So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[MDM]

Still on the Trump Presidency

You know some Trump supporters are truly horrible when a knit/crochet/fibre arts web site has to post this policy:...

Sure, some Trump supporters are probably "truly horrible" and the same could be said for any candidate with millions of supporters.

But I think that policy says more about the fear and narrow-mindedness of that site's admins than anything else.

[Kris]

Still on the Trump Presidency

You know some Trump supporters are truly horrible when a knit/crochet/fibre arts web site has to post this policy:...

Sure, some Trump supporters are probably "truly horrible" and the same could be said for any candidate with millions of supporters.

But I think that policy says more about the fear and narrow-mindedness of that site's admins than anything else.

No, I think it pretty much says they're taking a stand against allowing their site to be a platform for white supremacy and immoral, inhuman practices.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/in-40-days-60-000-child-migrants-were-placed-into-concentration-camps-irO1A50xbUiEgz--AGAZ2Q/?fbclid=IwAR1zfU0ytr6nHNowaPvQgTJsy45DGNGH6BTDiAyIXgYbrv0-_UlfjBRBxOg

[sol]

Sure, some Trump supporters are probably "truly horrible" and the same could be said for any candidate with millions of supporters.

But I think that policy says more about the fear and narrow-mindedness of that site's admins than anything else.

You should probably go look at the examples of content that instigated the new policy.  Want to make a bright red sweater that says TRUMP THAT BITCH! on the front?  How about a winter scarf that spells out "MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN"?

I kind of like their policy, actually.  They're explicitly welcoming of people of all political persuasions, they're just banning the open support of racism.  They haven't revoked anyone's racist content, just refused to promote it on their own site.  I'm not sure that's fear or narrow-mindedness.

[MDM]

I kind of like their policy, actually.  They're explicitly welcoming of people of all political persuasions, they're just banning the open support of racism.  They haven't revoked anyone's racist content, just refused to promote it on their own site.  I'm not sure that's fear or narrow-mindedness.

When they say "We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry" they are explicitly not welcoming of people of all political persuasions.

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

[MDM]

You should probably go look at the examples of content that instigated the new policy.  Want to make a bright red sweater that says TRUMP THAT BITCH! on the front?  How about a winter scarf that spells out "MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN"?

If the policy was about banning things like that it wouldn't bother me.

[Kris]

I kind of like their policy, actually.  They're explicitly welcoming of people of all political persuasions, they're just banning the open support of racism.  They haven't revoked anyone's racist content, just refused to promote it on their own site.  I'm not sure that's fear or narrow-mindedness.

When they say "We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry" they are explicitly not welcoming of people of all political persuasions.

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

They are under no obligation to allow their knitting site to become a platform for any political discourse. It's a knitting site.

And I'm pretty sure the reason they had to do this was not because the site was flooded with Trump supporters knitting "transparency in health prices" sweaters.

[sol]

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

I don't see anything in there about banning support of individual administration policies, other than white supremacy.  They've just told their users to not publicly support the administration that supports white supremacy.  If Mussolini made the trains run on time, did the Allies invading Italy just really hate prompt trains?  No, of course not.  They hated the Mussolini administration for it's core policies, not every ancillary thing it also did.

[KBecks]

I like Ravelry, it's a good resource for knitters.  Since it's about knitting and not politics, it makes sense to try to keep the focus on knitting.  It might be nicer if they just said, no politics. Is Trump-bashing still allowed?  That's not even.  But, if you're just going for knitting info, it's not a problem.

P.S.  KAG

[MDM]

I like Ravelry, it's a good resource for knitters.  Since it's about knitting and not politics, it makes sense to try to keep the focus on knitting.  It might be nicer if they just said, no politics.

That would be reasonable.

[MDM]

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

I don't see anything in there about banning support of individual administration policies, other than white supremacy.  They've just told their users to not publicly support the administration that supports white supremacy.  If Mussolini made the trains run on time, did the Allies invading Italy just really hate prompt trains?  No, of course not.  They hated the Mussolini administration for it's core policies, not every ancillary thing it also did.

"We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry."  Seems all-encompassing to me, but you may see it differently.

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban, or that he said the KKK were "fine people" in Charlottesville.  As long as we continue to see things such as 9 People Attended A KKK Rally In Ohio. At Least 500 Showed Up To Protest Against Hate., Trump is no Mussolini.

[sol]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

or that he said the KKK were "fine people" in Charlottesville.

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

[former player]

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

I don't see anything in there about banning support of individual administration policies, other than white supremacy.  They've just told their users to not publicly support the administration that supports white supremacy.  If Mussolini made the trains run on time, did the Allies invading Italy just really hate prompt trains?  No, of course not.  They hated the Mussolini administration for it's core policies, not every ancillary thing it also did.

"We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry."  Seems all-encompassing to me, but you may see it differently.

