 'that guy that everybody likes', so he tries to do stuff that won't offend anyone except he royally fails because he also tries to convey his own opinion without any research or backing a lot of times
@Medic135, your argument is just that whatever he does won't be good enough. Honestly, you're probably right when it comes to a lot of people. But you aren't expanding on your opinion of this particular example. Even Trump supporters called him out for his remarks, so I'm not sure why you're choosing this example to say it's never good enough.
@Prince super Vegeta , I can agree with that. I don't think he's handling all the opposition very well. I'm sure it'd be tough for anyone, but politicians probably learn how to manage it and get used to it. Trump's always had opposition being a public figure, but I don't think he expected it to be like this
@Medic135, I don't personally like or dislike the guy, but I don't see a reason to bash him on this. I do support him, because he is our president, and I hope he succeeds at being a great President and surpasses all expectations of him, not because I think of him as a great man, but because I don't see the point in hoping he fails. It seems so petty to try to make such a big deal out of this, especially after he did go ahead say something more about it. It may have been a bit more delayed than it should have been, but since the beginning he never showed any support to these people, and if they see him not directly saying he hates them by name as a way of him being on they're side, they're idiots. Blue does make some good points, but personally I side with what you said more. Honestly I think this is a stupid thing to hold on to, but you know people will milk this for as long as possible just to find a reason to hate him.
@Prince super Vegeta , he needs to realise you can't please everyone. Trying to do so is just digging himself into a bigger hole
@Ze Grammar Nazi, the fact that he even had to is pathetic. And the fact that he has and they ignored it only makes it worse.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, *dissociated
@The white dude, I really like your post! I don't particularly care for him but I do love America and want it to succeed, which means we need leaders in office who will get us there and sometimes we need to grit our teeth and keep pushing together so we still have a country worth fighting for in the end. I just wish he wasn't such a pompous arse sometimes. Anyhow, despite you being a 'white dude' and me being a 'brown chica', it's very nice to still be able to relate which means there's hope for us yet. Cheers!
@Ze Grammar Nazi, he didn't do it immediately you like someone intelligent would
@Blue Shirted Guy, After Trumps lack of a quality speech over Charlottesville. Its become clear that Trump is not good at giving speeches. He's really good at saying things that can get people riled up. He's not good at saying things that can calm them down.
Im honestly starting to believe Trump is that kid who does the opposite of what someone wants. Just to annoy them or shock them. Hes like an internet troll.
I've started to believe Trumps last day in office he plans to play the Rick Roll song as he leaves.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, heres the thing about Trumps comments. He's had no problem condemning things quickly and without waiting for the facts in the past. Nazis and White Supremacist are bad because they are racist. Theres no debating a fact like that. They have historically been racist and will always be so. The name White Supremacist alone implies one race have supremacy over others.
He could have easily said. Any group that practices hate toward another race is bad. Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist are groups that practice racism. But America was founded on the right to free speech. And although I don't support them. They are within their right to protest. However the same is true of those of counter protesters. They are also free to speak. But it is no longer free speech on either side the moment violence begins.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, To not instantly condemn a group calling themselves Nazis or Supremacist means one of two things. You are either doing it to piss people off in an attempt to get a reaction from them or you support them. There is no middle ground to hold for groups that have openly practiced hate and violence to other races.
No matter how many times those groups claim they are not racist. The fact is that their names are associated with racism, hate, and violence. They can not change that. If they don't want to be associated with those things. Then they should take up another name.
And while they do have the right to free speech. The moment they start chanting hateful slurs toward any race. They could create violence.
Its the equivalency of going into a bar and yelling insulting things about the people there. Yes I am free to say those things. But I know it'll start a fight.
The Nazi and White Supremacist knew their words would start a fight. Which still put them as instigators
@Blue Shirted Guy, when asked by the press at the end of his first speech if he wanted to denounce the actions of the neo-Nazis and white supremacist.
Trump could have easily said, "Any group that practices hate or violence toward another race is bad and their actions are reprehensible."
If he had said that one sentence when asked to condemn them. We would not be talking about this. The thing about that one sentence is that it's vague enough that it applies to all groups that fall into that. It should be his go to response to anything that has to do with violence. Trump is without a doubt. Not good at giving speeches.
But he didn't. Instead he intentionally said nothing. Which means he either was trolling the news or supports those groups.
Lets be honest here. Anyone who chooses the moment to troll the news when they're discussing a racist group that just committed murder. Is a straight a55h01e. That's not even trolling to be funny. That's trolling just to do it.
@Snowballs, What exactly did the media do this time? Did they place bets, forced people to go at each other? Seriously guys, all media outlets, in all sides are biased. Stop pretending that yours is better than theirs.
