Question: is anyone really looking for civil discourse?

 Lucy linked some info about them and I'm going to take a look at that shortly. 

Since you are being obtuse let me spell it out for you.

Yes Gia I understand you acknowledged Lucy took the time to link several articles because you are too lazy to do it yourself.  

What I was wondering is if you are actually going to comment about the information contained in those articles.  Or ignore it and assume no one will notice because it kind of messes with your "valid point".  

With all the time you took to fire off this series of responses I would guess you had plenty of time to read and digest the information.  

Care to give us your thoughts?

Edited to add I didn't read your last response.  I'll be looking forward to your comments shortly.

@mytnice Steve Bannon, Seb Gorka and Stephen Miller are the white supremacists that I was referring to.

First, I'm not the lazy one. That would be you who made a claim and want me to do the work to prove it and then claim since I won't prove YOUR claim, that makes me lazy. No. That makes YOU lazy. Either that or just someone on some sort of delusional power trip. Hard to tell with you sometimes.   This is why you are intellectually lazy and have no curiosity.  When you threw "out there" that the Muslim Brotherhood was in the Obama White House I went searching for the truth.  Didn't take me long to figure out you were full of it and that was later confirmed by another pea on this thread.   

Second, I'm looking at the articles in between doing other things.   Excuses.  I did not put a time factor of when you needed to enlighten us with your thoughts.  I was going to wait until Tuesday morning before I asked/reminded you that we were waiting.  I mean this is a holiday weekend. If you just wanted me to read them and agree with them, then yes that doesn't take much time. That's not happening. It takes time to look at them and do my own research on the claims. A lot more time than reading here and responding to something, so you can't compare the two. The first article I looked at made a claim and then linked to another article to prove the claim. That article disproved part of the claim in the first paragraph.  Then a picture of hands on 2 Hitler books (could be anyone's hands) are claimed to be someone Trump supports or supports Trump, not sure what the point was but they claimed he was "lovingly caressing" a stack of Hitler books. We're supposed to know that this person is a white supremacist because of this picture, that we don't even know who it is or what they're actually doing/saying about the books. And FFS, the ‘Cosmopolitan’ epithet was because Jim Acosta was being racist because he said people who speak English only come from certain countries, not Stephen Miller. 

Third, I ended up down a rabbit hole trying to make sense of the absurdity and moronic logic that determines some of these claims and I may or may not continue this time suck. Some of their reasoning from Lucy's articles is so beyond absurd, Trump is connected to white nationalists because his first security adviser called someone "brave" who they claim is into pedophilia. One had nothing to do with the other, but pffft, who cares right? I know for a fact the pedophilia crap is just that. The more I read and see some of the twisted logic that people come up with to prove these claims, the more I just think if you have some proof then you need to show it, otherwise these articles are wasting my time. This is exactly why you should do your own research.  Those articles were just the tip of the iceberg.  Now if it was me, and I did this a lot during the Obama years, if you make a claim and I think you are messing with me I go look at a lot of information from different sources.  I want to know the whole story.  

I've shown actual proof that he did not say "they charged at US". I've shown actual proof of him denouncing white supremacists for years. Before during and after Charlottesville. If you have proof that he supports white supremacists, you need to show it with something other than pointing and saying research it. What in the actual articles is it that you think proves that point, because I'm not seeing what you see. You'll have to be specific and I'll look at that.  I'm not going back to read the entire thread but it seems to me what drew you to this thread was not the great "us v  em" debate but your belief that trump did condemn the alt right and company in his original remarks and it went down hill after that.  

iamkristinl16 , I AM open minded. If you have something specific that proves these people are white supremacists, I'm open to seeing it. If it is actually true, we should know. So far I haven't seen it.

iamkristinl16 , I AM open minded.

Eh, I don't know. His views on Islam, ties to breitbart and anti-Semitic groups don't really Make him sound like a great guy.

It's not for me or anyone else to "prove" anything to you.  lucyg gave you a starting point for you but you discredited it.  Dismissed it. You show no curiosity to find out if this true or not. What you want is to have others spoonfeed the information to fit your narrow view. 

While I'm on a roll you have proven you really aren't interested in having a discussion about anything.  You just want to complain how everyone is trying to silence you.  
  
The proof is your comments about the articles.  If you were interested in having a discussion about this topic you would not have used terms/words like "down a rabbit hole" and "absurdity and moronic logic".  You were was not  specific.  "Well the first article made a claim then linked another article that disproved...."   That is not how you have a discussion.  Or even if you didn't want a discussion you could have should have been specific on why it was "absolutely and moronic logic".   All you did was give bits and pieces.  

The information is "out there" and you can choose to believe it or not.  The choice is yours. 

By the way as of today trump still hasn't condemned the alt right & company.  He has certainly skirted around it.   He could have saved himself a lot of grief if he would have made a statement along these lines " We condemn the violence on both sides at this protest.  But it is important to point out that there is no place in this country for those who have the beliefs expressed by the alt right, Neo Nazis, KKK, and white nationalists."  It was that simple.
 
 And that was a bunch of crap that he was waiting to get all the information.  There was the first indication there would/could be problems Friday night with the tiki march through the city.  On Saturday the violence started at 10:30 and by 1:30 the young woman was killed by the car.  trump did not make his remarks until 3:30.  That was 5 hours after the violence started.  I get that he was in NJ but even in NJ they have good communications and during the time it was happening the president would/should have been briefed on a regular basis and even more so since he would be in a position where he would be asked questions like at the bill signing at 3:30.  Factcheck.org did a timeline.  

Even first hand knowledge isn't good enough proof here. When some on the Left decide the narrative, that's it, it's set in stone. Went through that with a discussion on Pence a while ago too. 

Even first hand knowledge isn't good enough proof here. When some on the Left decide the narrative, that's it, it's set in stone. Went through that with a discussion on Pence a while ago too. 

No, I don't say what I say as proof. Just as observation. I would describe myself as politically left of center and impatient with the racism and sexism that has wormed its way to the surface again in recent years. I am also in the position of having known quite well two families with ties to the current administration for which I have no affection, the Gorkas and one other, through personal and social connections. I met the Gorkas through work years ago and the other family their kids play with mine. There is this odd thing that happens when a person who is a political "issue" becomes a person who is personally known. Sebastian and I have talked at length about our families and how we came to be where and as we are. I believe we understand one another well though I disagree with about 85% of his political viewpoints. None of this is proof, it is just interesting what happens when a political lightning rod sits at your dinner table and has a conversation. In this case my personal ties color my viewpoint more than what is reported in the media. For another person that might not be so and for obvious reason.