I certainly see it differently. To use your example of transparency in health prices, I read the new policy as saying you can put up a pattern to knit a scarf that says "Support for transparency in health prices" but you cannot use that as an excuse to propose knitting a scarf that says "Trump is perfect because he supports transparency in health prices".  I hope you can see that there is a difference.

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban, or that he said the KKK were "fine people" in Charlottesville.  As long as we continue to see things such as 9 People Attended A KKK Rally In Ohio. At Least 500 Showed Up To Protest Against Hate., Trump is no Mussolini.

Congratulations: that's a perfect example of a straw man argument on your part.

[MDM]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

Accurately (perhaps that's what you mean by technically) what he said was (per Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICO):

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

In particular, note the "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  You may come back with "that's what he said, but not what he meant" and I'll have to agree to disagree.  If that grosses you out, sorry, but so it goes.

[MDM]

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

I don't see anything in there about banning support of individual administration policies, other than white supremacy.  They've just told their users to not publicly support the administration that supports white supremacy.  If Mussolini made the trains run on time, did the Allies invading Italy just really hate prompt trains?  No, of course not.  They hated the Mussolini administration for it's core policies, not every ancillary thing it also did.

"We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry."  Seems all-encompassing to me, but you may see it differently.

I certainly see it differently. To use your example of transparency in health prices, I read the new policy as saying you can put up a pattern to knit a scarf that says "Support for transparency in health prices" but you cannot use that as an excuse to propose knitting a scarf that says "Trump is perfect because he supports transparency in health prices".  I hope you can see that there is a difference.

I agree 100% with what you said here.  But that's not what Ravelry's policy is - unless I misunderstand.  From what they said, they won't allow someone to say "I support Trump's position on transparency in health prices" because they are banning support of Donald Trump, period.

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban, or that he said the KKK were "fine people" in Charlottesville.  As long as we continue to see things such as 9 People Attended A KKK Rally In Ohio. At Least 500 Showed Up To Protest Against Hate., Trump is no Mussolini.

Congratulations: that's a perfect example of a straw man argument on your part.

I think they are both examples of using sound bites to give false impressions.  See the response to sol for reasons.

[GuitarStv]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

What reason do you think Trump had when he referred to it as a Muslim ban the dozen or so times he did so (https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban)?  Is that what he said, but not what he meant in your view?

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

Accurately (perhaps that's what you mean by technically) what he said was (per Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICO):

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

In particular, note the "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  You may come back with "that's what he said, but not what he meant" and I'll have to agree to disagree.  If that grosses you out, sorry, but so it goes.

I figure that you have raised your kids (if you have any) to be good people.  Would you let your kids go to a neo-nazis / white nationalist gathering to march in solidarity with them?  In my eyes, there are no 'good people' marching in solidarity with neo-nazis.  But that might just be my backwards upbringing speaking.

[nereo]

Is it a Muslim ban if you don't ban all Muslims, but just some Muslims?

Is it somehow defensible if you just ban a subset of a larger ethnic group?

In my view, a policy does not need to impact every member of a religious group in order for that policy to be prejudiced against that religion.

[MDM]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

What reason do you think Trump had when he referred to it as a Muslim ban the dozen or so times he did so (https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban)?  Is that what he said, but not what he meant in your view?

My view is to care more about what was done than what was said.  Politicians say a lot of things....

I figure that you have raised your kids (if you have any) to be good people.

Thanks, we would like to think so, and extend the same courtesy to you. 

Would you let your kids go to a neo-nazis / white nationalist gathering to march in solidarity with them?  In my eyes, there are no 'good people' marching in solidarity with neo-nazis.  But that might just be my backwards upbringing speaking.

No need to disparage your parents - I suspect they did a fine job also. :)

No, we wouldn't encourage them to go to such a thing.  We would encourage them not to take opinion-driven "reporting" from Fox, MSNBC, etc., at face value, but rather to seek objective truth if they care enough about a particular issue.

[MDM]

Is it a Muslim ban if you don't ban all Muslims, but just some Muslims?

Is it somehow defensible if you just ban a subset of a larger ethnic group?

In my view, a policy does not need to impact every member of a religious group in order for that policy to be prejudiced against that religion.

That's defensible.  Question becomes "where does one draw the line?"  E.g., something that affects 99% of a religious group (and minimal percentages of others) vs. 1% of a religious group, etc.

If you want to argue that Trump wanted a Muslim ban but actually implemented a very poor version of one, I'd find it more difficult to disagree. :)

[former player]

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

I don't see anything in there about banning support of individual administration policies, other than white supremacy.  They've just told their users to not publicly support the administration that supports white supremacy.  If Mussolini made the trains run on time, did the Allies invading Italy just really hate prompt trains?  No, of course not.  They hated the Mussolini administration for it's core policies, not every ancillary thing it also did.

"We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry."  Seems all-encompassing to me, but you may see it differently.

I certainly see it differently. To use your example of transparency in health prices, I read the new policy as saying you can put up a pattern to knit a scarf that says "Support for transparency in health prices" but you cannot use that as an excuse to propose knitting a scarf that says "Trump is perfect because he supports transparency in health prices".  I hope you can see that there is a difference.