Trump doesn't support neo Nazis. Neo Nazis tend to have supported Trump. You can't blame someone for who likes them only for who they like, and he denounced them during the elections
@Medic135, I think people have more of an issue with the specific wording of "denunciations." On the campaign trail I remember watching a video of a reporter asking him to his face if he would like to denounce the support of the KKK he had gotten that day. He blatantly ignored the question and then came back 3 days later to very softly denounce them after an advisor had told him to do so. And then during the Charlottesville comments he denounced both sides, which is okay, but he put nazis on the same moral plane as the counter protestors, and said there are good people within that group. No matter your take on antifa or any of those groups, republicans and democrats have usually been able to agree on the simple fact that Nazis are some of the most disgusting people on this earth, and to equate any other American to them is pretty disrespectful.
@Pete Carroll, very well said.
@Pete Carroll, Trump was asked if he denounced a a person high up in the KKK. Trump didn't know who he was or that he was KKK so he moved off the subject. When he found out who he was, he denounced him
@Grantj77, Feb. 2016:
Tapper: "will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say you don't want his vote or that of other white supremacists?"
Trump: "I don't know anything about David Duke. I don't know what you're talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. Did he endorse me or what's going on? I know nothing about David Duke, I know nothing about white supremacists. You're asking me a question, I'm supposed to be talking about people I know nothing about.
Tapper: "There are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say you condemn them and don't want their support?"
Trump: "i have to look at the group. I don't know what group you're talking about. You wouldn't want me to condemn a group I know nothing about. I'd have to look. Send me a list of the groups and I'll do research on them. I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong. There are some in there that would be totally fine and it would be very unfair."
Trump: "give me a list of the groups and I'll let you know."
Tapper: "I'm talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here."
Trump: "honestly I don't know David Duke. I'm pretty sure I've never met him, I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him, I just don't know anything about him."
@Blue Shirted Guy, I was at work but was about to do the exact same thing haha. Good work my man
@Pete Carroll, I believe what he was trying to get at that not all the Nazis were Nazis, with mob mentality a minority can control the actions of the whole. There is no way of knowing how many protesters we're actually Nazis or how many were simply there protesting another case of the far-left trying to erase the history that forged this country.
@kofmen96, I think you're partially right. But what's wrong in my eyes is that those nazi groups GENUINELY feel like Trump is on their side. Even if he's not, his words gave those terrible people even more confidence to continue to preach hate. Leaders of white nationalists groups everywhere are praising trump for "walking away from the mic when given the chance to denounce us." . Again, I don't necessarily believe that trump supports these people. But what matters more is that they think he does. They truly believe that they have our president's blessing to continue their work, and that is both terrifying and disheartening to me.
@kofmen96, hiding from our past does not erase it. If our mistakes and history are displayed, the good and the bad, then it is much easier to improve and move on. Statues and historical sites are a constant reminder for people of our past. This may offend some of you but the literacy rate in high-schools is around 80%. That means 1/5 are functionally illiterate, reading at a 5th grade level or below. Add the fact that retention of historical information drops off quickly after graduation.... I think you can put 2 and 2 together.
@kofmen96, I'm sorry I double checked my statistic and I was off. An additional 18% are completely illiterate (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=69) meaning 2/5 Americans have issues or cannot read many historical documents. Yes I realize most people don't read those anyway but that means you must make knowledge about our history more available to those who want to learn. This is as much a race issue as it is an education issue.
Remember Obama not denouncing Radical Muslims? Must make him a Muslim
@Grantj77, or rioters in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Milwaukee
@Grantj77, he never didn't denounce radical Muslims. He just never called them radical Muslims. He would always call them terrorists, plain and simple. Nice try though.
@iOS10, Trump never didn't denounce white supremacists, in fact he DID! But that doesn't count of course
@iOS10, Obama never did any of that. And this subject being racial, when did Obama or the democrats ever condemn the riots?
@Medic135, after he denounced "both sides" and "many sides". He only denounced the white supremacists AFTER he got backlash from both sides of the political aisle. And even when he did that he later when back to his "both sides" manifesto.
@iOS10, like I said before both just isn't good enough, if he had been as specific as you prefer then it wouldn't have been good enough either then. Nothing he does will work for you, how dare he condemn both the violent extremists instead of just the ones you dislike
@Grantj77, Obama never did any of what? Condemning terrorist actions? And he did condemn the rioters of Ferguson and Baltimore. (Mr google is your friend.). However I can't find anything about Milwaukee. And he was summarily raked over the coals for it.
