Yep. The difference now is that they are emboldened enough by Trump's election to not worry even about wearing hoods anymore.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

I don't think they've really changed much - they've got more tolerance maybe on the right than they had but I suspect they've not changed all that much because of Trump - its just people are paying more attention to them.

Its kind of like the BNP they got a bit of a boost back in the 2000s for various reasons, because they obtained some sympathies with people outside of their usual circle of influence. But those people didn't stay long - because they don't share real values with them.

People aren't becoming Neo-Nazi's because of Trump and they're not really all that more active - those organisations in the US have always been there, and always had a supporter basis - and those aren't the kind of people who'll be influenced by someone they prefer in power. Nor will many of those currently flirting with the far right stay long, because fundamentally they'll still be disagreeable to those who aren't 'really into the far right'.

The far right in America has always been 'bold' its just no one really pays attention to them until they do something horrible (and then those republicans who have 'flirted with them' have to distance themselves whilst protecting themselves).

If anyone in the Trump administration has done anything to embolden the Far Right its Bannon with his 'alt-right' approaches - Its more him who courted the far right.

the KKK and far right of America will always be voting Republican and endorsing a Republican candidate unless maybe the Tea Party get some traction.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Trump launched his political career by championing the entirely racist "birther" nonsense. Then he announced his candidacy by claiming that Mexico was "sending" drugs, crime and rapists to America - requiring a wall to be built to keep them out. Then he called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States.

As President, he has tried multiple times to enact his Muslim ban, has tried a number of ways to push funding for the border wall and has moved to cut in half the volume of immigrants allowed into the U.S. This weekend, he failed miserably to condemn and disavow the the white supremacists who caused violence and death and chanted his name.

But, go ahead, call it media waffle - and me a shill - if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Edited by Ray in Houston (14 Aug 2017 4.00pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

So much here to unpack...

Trump is a man whose moral compass points up his own arse. He could not even offer his mealy-mouthed commentary on the weekend's violence without wandering off into an aside about his job numbers (which aren't his and aren't particularly special). While I don't think he's the death of all good things - I find zero redeeming qualities in the man.

I disagree that this is the Nazis vs. the Reds. The progressive wing of politics over here is barely left of center. If Thatcher had proposed something as conservative as Obamacare, she'd have been dragged out of 10 Downing Street and lynched...by her working class base.

You cite a lone "Democrat" gunman as some kind of equivalent malevolence, whereas the numbers are very much against you. For example, since 9/11, 73% of terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been perpetrated by right wing extremists. [Link] So, this really isn't Nazis vs. Reds with reasonable people being victimised by both sides; this is Nazis vs. reasonable people, with reasonable people being victimised by Nazis.

History has one giant f***ing lesson about what can go wrong when you don't meet the threat of right wing extremism head on. "First they came for the Muslims..." I am not saying that Nazis or whomever should not be allowed to exercise their right to free speech, free assembly and free protest - but they, by the same token, must tolerate the rights of everyone else to disagree with them while standing in the same space.

As regards the "anti-Trump hate brigade" condemning him for not denouncing the KKK, I presume you refer to the likes of Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Orin Hatch and many other senior Republican elected officials.

As for death threats, you do remember who was in office immediately prior to Trump, right? Such things are wrong and stupid, but Trump has repeatedly called for violence against dissenters - at his campaign rallies and, most recently, two weeks ago at a speech to a police federation with a long anecdote about roughing up suspects that got heavy applause. He has sown this wind and continues to stoke resentment, hatred and - overtly - violence.

Again, if claiming to be the only reasonable person in this debate makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Go ahead and change your handle to SwitzerlandSays if you like. The rest of us have Nazis to oppose because the man in the Oval Office seems unwilling or unable to do so.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Three days later and two days (at least) behind everyone else.

#Leadership

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

So much here to unpack...

Sure, Trump doesn't have much in the way of morality that I would like but I don't agree with the extent of your rejection...Trump is just a figurehead of rejection that represents many different things.....To me, your 'no compromise' attitude will just get you plenty of conflict if that's what you want but I don't see it actually helping the political environment in anyway. .it will worsen it certainly and people will lose their lives for nothing certainly......I think the initial response of Sanders to Trump was far more centred.

Well, you are over there and all takes are valid if that's what you feel but I'd say that Democratic grass roots are now far more 'progressive' than the past. Not violent, but I don't think Sanders would have got very far back in Bill Clinton's day.

While I agree that in some areas progressivism agrees with accepted concepts in most western countries such as single payer healthcare I think it's disingenuous to suggest the full blown political correctness and 'identity politics' that progressives in America push is in anyway welcomed by the majority....in America or elsewhere.

I see those figures as politically selective. For example where are the deaths from black lives matter supporters? Are they included as far right or just ignored? I suspect they have been mis-characterised and ignored to present the picture they want to push. I'm suspicious of a report commissioned and rolled out by Obama as playing strictly objectively in this area.

This said I certainly do recognise that America has a far right problem and that this has existed far longer and in bigger numbers than elsewhere in the west. This has its seeds in mistrust of the government which...isn't wholly misplaced but becomes ridiculously polarized and distorted once you have the sector of the 2nd amendment.

Sorry to break it to you Ray....but ...You aren't going to affect anything. Also, listen to this..... The far right aren't going to affect anything.....in fact by being apart of the hysteria about it you play a small part in giving them the oxygen of publicity which enlarges their tiny numbers a small bit. What you attribute to Trump's language is actually probably equally attributable to your reaction to it.

They simply don't have the support for their racist agenda. Many people may agree with aspects of their concerns, such as immigration and multiculturalism but they morph these problems and distort them... then they push race based solutions. Most of us aren't going to bash someone on the head because they have a different skin colour.

Sure I do....what you think the Republican party like Trump? They spent most of their time trying to stop him. Trump is far from being a Republican.

Personally, If I were to choose a Republican to be in power I'd choose Rubio. But there you go.....What saddens me is that I haven't yet seen a Democrat I like...Well...actually that's not quite accurate...Sanders came across well to me on an ethical level...though I wasn't certain about his economic solutions.

I think there is some validity in what you say here....I'm certainly not going to type that I support Trump's opinions in some areas, just as I oppose most of his actual policies.

However, yours is not a valid argument. Just because Trump says dodgy things doesn't mean that when other people say them its ok and we ignore it....the double standard annoy me.

You can't fairly criticise him for comments like that and then ignore the same level comments...and sometimes comments more extreme....well you can't and then pretend that its valid.

I think I'm more reasonable than you perhaps on this topic certainly. This doesn't mean that I think you are a bad person. Indeed much of your Trump rejection is probably coming from a good place. We all have our hot buttons where objectivity is difficult...that said, I think we should always look to mitigate those.....Not saying that rants and knockabout has its place but that a certain perspective is also important.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)