I agree 100% with what you said here.  But that's not what Ravelry's policy is - unless I misunderstand.  From what they said, they won't allow someone to say "I support Trump's position on transparency in health prices" because they are banning support of Donald Trump, period.

Well yes - that's the point I was making.  You are allowed to support transparency in health prices.  A good idea doesn't care who has it, right?  So no need to mention Trump if you want to discuss it.  If you do mention Trump, then you are immediately getting into supporting the man not the policy, and that is banned.  If you want to, go discuss Trump somewhere other than that particular knitting site.  I really don't have a problem with that.

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban, or that he said the KKK were "fine people" in Charlottesville.  As long as we continue to see things such as 9 People Attended A KKK Rally In Ohio. At Least 500 Showed Up To Protest Against Hate., Trump is no Mussolini.

Congratulations: that's a perfect example of a straw man argument on your part.

I think they are both examples of using sound bites to give false impressions.  See the response to sol for reasons.
[/quote]My point is that the point you were making was a completely irrelevant digression from the knitting site discussion.  You say "perhaps" these were the reasons, but if you haven't done the research but are just making up examples in order to refute them, then that is a strawman argument.  I'm just sorry sol fell for it.  I won't.

[RetiredAt63]

Since I posted the Ravelry post (note it is a private web site, just like this one is), I might as well mention that the Ravelry owners are usually amazingly easy-going about what gets posted, and that there are all sorts of sub forums there that talk about all sorts of things, including politics.  I didn't go looking, but people who did said that the things that got this topic banned were really really bad, and the posters were behaving really really badly.  Including a lot of stalking.  Seriously, they would have been banned from the MMM forums. Not just had certain topics banned.

[geekette]

Not only was the person harassed on the site and in email, but also reportedly doxxed.

Proud Raveler since September 18, 2007
Raveler #11823

[partgypsy]

I kind of like their policy, actually.  They're explicitly welcoming of people of all political persuasions, they're just banning the open support of racism.  They haven't revoked anyone's racist content, just refused to promote it on their own site.  I'm not sure that's fear or narrow-mindedness.

When they say "We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry" they are explicitly not welcoming of people of all political persuasions.

E.g., taking them at their word, they would ban support of Trump to issue executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees.  Now, one may agree or disagree with that executive order, but to ban support of it?

They are under no obligation to allow their knitting site to become a platform for any political discourse. It's a knitting site.

And I'm pretty sure the reason they had to do this was not because the site was flooded with Trump supporters knitting "transparency in health prices" sweaters.

this made me laugh out loud!

[GuitarStv]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

What reason do you think Trump had when he referred to it as a Muslim ban the dozen or so times he did so (https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban)?  Is that what he said, but not what he meant in your view?

My view is to care more about what was done than what was said.  Politicians say a lot of things....

Fair enough.  Politicians do say a lot of things.  But given Trump's extensively documented history of racist actions (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html) that he has committed, what makes you believe that his goal was not a ban of Muslims entering America?

Would you let your kids go to a neo-nazis / white nationalist gathering to march in solidarity with them?  In my eyes, there are no 'good people' marching in solidarity with neo-nazis.  But that might just be my backwards upbringing speaking.

No need to disparage your parents - I suspect they did a fine job also. :)

No, we wouldn't encourage them to go to such a thing.  We would encourage them not to take opinion-driven "reporting" from Fox, MSNBC, etc., at face value, but rather to seek objective truth if they care enough about a particular issue.

Good.  But I have to ask . . . why wouldn't you encourage your kids to do that?  As Trump stated (and you appear to believe) there were good people marching with the nazis.  Surely there's nothing wrong with your kids having an outing with good people.

[RetiredAt63]

Not only was the person harassed on the site and in email, but also reportedly doxxed.

Proud Raveler since September 18, 2007
Raveler #11823

Ooh, I didn't discover Ravelry until 2012.

[MDM]

Fair enough.  Politicians do say a lot of things.  But given Trump's extensively documented history of racist actions (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html) that he has committed, what makes you believe that his goal was not a ban of Muslims entering America?

Because I believe the goal was to prevent terrorists from entering, or at least to be perceived that way.  If the intent was truly to ban Muslims, the countries with the most Muslims should have been included.

Would you let your kids go to a neo-nazis / white nationalist gathering to march in solidarity with them?  In my eyes, there are no 'good people' marching in solidarity with neo-nazis.  But that might just be my backwards upbringing speaking.

No need to disparage your parents - I suspect they did a fine job also. :)

No, we wouldn't encourage them to go to such a thing.  We would encourage them not to take opinion-driven "reporting" from Fox, MSNBC, etc., at face value, but rather to seek objective truth if they care enough about a particular issue.

Good.  But I have to ask . . . why wouldn't you encourage your kids to do that?  As Trump stated (and you appear to believe) there were good people marching with the nazis.  Surely there's nothing wrong with your kids having an outing with good people.