@Medic135, there is no my side and your side. There is an evil side and a good side. Neo-nazis and white supremacists being the evil side, if you can't figure it out. I prefer the good side. Feel free to pick whichever one you want. Trump certainly has picked his and let everybody know which one it is.
@iOS10, aaaaand antifa/BLM being the good side? I'm glad you're so morally righteous in a weary world
@Medic135, if they are against Neo-nazis and white supremacists, Yes. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
@iOS10, holy sh!t, you are truly delusional
@Medic135, why? Because I am against evil people? Especially THESE evil people? There is no place for them in the world. Do you think there is?
@iOS10, oh I'm sorry I forgot you were on the moral high ground, try not to fall from there. Did I not condemn them fast enough for you? Fvck the KKK. They're an embarrassment and a violent hate group. FVCK antifa, they are domestic terrorists and they have no purpose in this world besides causing destruction under the guise of being anti-fascist (unless you disagree with them, then you need to be silenced)
And fvck you, with your condescending tone, your support of terrorists, and being an all around cunt. I applaud you for being against evil unless it suits your views
@Medic135, yay for civility! My tone was not condescending. It was asking a serious question. But you are obviously very riled up for some reason. So we'll just leave it at that.
@iOS10, you just openly support a terrorist group and want to condemn someone for not denouncing a different one fast enough? Look in the mirror now and again
@Medic135, and you have proof that Antifa is a terrorist group? (Outside of foxnews, brietbart and the rest of the alt-right who claim EVERY liberal group to be terrorists)
@Medic135, While he did, he waited way too long to do so. Trump is the type of guy to instantly call something out, by name, right away. Remember the time a muslim ran over people in Europe? Trump instantly called the terrorist a radical muslim and called for a ban on all muslims. Or anytime something happens with BLM, he calls it out right away and addresses it by name. But when a white supremacist/nazi ran over people it took him two days to call it out by name, and even then he turned the blame on to the "alt left". I don't think Trump is a racist or supports Nazis, but he was hesitant to call them out because they make up a portion of the few Americans who still support him. I agree he should've denounced both sides, but the difference is that a lot of the protesters were doing what they did in the name of Trump, and a lot of them strongly support him, but he wouldn't distance himself from them until he got a ton of backlash, but he should've done it right away.
They, AND neo Nazi groups, fit the definition perfectly
@iOS10, btw, only the liberal groups who are VIOLENT are called terrorists. Maybe rethink the groups you support, and remember that in the same respect every conservative group isn't a Nazi group
@Medic135, so I did a bit of reading while waiting for a response (and putting the kids to bed) and found that antifa does have some people in it who use violence. That being said, they focus all their work against the far alt-right white supremacist groups that seem to go under the radar. Being mad at them for doing what they do would be like if my sister started dating a mobster and while over at dinner one night he killed a bunch of cockroaches in our house. While I'm fine with him killing all the cockroaches, I don't like him personally or condone what he does or would ever get involved in anything he does. (And no, I'm not condoning killing people, it's just a metaphor). If you read the accounts from Charlottesville from Friday, because nobody was there to protect the anti-racist protestors, they got surrounded and started getting the sh!t beat out of them. Sending one person to the ICU.
@Medic135, The next day a group of clergy kept getting attacked by the racist groups until a group of about 200 Antifa cane between the clergy and the racists. So. They protect as well. It's a fine line. I'm not a fan of violence either way. But I'm glad for the ones who step in and protect the good.
@iOS10, you're still delusional if you think attacking another hate group makes them justified. A blud is not justified just because he killed a crip, the vehicle incident WAS done by one of the white supremacists and it was reprehensible. I'm not saying KKK is right, I'm saying let's grab them all and push them somewhere else so the violence stops because it's insanity. I also find it hard to believe you didn't know antifa had a violent history but whatever I'll take that. Hope the kids don't ever have to deal with either group when they're old enough to understand this
@Medic135, same here, to your last statement. And no, I hadn't looked into antifa until this conversation. I had seen it in some articles (and memes), but never knew what they were about. I figured they were a liberal group that alt-rights hated, so they blew them way out of proportion. I'll have to keep reading to find out who "starts" the fights they get in before passing more judgement on them.
@iOS10, YouTube is a good source, lots of people video the riots
@iOS10, just to give you some more summary. Antifa is a reactionary group (they don't push policy) who really only organize at the local level. They believe that violence is justified to combat what they deem is racism, anti-semitism, etc. The problem with them is first, violence isn't the answer, and second, they have been violent towards tons of peaceful people as well. In Boston, tens of thousands of counter-protestors were peaceful, but they had to condemn Antifa because the idiots kept assaulting others simply for wearing MAGA hats and other reasons. Antifa is full of pretty sh*tty people. So there has been a push to classify them as terrorists.
