Quote Originally Posted by lardy View Post
It's great that you're now a sticker for clarity and transparency before accepting something. That wasn't the case for the Clinton Enterprise's decades-long stranglehold on politics, media and the legal world, or North Korea being China's puppet, or that people on the left want to make paedophilia acceptable, or the same people on the left pushing an open borders agenda by somehow putting words into the mouth of Trump's political adviser, or that YouTube and Twitter are trying to control the minds of the majority (despite their unmoderated user comments showing a massive spectrum of opinion) - and that's just the last few pages of this thread. All of a sudden making inferences is not good enough...

To answer your questions.

Trump has never been shy about being speaking clearly about subjects. This time he made a clear refusal to specifically condemn the white supremacists and refused to say he didn't want their support. Plenty of other senators, governors, etc have clearly condemned them. Trump hasn't. If you're not condemning this, you're condoning it.

Are they paid actors? I don't know them personally so I cannot say. But their identities are being made known over social media and we will no doubt find out soon enough. But if you have spent time in the Deep South or spoken to anyone from there about attitudes, you'd know there's no need to pay people to act like this.
I am just trying to form an unbiased opinion, and the only information I have so far is coming from you. Do you have an outline of the policing strategy that was in play yesterday? Were both groups policed sufficiently and fairly?

Regarding Clinton, I never really paid much attention to her before. I only became aware of the progressive agenda after researching Brexit, and Soros's name kept popping up in all kinds of globalist subterfuge, which all seemed to be connected to the Democrats in some way.