Because I wouldn't encourage my kids to go to a place where violence is likely to erupt, regardless of who started it.

[MDM]

My point is that the point you were making was a completely irrelevant digression from the knitting site discussion.  You say "perhaps" these were the reasons, but if you haven't done the research but are just making up examples in order to refute them, then that is a strawman argument.  I'm just sorry sol fell for it.  I won't.

'Twasn't irrelevant: the reason the site gave was "We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy."

The "Muslim ban" and "Charlottesville" are often given as "evidence" of "open white supremacy."  My point is that those examples don't hold up so well under scrutiny.  Again, your opinion may differ.

[partgypsy]

Fair enough.  Politicians do say a lot of things.  But given Trump's extensively documented history of racist actions (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html) that he has committed, what makes you believe that his goal was not a ban of Muslims entering America?

Because I believe the goal was to prevent terrorists from entering, or at least to be perceived that way.  If the intent was truly to ban Muslims, the countries with the most Muslims should have been included.

Would you let your kids go to a neo-nazis / white nationalist gathering to march in solidarity with them?  In my eyes, there are no 'good people' marching in solidarity with neo-nazis.  But that might just be my backwards upbringing speaking.

No need to disparage your parents - I suspect they did a fine job also. :)

No, we wouldn't encourage them to go to such a thing.  We would encourage them not to take opinion-driven "reporting" from Fox, MSNBC, etc., at face value, but rather to seek objective truth if they care enough about a particular issue.

Good.  But I have to ask . . . why wouldn't you encourage your kids to do that?  As Trump stated (and you appear to believe) there were good people marching with the nazis.  Surely there's nothing wrong with your kids having an outing with good people.

Because I wouldn't encourage my kids to go to a place where violence is likely to erupt, regardless of who started it.

If it was to prevent terrorists from coming into the country, it was a failure in that respect as well. The terrorists from 9/11 trained in Saudi Arabia (as well as training many other terrorists) but they were not included in the ban. I suspect because of Trump and Saudi Arabia personal business ties. Basically he owes them lots of money https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-saudi-arabia-financial-interests-ties-hotel-bookings-sales-2018-10.
OTOH Muslim countries that are not associated with terrorism WERE included in the ban. The only way to explain it is the presence of people like Bolton and Stephen Miller (and previously Steve Bannon) who formulate policy based on emotional bigotry than sound foreign stance. Any way you cut it, based on what Trump has said, and the stated convictions of his close friends and staff, his intent was to "ban Muslims". The anti terrorism reason was added for window dressing. Just read the law. How does severely restricting Syrian refugees keep us safe from terrorism?

From Wikipedia: The order excluded countries of origin of radicalized Muslim perpetrators of attacks against the United States, such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.[94] It also did not include any Muslim countries where The Trump Organization had conducted business, such as the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.[95] Legal scholar David G. Post opined in The Washington Post that Trump had "allowed business interests to interfere with his public policy making", and called for his impeachment.[96] When analyzed actual terrorist attacks in the US, only 10% of the terrorists came from the countries targeted in Trump's ban (including all the 9/11 terrorists, ostensibly the reason for the ban).

And no, at least from what I read on the internet many people did vote for Trump based on what he said he would do, including silly things like building a wall, banning Muslims, etc. 

[MDM]

If it was to prevent terrorists from coming into the country, it was a failure in that respect as well. The terrorists from 9/11 trained in Saudi Arabia (as well as training many other terrorists) but they were not included in the ban. I suspect because of Trump and Saudi Arabia personal business ties. Basically he owes them lots of money https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-saudi-arabia-financial-interests-ties-hotel-bookings-sales-2018-10.
OTOH Muslim countries that are not associated with terrorism WERE included in the ban. The only way to explain it is the presence of people like Bolton and Stephen Miller (and previously Steve Bannon) who formulate policy based on emotional bigotry than sound foreign stance. Any way you cut it, based on what Trump has said, and the stated convictions of his close friends and staff, his intent was to "ban Muslims". The anti terrorism reason was added for window dressing. Just read the law. How does severely restricting Syrian refugees keep us safe from terrorism?

From Wikipedia: The order excluded countries of origin of radicalized Muslim perpetrators of attacks against the United States, such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.[94] It also did not include any Muslim countries where The Trump Organization had conducted business, such as the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.[95] Legal scholar David G. Post opined in The Washington Post that Trump had "allowed business interests to interfere with his public policy making", and called for his impeachment.[96] When analyzed actual terrorist attacks in the US, only 10% of the terrorists came from the countries targeted in Trump's ban (including all the 9/11 terrorists, ostensibly the reason for the ban).

If we call it a "not so good attempt to exclude terrorist immigrants, coupled with a not so effective way to exclude Muslim immigrants," that might be apropos.  Doesn't have the same pithiness of "Muslim ban" but so it goes.

And no, at least from what I read on the internet many people did vote for Trump based on what he said he would do, including silly things like building a wall, banning Muslims, etc.

