Trump Urges Nation To Condemn White Supremacy

[Revmitchell]

In his first formal remarks since the back-to-back mass shootings over the weekend, President Donald Trump called for all Americans to denounce white supremacist and racist ideologies.
"In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy," Trump said from the White House while addressing the nation on Monday. "These sinister ideologies must be defeated."

"Hate has no place in America," he continued. "Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul."

WATCH: Trump Urges Nation To Condemn White Supremacy

 

[Reynolds]

In his first formal remarks since the back-to-back mass shootings over the weekend, President Donald Trump called for all Americans to denounce white supremacist and racist ideologies.
"In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy," Trump said from the White House while addressing the nation on Monday. "These sinister ideologies must be defeated."

"Hate has no place in America," he continued. "Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul."

WATCH: Trump Urges Nation To Condemn White Supremacy

I see white supremacy as a religious beliefs protected by COTUS. I don't like it any more than I like Satanism, but both have the right to exist.

 

[HankD]

No matter what President Trump says it will not be accepted.

I remember when Bill Clinton apologized to the nation 3 TIMES on public TV back in the day when he was impeached and the Republicans would not listen.

The founding fathers never meant for these things to happen.

President Trump like President Clinton is being treated shamefully .

Yeah, I guess I'M A RACIST.

 

[Reynolds]

No matter what President Trump says it will not be accepted.

I remember when Bill Clinton apologized to the nation 3 TIMES on public TV back in the day when he was impeached and the Republicans would not listen.

The founding fathers never meant for these things to happen.

President Trump like President Clinton is being treated shamefully .

Yeah, I guess I'M A RACIST.

President Clinton treated shamefully?

 

[Roy]

I am glad that Mr. Trump appologized to Mexico for the loss of their citizens in the El Paso killings. I tkink that our Lord is pleased with that.

I don't know if Mexican authorities have ever appologized for our losses to Mexican gangs and other illegal Mexican immigrants. Maybe they have.

Are La Raza members racists?

How about members of the congressional Black Caucus?

Seems like everyone is entitled to have pride in their race except common American white folks.

Maybe in the Christian sense, no one should have any racial pride. Just accept the fact that God made us the way that we are for a purpose, and seek to find that purpose.

 

[HankD]

President Clinton treated shamefully?

yes i thought so, yes he is/was a sinner to which he admitted and OBTW so has President Trump.

 

[church mouse guy]

Isn't white supremacy the same as the KKK? I was in Chicago when the American nazis marched in Skokie. I thought that they were stupid. There used to be a lot of KKK in Indiana and I imagine that there is still some around but I don't know. The big problem in Indianapolis is black on white crime. White people do not want to be downtown at night or on the weekends. Indianapolis has a high murder rate but it is mostly black on black so it is not widely reported. Indiana closed the mental hospital for Indianapolis so we have a lot of mentally ill on the streets of downtown Indianapolis. Indianapolis is a major homosexual city like Washington DC and has been for 50 years.

 

[Reynolds]

yes i thought so, yes he is/was a sinner to which he admitted and OBTW so has President Trump.

The problem with Clinton was he lied repeatedly. He even lied under oath. I personally would have been ok with him kicking wicked witch Hillary to the curb publically. He could have married a Playboy bunny if he so chose. Just don't lie under oath about it.

 

[HankD]

The problem with Clinton was he lied repeatedly. He even lied under oath. I personally would have been ok with him kicking wicked witch Hillary to the curb publically. He could have married a Playboy bunny if he so chose. Just don't lie under oath about it.

Nobody's perfect.

How do we know what we would do given similar means and opportunity, yes even as Christians.

Look at the conversations of self doubt among the Apostles when Jesus made the awful accusation of betrayal

Mark 14:19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

Jesus taught them well - Is it I?

 

[Reynolds]

Nobody's perfect.

How do we know what we would do given similar means and opportunity, yes even as Christians.

Look at the conversations of self doubt among the Apostles when Jesus made the awful accusation of betrayal

Mark 14:19 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?

Jesus taught them well - Is it I?

But for the grace of God...... I could never let that stop me from enforcing the law.

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

Another thing that bothered me was talks of preventing gun ownership to 'mentally ill' people. It got me thinking because that's a pretty generic term. Who are they defining as mentally ill? Are we talking about people with schizophrenia or are we ranging from that to even high-functioning people with mental disabilities? I'm a lady with high-functioning autism, and with the Lord's guidance I don't ever intend on hurting anyone. Will my right to protect myself still be taken from me? What if doctors decide to start suddenly diagnosing Christians with 'mental illness' to keep them from having guns?