My problem is that even though these people are horrible, people are equating them to literal Nazis, for various reasons. One side are violent thugs, one side calls for ethnic cleansing, genocide, euthanasia, sterilization, etc. That's why Trump's comments were taken so seriously. There are not two sides when it concerns Nazis.
@Blue Shirted Guy, thanks. I'm closer to your thinking than anything else. Im still under the thinking of "I might not like the person, but I prefer them over the cockroaches they ousted"
@Blue Shirted Guy, I agree with that last part blue; for alot of people Nationalist = Nazi, Socialist = Commie, far-left = good, far-right = bad, etc. Conclusions are often the first and only step people take. The United States has alot of both socialist and nationalist policies and has for a long time. The far-right has some very good organizations just as the far-left has some very bad ones. If people did even a little research like ¡OS10 then alot more progress could be made alot easier.
@iOS10, just makin sure you know I mentioned you above.
@iOS10, Good and evil are both subjective concepts. Depending on your point of view, something could be evil and another thing could be good. But depending on someone else's point of view, it could very well be the opposite. There is no such thing as 'objective morality.' Morals come from the people around you at the time and place you are born. So, before you go and label someone as 'evil' or 'good,' stop and think about how their point of view looks. Ask them questions about their morals. ONLY THEN will you have the qualifications to decide wether or not they fit your moral precepts of 'good' or 'evil.'
@Ze Grammar Nazi, i agree. Good and evil are subjective. Except when it comes to Nazi's. Killing of 6 million people for an ideal is not even close to good. So anybody who adopts that ideal is also, not even close to good. And anybody who walks with them, essentially arm in arm is ok with that ideal and is not even close to good either. So yes. I feel quite alright about calling Nazi's, white supremacists and their ilk "evil".
@iOS10, And the point flies completely over your head. Not every person in Nazi Germany was bad. It was more of a psychological thing. They blamed all of the problems on a select group of individuals (at that point it was the Jewish people; now, here in America it's white Christian males) and they began to purge them. The Holocaust isn't the first time a select group of people have been ostracized and subsequently purged. The Nazi movement wasn't even the largest one. Communism killed hundreds of millions of people during PEACE TIME. Look at what happened to the Kulaks in Russia.
They were originally slaves, but after slavery was ended they were each granted some of the land they worked, and subsequently, because they were the ones producing all of the food for Russia, they all became decently wealthy. Not filthy rich, but they had houses, land, and livestock. During the 1920s and 30s, they were executed and driven to wastes of Siberia, because they had slightly more money....
@iOS10, most other people at the time. The government said they stole that money from others. They said they had raped the land of it's resources, and robbed others of jobs. After the Kulaks were either killed or forced out of Russia, MILLIONS MORE starved to death because nobody was producing food. Don't call people 'nazi' and 'racist' and 'evil' without understanding WHY they did these things. The Nazi Party (otherwise known as the Democraticly elected Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany) was brought to power out of fear of the future. Because people didn't have any money. Because they lacked the capital to move forward. They were all angry and confused. Then someone who was slightly more angry and confused with just a little more intellect than most, figured out how to drive that anger and confusion in a single direction. Most Nazis were NOT bad people. And no true Nazi exists today. They are only a shadow of what true Nazis were. They do not represent the ideology that true....
@iOS10, Nazis had. The people you call 'Nazi' today are mostly people trying prevent our country from going down the same path as Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Only a scant few actually call themselves 'Nazis' and even then in only the most superficial way.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, the swastika is a symbol of 6 million murdered Jews. There is no denying that. And the name Nazi is also synonymous with the killing of them. So if you pick that name and/or that symbol as a symbol of the group you are running or belong to, then you are OK with the killing of those people. It doesn't matter what the ideals of the group are today. You're still voluntarily part of an organization that has done horrible and evil things. And if someone is part of it voluntarily, they are evil as well. There is nothing you can ever say that will change this fact.
@Ze Grammar Nazi, I also agree with you that not all people who were Nazi's back the day were evil. And a vast majority probably weren't, because the evil stuff isn't what they signed up for. However, now that the name is synonymous with what happened, people joining today, right now, know what they are getting into. And chose to do so on their own accord.
If the democrats just spent more time thinking of harder passwords to their emails and less time tearing down monuments and attacking people for free speech the world would be a better place
@Grantj77, if the president spent less time golfing and more time actually doing the slightest bit of research before he spouts nonsense, the world would be a better place.