Sure, people vote for various candidates for all sorts of reasons.

[Glenstache]

Not Trump, but certainly part of the code speak for white-dilution immigration politics.

[Glenstache]

Meanwhile, CBP has some pretty broad powers at the border, including some issues that seem awfully close on the 4th and 1st Amendment. See:
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/22/cbp-border-searches-journalists/

https://cpj.org/reports/2018/10/nothing-to-declare-us-border-search-phone-press-freedom-cbp.php

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/u-s-officials-made-list-reporters-lawyers-activists-question-border-n980301

[FIREstache]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

Accurately (perhaps that's what you mean by technically) what he said was (per Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICO):

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

In particular, note the "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  You may come back with "that's what he said, but not what he meant" and I'll have to agree to disagree.  If that grosses you out, sorry, but so it goes.

Thanks, it's always good to see the facts rather than fake news and liberal spin.

[RetiredAt63]

And now Ravelry is getting trolled.  Because the owners think of Ravelry as having guests in their living room, and objected to some of their ruder guests.

[Glenstache]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

Accurately (perhaps that's what you mean by technically) what he said was (per Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICO):

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

In particular, note the "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  You may come back with "that's what he said, but not what he meant" and I'll have to agree to disagree.  If that grosses you out, sorry, but so it goes.

Thanks, it's always good to see the facts rather than fake news and liberal spin.

Let's not go too far calling Trump even handed in this. He claimed that removing statues of civil war southern generals was equivalent to pulling down statues of founding fathers and that doing so was also, "you’re changing history, you’re changing culture,...". This is direct red meat to the people who were protesting literally chanting " Jews will not replace us." "One people, one nation, end immigration," "White lives matter." This is what the crowds were chanting. Which of those people are "very fine people"? Take out the members who were active neo-nazis, and you still don't have a pile of "very fine people." I'm sorry, but the direct quote is still a pretty weak condemnation that echoes a lot of the themes of white cultural/racial dilution that the protesters were riffing on.

[FIREstache]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

Accurately (perhaps that's what you mean by technically) what he said was (per Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICO):

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

In particular, note the "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  You may come back with "that's what he said, but not what he meant" and I'll have to agree to disagree.  If that grosses you out, sorry, but so it goes.

Thanks, it's always good to see the facts rather than fake news and liberal spin.

Let's not go too far calling Trump even handed in this. He claimed that removing statues of civil war southern generals was equivalent to pulling down statues of founding fathers and that doing so was also, "you’re changing history, you’re changing culture,...". This is direct red meat to the people who were protesting literally chanting " Jews will not replace us." "One people, one nation, end immigration," "White lives matter." This is what the crowds were chanting. Which of those people are "very fine people"? Take out the members who were active neo-nazis, and you still don't have a pile of "very fine people." I'm sorry, but the direct quote is still a pretty weak condemnation that echoes a lot of the themes of white cultural/racial dilution that the protesters were riffing on.

It looks like you're reading a lot of things into it that were never stated, which amounts to fake news in my book.  I reread it, and I didn't see where he stated pulling down statues of founding fathers was "equivalent".  Do you have a reference for that quote?  He also never said the people chanting those things were the fine people.  He specifically stated, "and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  I wasn't there, but I doubt all the people there strictly in support of the statues were chanting the same things as the neo-Nazis and white nationalists or that they were even marching aside them.  I certainly wouldn't jump to that conclusion without proof.  I don't see proof in the limited camera shots to say for certain either way, but the onus is on proving guilt, not innocence.  It appears he fully condemned the people we actually know who should be.

[FIREstache]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

Weren't these the same Muslim majority countries identified by the Obama administration as the seven most dangerous countries in the world in regard to harboring terrorists and affirmed by Congress?

[Glenstache]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

Accurately (perhaps that's what you mean by technically) what he said was (per Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICO):

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

In particular, note the "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  You may come back with "that's what he said, but not what he meant" and I'll have to agree to disagree.  If that grosses you out, sorry, but so it goes.

Thanks, it's always good to see the facts rather than fake news and liberal spin.

Let's not go too far calling Trump even handed in this. He claimed that removing statues of civil war southern generals was equivalent to pulling down statues of founding fathers and that doing so was also, "you’re changing history, you’re changing culture,...". This is direct red meat to the people who were protesting literally chanting " Jews will not replace us." "One people, one nation, end immigration," "White lives matter." This is what the crowds were chanting. Which of those people are "very fine people"? Take out the members who were active neo-nazis, and you still don't have a pile of "very fine people." I'm sorry, but the direct quote is still a pretty weak condemnation that echoes a lot of the themes of white cultural/racial dilution that the protesters were riffing on.