And what about the dozens of children diagnosed in school. Even if they grow up to be high-functioning members of society, which most do, will they still be unable to use a gun to hunt or defend their families?

The suggestion is just vague enough that it looks off-putting to me.

 

[church mouse guy]

Another thing that bothered me was talks of preventing gun ownership to 'mentally ill' people. It got me thinking because that's a pretty generic term. Who are they defining as mentally ill? Are we talking about people with schizophrenia or are we ranging from that to even high-functioning people with mental disabilities? I'm a lady with high-functioning autism, and with the Lord's guidance I don't ever intend on hurting anyone. Will my right to protect myself still be taken from me? What if doctors decide to start suddenly diagnosing Christians with 'mental illness' to keep them from having guns?

And what about the dozens of children diagnosed in school. Even if they grow up to be high-functioning members of society, which most do, will they still be unable to use a gun to hunt or defend their families?

The suggestion is just vague enough that it looks off-putting to me.

I think that the definition should be medically strict. Probably the law has addressed that. The big problem is lack of hospitals to treat compassionately people that Americans now dump on the streets. American mental hospitals began about 1750 but were shut down in the last half of the last century, as you know. Liberals have no compassion for anyone.

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

I think that the definition should be medically strict. Probably the law has addressed that. The big problem is lack of hospitals to treat compassionately people that Americans now dump on the streets. American mental hospitals began about 1750 but were shut down in the last half of the last century, as you know. Liberals have no compassion for anyone.

True, there should definitely be more facilities available to help people with severe mental illnesses. However, I still don't like the idea of taking people's rights away if they haven't even committed a crime. The minute you start going down the path of taking rights away from people who could "potentially" be criminals, then it's a slippery slope until everyone's rights are taken away. I believe in the Constitution, I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think it's a good idea to start taking away rights based on what-ifs.

Besides, very few of the people who have committed these shootings have had proven mental illness. You'd be statistically more correct in saying white males are at greater risk of committing shootings, and yes there are people who'd just love to take guns away from men period. Now limiting gun access based on whether or not you have a criminal record is a different story. Because then you actually have proven through your actions that you may not be safe with a gun. That isn't just speculation.

The fact that they're so vague about what mental illnesses they want to prevent from owning guns makes me question whether or not a law like that could potentially be abused. You can say that it has to be medically strict, but that is of course trusting that all doctors will be honest about that. I can definitely see certain doctors with personal agendas determining that Christians or men or even white people are mentally ill and shouldn't have access to guns at all.

In my opinion, it's probably a better idea to determine whether or not someone's safe with a gun based on whether or not they've committed a crime.

 

[church mouse guy]

Actually it's blacks who are the majority of mass shooters.

 

[Reynolds]

Another thing that bothered me was talks of preventing gun ownership to 'mentally ill' people. It got me thinking because that's a pretty generic term. Who are they defining as mentally ill? Are we talking about people with schizophrenia or are we ranging from that to even high-functioning people with mental disabilities? I'm a lady with high-functioning autism, and with the Lord's guidance I don't ever intend on hurting anyone. Will my right to protect myself still be taken from me? What if doctors decide to start suddenly diagnosing Christians with 'mental illness' to keep them from having guns?

And what about the dozens of children diagnosed in school. Even if they grow up to be high-functioning members of society, which most do, will they still be unable to use a gun to hunt or defend their families?

The suggestion is just vague enough that it looks off-putting to me.

Yep. NEVER surrender one inch of freedom for ANY reason.

 

[Reynolds]

Actually it's blacks who are the majority of mass shooters.

Yeah but don't let facts interfere with the talking points of the Communists.

 

[church mouse guy]

My bad.

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

Yep. NEVER surrender one inch of freedom for ANY reason.

Well I'm certainly not going to surrender my rights for nonsense reasons when it wouldn't solve the problem anyway. The problem isn't law-abiding citizens with mental disabilities, it's those with criminal records who are going to obtain guns illegally anyway. Taking away someone's right to own a gun just because they might commit a crime is unfair and unjust. While we're at it, why don't we mandate ankle bracelets to track everyone, because anyone could commit a crime, right? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? We all have the right to live our lives without being treated like second-class citizens, thank you very much.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

No matter what President Trump says it will not be accepted.

I remember when Bill Clinton apologized to the nation 3 TIMES on public TV back in the day when he was impeached and the Republicans would not listen.

The founding fathers never meant for these things to happen.

President Trump like President Clinton is being treated shamefully .

Yeah, I guess I'M A RACIST.

Hank, I see nothing in your post that gives reason to label you a racist or for you to come to that conclusion.

 

[HankD]

Hank, I see nothing in your post that gives reason to label you a racist or for you to come to that conclusion.

OH OK