It looks like you're reading a lot of things into it that were never stated, which amounts to fake news in my book.  I reread it, and I didn't see where he stated pulling down statues of founding fathers was "equivalent".  Do you have a reference for that quote?  He also never said the people chanting those things were the fine people.  He specifically stated, "and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  I wasn't there, but I doubt all the people there strictly in support of the statues were chanting the same things as the neo-Nazis and white nationalists or that they were even marching aside them.  I certainly wouldn't jump to that conclusion without proof.  I don't see proof in the limited camera shots to say for certain either way, but the onus is on proving guilt, not innocence.  It appears he fully condemned the people we actually know who should be.

The organizers of the Unite the Right rally (including people like Richard Spencer) stated that the goals of the rally literally included unifying the American white nationalist movement. Seems like people might want to choose their company a bit better then if they were not there about race-based issues.  Spencer didn't even say that he thought Trump really denounced him. Following Trump's statement, he said, "I don't think he condemned it, no," Spencer said. "Did he say 'white nationalist?' 'Racist' means an irrational hatred of people. I don't think he meant any of us.'" followed a bit later by, ""Obviously the alt-right has come very far in the past two years in terms of public exposure," Spencer said. "Is Donald Trump one of the major causes of that? Of course. He never talked about this conservative garbage we've been hearing for years...he was a nationalist." See the link below for some additional responses from less-eloquent racist asshats who were just brimming with pleasure at how Trump responded.

https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-spencer-says-trump-didnt-condemn-the-alt-right-2017-8

[FIREstache]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

I'm arguing that a ban that does not include the countries with the world's largest Muslim populations is not a "Muslim ban."  You are free to believe differently.

Technically he said that white supremacists in Charlottesville, including the convicted terrorist car-attacker, were "very fine people".  Do you think it's okay to say that white supremacists are very fine people, but not okay to say that the KKK are very fine people?  Let's not forget that the KKK, at least, were also a charitable humanitarian organization.  "Come on down to the Klan pancake feed this Saturday!  We're very fine people!"

You're kind of grossing me out, MDM.

Accurately (perhaps that's what you mean by technically) what he said was (per Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICO):

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane, what I’m saying is this: you had a group on one side and a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch, but there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that's the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

In particular, note the "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  You may come back with "that's what he said, but not what he meant" and I'll have to agree to disagree.  If that grosses you out, sorry, but so it goes.

Thanks, it's always good to see the facts rather than fake news and liberal spin.

Let's not go too far calling Trump even handed in this. He claimed that removing statues of civil war southern generals was equivalent to pulling down statues of founding fathers and that doing so was also, "you’re changing history, you’re changing culture,...". This is direct red meat to the people who were protesting literally chanting " Jews will not replace us." "One people, one nation, end immigration," "White lives matter." This is what the crowds were chanting. Which of those people are "very fine people"? Take out the members who were active neo-nazis, and you still don't have a pile of "very fine people." I'm sorry, but the direct quote is still a pretty weak condemnation that echoes a lot of the themes of white cultural/racial dilution that the protesters were riffing on.

It looks like you're reading a lot of things into it that were never stated, which amounts to fake news in my book.  I reread it, and I didn't see where he stated pulling down statues of founding fathers was "equivalent".  Do you have a reference for that quote?  He also never said the people chanting those things were the fine people.  He specifically stated, "and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."  I wasn't there, but I doubt all the people there strictly in support of the statues were chanting the same things as the neo-Nazis and white nationalists or that they were even marching aside them.  I certainly wouldn't jump to that conclusion without proof.  I don't see proof in the limited camera shots to say for certain either way, but the onus is on proving guilt, not innocence.  It appears he fully condemned the people we actually know who should be.

The organizers of the Unite the Right rally (including people like Richard Spencer) stated that the goals of the rally literally included unifying the American white nationalist movement. Seems like people might want to choose their company a bit better then if they were not there about race-based issues.  Spencer didn't even say that he thought Trump really denounced him. Following Trump's statement, he said, "I don't think he condemned it, no," Spencer said. "Did he say 'white nationalist?' 'Racist' means an irrational hatred of people. I don't think he meant any of us.'" followed a bit later by, ""Obviously the alt-right has come very far in the past two years in terms of public exposure," Spencer said. "Is Donald Trump one of the major causes of that? Of course. He never talked about this conservative garbage we've been hearing for years...he was a nationalist." See the link below for some additional responses from less-eloquent racist asshats who were just brimming with pleasure at how Trump responded.

https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-spencer-says-trump-didnt-condemn-the-alt-right-2017-8

I'm not sure how much credibility we should give that guy.  Trump did indeed say, "and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally".

[former player]

My point is that the point you were making was a completely irrelevant digression from the knitting site discussion.  You say "perhaps" these were the reasons, but if you haven't done the research but are just making up examples in order to refute them, then that is a strawman argument.  I'm just sorry sol fell for it.  I won't.

'Twasn't irrelevant: the reason the site gave was "We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy."

The "Muslim ban" and "Charlottesville" are often given as "evidence" of "open white supremacy."  My point is that those examples don't hold up so well under scrutiny.  Again, your opinion may differ.

What you are doing is making up your own examples of what you think the ravelry site means by "open white supremacy" and then providing your own examples as to why those examples don't constitute "open white supremacy".    You really are not helping your cause by further particularising your own imaginary example.  If you were really seriously arguing the case you would start from first principles by stating the examples which did in fact lead to the ban on the ravelry site, not trying to discredit it by making up your own and then attacking the examples you have made up.

[MDM]

My point is that the point you were making was a completely irrelevant digression from the knitting site discussion.  You say "perhaps" these were the reasons, but if you haven't done the research but are just making up examples in order to refute them, then that is a strawman argument.  I'm just sorry sol fell for it.  I won't.

'Twasn't irrelevant: the reason the site gave was "We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy."

The "Muslim ban" and "Charlottesville" are often given as "evidence" of "open white supremacy."  My point is that those examples don't hold up so well under scrutiny.  Again, your opinion may differ.

What you are doing is making up your own examples of what you think the ravelry site means by "open white supremacy" and then providing your own examples as to why those examples don't constitute "open white supremacy".    You really are not helping your cause by further particularising your own imaginary example.  If you were really seriously arguing the case you would start from first principles by stating the examples which did in fact lead to the ban on the ravelry site, not trying to discredit it by making up your own and then attacking the examples you have made up.

You make some reasonable points, but for the most part it seems we are talking past each other.

[sherr]

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. [The "very fine people" he is talking about.]

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? [Trump equating pulling down statues glorifying racist traitors that were erected to intentionally intimidate black people to pulling down statues of the (flawed) founding fathers.] How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?

Let's not go too far calling Trump even handed in this. He claimed that removing statues of civil war southern generals was equivalent to pulling down statues of founding fathers and that doing so was also, "you’re changing history, you’re changing culture,...". This is direct red meat to the people who were protesting literally chanting " Jews will not replace us." "One people, one nation, end immigration," "White lives matter." This is what the crowds were chanting. Which of those people are "very fine people"? Take out the members who were active neo-nazis, and you still don't have a pile of "very fine people." I'm sorry, but the direct quote is still a pretty weak condemnation that echoes a lot of the themes of white cultural/racial dilution that the protesters were riffing on.

It looks like you're reading a lot of things into it that were never stated, which amounts to fake news in my book.  I reread it, and I didn't see where he stated pulling down statues of founding fathers was "equivalent".  Do you have a reference for that quote?

So just because he never directly used the word "equivalent" it's "fake news"?

Note that this is Trump's strategy on this and every issue; say everything so that people can hear what they want. The racists and white supremacists hear a president who is repeating their language, retweeting their tweets, fighting for putting people of color back in their "place" at every turn. And people like you can choose to pay attention to the one time he technically condemned white supremacy.

Let's not forget that at the time the Republicans were also horrified at Trumps comments and condemned them, until they realized their base was all-in on Trump support. Hardly "liberal fake news".

It's the same for the muslim ban. A "muslim ban" was his explicitly stated goal, and the language he himself used to describe the policy. And then his advisors told him he couldn't because it would be unconstitutional and thrown out immediately. So he implements the strictest "muslim ban" he can that might pass the test of legality, while still calling a it a "muslim ban". But the administration calls it a "ban on people from terrorist countries", so people like MDM have an out and can decide it's not really a "muslim ban".

Or his proposed immigration changes that slash immigration from "shithole" (non-white) countries and expand it from good (white) countries. "It's about skills not race."

Or his intentionally cruel child-separation policies that were stated beforehand as having an intent of acting as a deterrent for other board-hoppers. "His hands are tied by the law. Congress needs to act. The Democrats want open boarders so they can steal elections through voter fraud."

Etcetera.

There's no point in having this argument with Trumpers because they will always choose to believe the best possible version of Trump while ignoring all the behavior, evidence, comments, and actions that go against that view.

[Roland of Gilead]

I didn't vote for Trump.  I think he lies and is disgusting.

I would vote for him though if the choice is between him and Sanders.   Trump is easy to thwart, he is like a kid.

Sanders could ruin the country.

[partgypsy]

Perhaps the Ravelry admins actually think Trump instituted a Muslim ban,

Are you arguing that a travel ban placed entirely on Muslim-majority countries (since overturned) is not a Muslim ban?  I mean, he specifically said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States."  And the crowd goes wild!

Weren't these the same Muslim majority countries identified by the Obama administration as the seven most dangerous countries in the world in regard to harboring terrorists and affirmed by Congress?

Yes. And to get further into why Trump's is more akin to a Muslim ban, versus what the Obama administration enacted, you have to look at the actual legislation. Putting it simply one is a ban, the other places higher scrunity or security on people coming from those countries but not an outright ban.

[partgypsy]

I didn't vote for Trump.  I think he lies and is disgusting.

I would vote for him though if the choice is between him and Sanders.   Trump is easy to thwart, he is like a kid.

Sanders could ruin the country.

yes, universal healthcare is such a horrible thing. We wouldn't want that to happen.

[wenchsenior]

I didn't vote for Trump.  I think he lies and is disgusting.

I would vote for him though if the choice is between him and Sanders.   Trump is easy to thwart, he is like a kid.

Sanders could ruin the country.

It's highly unlikely that Sanders (or any other Dem) will get ANY of their policy goals passed even if they win.  The GOP is likely to hold the Senate, not only during this coming election, but the majority of the time into perpetuity.  And on the rare occasions the Dems succeed in getting the Senate, they are incredibly unlikely to hold both houses of Congress with a big enough majority to pass any far-left policies anytime in the near future.  Consider that during the big wave election of Obama's first year, the Dems were in that position for only a few months, and they still couldn't even get a public option for health care or cap-and-trade (both much less far left policies than what the party currently proposes) b/c of defections among their own party. 

[GuitarStv]

I didn't vote for Trump.  I think he lies and is disgusting.

I would vote for him though if the choice is between him and Sanders.   Trump is easy to thwart, he is like a kid.

Sanders could ruin the country.

yes, universal healthcare is such a horrible thing. We wouldn't want that to happen.

And could you imagine what Sanders might do with Iran?  I bet he wouldn't have the balls to incite for war by flat out breaking a peace treaty that the other country is following to the letter.

Healthy people and no war?  The only thing worse would be to help the poor.  So un-Christian.  WWJD?  Probably nuke the Iranians, tell the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make the people who can't afford a doctor die.  Pretty sure that's in the New Testament.  In the back somewhere.

[Roland of Gilead]

yes, universal healthcare is such a horrible thing. We wouldn't want that to happen.

I would not have a problem if that was his entire platform and I felt he would stop there.

[Roland of Gilead]

And could you imagine what Sanders might do with Iran?  I bet he wouldn't have the balls to incite for war by flat out breaking a peace treaty that the other country is following to the letter.

Healthy people and no war?  The only thing worse would be to help the poor.  So un-Christian.  WWJD?  Probably nuke the Iranians, tell the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make the people who can't afford a doctor die.  Pretty sure that's in the New Testament.  In the back somewhere.

I am an atheist so don't really care what Christians or Muslims or Scientologists do as long as they mostly blow each other up and leave me out of it.

The healthcare system is actually not nearly as bad as people make out.   Nobody is bleeding out in the street while the ambulance waits for a credit card approval.   Most tests can get done fairly quickly, the drug discoveries are amazing...expensive yes, but we now cure things like Hep C with a pill in two months.  Just a few years ago this required liver transplants and hospitalizations costing $400,000 or more.   Keytruda and CAR-T therapies are making cancer not always a death sentence. 

Room for improvement?  Certainly.

[Roadrunner53]

I like all these things the 2020 candidates are suggesting. Biden is going to cure cancer and so is Trump. Warren wants to wipe out college debt and offer free college, Universal childcare. Bernie wants Medicare for all and so do some others. Yang wants to give money to working families. Trump didn't give us better, cheaper healthcare and now he is going to cure cancer!

So, I am retired, not going to college don't need childcare, can I get a Winnebago or free vacations every year expenses paid? The only way FREE is going to happen is more taxes. No one wants more taxes.

What about our infrastructure? This shows the ages of our bridges in NY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_and_tunnels_in_New_York_City

[JLee]

And could you imagine what Sanders might do with Iran?  I bet he wouldn't have the balls to incite for war by flat out breaking a peace treaty that the other country is following to the letter.

Healthy people and no war?  The only thing worse would be to help the poor.  So un-Christian.  WWJD?  Probably nuke the Iranians, tell the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make the people who can't afford a doctor die.  Pretty sure that's in the New Testament.  In the back somewhere.

I am an atheist so don't really care what Christians or Muslims or Scientologists do as long as they mostly blow each other up and leave me out of it.

The healthcare system is actually not nearly as bad as people make out.   Nobody is bleeding out in the street while the ambulance waits for a credit card approval.   Most tests can get done fairly quickly, the drug discoveries are amazing...expensive yes, but we now cure things like Hep C with a pill in two months.  Just a few years ago this required liver transplants and hospitalizations costing $400,000 or more.   Keytruda and CAR-T therapies are making cancer not always a death sentence. 

Room for improvement?  Certainly.

Nobody's complaining about the lack of advanced technology.  It's more so that you can bankrupt yourself with one ER visit.

[JLee]

I like all these things the 2020 candidates are suggesting. Biden is going to cure cancer and so is Trump. Warren wants to wipe out college debt and offer free college, Universal childcare. Bernie wants Medicare for all and so do some others. Yang wants to give money to working families. Trump didn't give us better, cheaper healthcare and now he is going to cure cancer!

So, I am retired, not going to college don't need childcare, can I get a Winnebago or free vacations every year expenses paid? The only way FREE is going to happen is more taxes. No one wants more taxes.

What about our infrastructure? This shows the ages of our bridges in NY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridges_and_tunnels_in_New_York_City

You say that, but...

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wealth-tax-letter-soros-disney-20190624-story.html