₦airaland Forum

Ijebosc:
It was a rally protesting the removal of a Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the US who led the South in a Civil War in the US to keep slavery and black people enslaved and killed countless Americans in the process.
I have no idea why there is any statute to any traitor to the US esp. a traitor who fought to keep slavery still standing in the US.

Noone there protesting the removal of that statue was a "very fine person".

On the matter of the removal of the statue I agree with you.

I also did not say that I agree that there were very fine persons on both sides.

I am specific that Trump was widely misrepresented because even for me, it took a long time before I saw the longer version in which in the very same breath he said he was not referring to the neo nazis, proud boys or other racists. Every time this was quoted, this was left out and that was not fair because he said it in the very same breath.

This does not mean I agree with there being very fine people on both sides. Even though I can also concede that some of those who defend the history of the Confederate War effort may not be doing so from support of slavery. They may however be either or both ignorant and hypocritical.

TV01:
Oga make sense. Darwin was not a Christian. Which is besides the point anyway, as calling oneself Christian does not mean you cannot have thoughts or positions that are unChristian.


TV

Just say you have no idea.

In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. - https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-12041.xml

When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not "in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible"
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882.

Anglican clergymen are not Christians?

TV01:
Keep up - read and reread if you have too.


TV

LMAO! This is how you people make assertions you can't support but believe it with all your heart. Bwahahahahahahaha!

LordReed:
Just say you have no idea.

In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. - https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-12041.xml

When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not "in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible"
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882.

Anglican clergymen are not Christians?

Let me confess something. There was a post which TV01 made on a thread long ago that I read, which was so balanced and sensible that i really thought here was a sound mind.

I have since been relieved of that delusion. It reaffirmed my longstanding thought that one should not hastily conclude on anyone no matter how much one may agree or disagree with them in the early stages of an interaction. The seeming devil could be an angel and vice versa.

I thought TV01 would be a knowledgeable chap but it turns out he isnt and makes the most elementary gaffes which tell one he knows very little to start with.

But you see, no one knows it all and we learn everyday so I have no issues with that. What I have issues with is stark irrationality.

DeepSight:
Let me confess something. There was a post which TV01 made on a thread long ago that I read, which was so balanced and sensible that i really thought here was a sound mind.

I have since been relieved of that delusion. It reaffirmed my longstanding thought that one should not hastily conclude on anyone no matter how much one may agree or disagree with them in the early stages of an interaction. The seeming devil could be an angel and vice versa.

I thought TV01 would be a knowledgeable chap but it turns out he isnt and makes the most elementary gaffes which tell one he knows very little to start with.

But you see, no one knows it all and we learn everyday so I have no issues with that. What I have issues with is stark irrationality.

Seriously. The way they assert their ignorance which such certitude can even make one doubt the facts. I guess that is what they rely on anyway.

These people were not colonized enough, and were never ready for independence. Budaatum would say otherwise but it's true.

The anti-immigration group Dudula stormed a foreign-owned supermarket, threatening to shut it down.

Note, these businesses pay taxes, employ SA citizens and contribute to their economy.

Never seen self-sabotage at this level. pic.twitter.com/1XHwFkg7bh

— Chude (@Chude_ND1) April 27, 2026

basilico:
I bet you that SPLC paid informants were in the January 6 crowd. Probably wearing Nazi colours.

There should be more details revealed I'm sure

Can someone please take this man to the clinic?

I don tire

😢😢😢😭😭😭

bemeruca:
These people were not colonized enough, and were never ready for independence. Budaatum would say otherwise but it's true.

The anti-immigration group Dudula stormed a foreign-owned supermarket, threatening to shut it down.

Note, these businesses pay taxes, employ SA citizens and contribute to their economy.

Never seen self-sabotage at this level. pic.twitter.com/1XHwFkg7bh

— Chude (@Chude_ND1) April 27, 2026

Read 2 nigerians were killed recently in SA from xenophobic attacks.

It is unacceptable.

Bemeruca.

‎Oil isn't a faucet. And that's why iran is cooked.
‎
‎People keep asking the same question about the u. S. Naval blockade of iran:
‎
‎if they cannot ship the oil, why do they not just stop pumping it?
‎
‎The answer is that they cannot. The reason involves physics, geology, and three quarters of a century of accumulated reservoir damage that the regime cannot undo. Let me walk through it.
‎
‎An oil well is not a faucet
‎
‎a faucet has a valve. You close the valve, water stops, you open it, water flows. Same as before.
‎
‎An oil well does not work that way at all.
‎
‎An oil reservoir is a high-pressure system. Crude sits trapped in porous rock typically sandstone or limestone under pressure measured in thousands of pounds per square inch, mixed with natural gas above and saltwater below. When you drill into that rock, you are creating a controlled leak. The oil flows up the well because the underground pressure is pushing it.
‎
‎When you shut the wellhead, the pressure does not stay still. It redistributes. Water from below pushes upward. Gas from above expands. The oil column gets disturbed sometimes permanently. Petroleum engineers have a term for this: shut-in damage.
‎
‎What actually happens when you "just turn it off"
‎
‎three categories of damage start the moment you shut in a producing well.
‎
‎The first is water coning and gas breakthrough. While the well is producing, the pressure drawdown holds the oil-water and oil-gas interfaces in roughly stable positions. Stop production, and water begins to rise into the producing zone while gas migrates downward. When you eventually restart, the well now produces salt water and natural gas instead of oil sometimes permanently.
‎
‎The second is wax and asphaltene deposition. Crude oil contains paraffin waxes and heavy asphaltenes that stay liquid only because the oil is hot and moving. Stop the flow, and these solids precipitate inside the wellbore, the production tubing, and the surface flowlines. Restart attempts plug the well shut. Iranian crude is notoriously waxy.
‎
‎The third is fines migration and sand settling. The perforations through the steel casing the holes through which oil enters the well from the rock clog with sand, fines, and asphaltene sludge during shut-in. Restart cuts flow rate, sometimes to zero, until a workover crew is deployed at six-figure cost per well to clean each one out.
‎
‎For an old field and iran's giant fields are old: ahvaz, marun, gachsaran, all producing since the 1950s and 60s shut-in damage is brutal. Texas and oklahoma operators in low-price periods routinely keep pumping at a loss rather than shut in, because the damage from shutting in costs more than the lost revenue.
‎
‎Iran's specific problem
‎
‎there are three additional factors making iran's situation worse than a typical producing nation's.
‎
‎Decades of sanctions have starved the industry of western technology. Halliburton, schlumberger, and baker hughes were the global leaders in well stimulation, workover, and reservoir management until they were forced out of iran between 2010 and 2018. The national iranian oil company has limped along on chinese-supplied equipment of significantly lower quality, plus reverse-engineered russian and pre-revolution american gear. Restoration after a shut-in requires precisely the high-end services iran no longer has.
‎
‎Iran also depends on water injection to maintain reservoir pressure. Most of iran's giant fields are on secondary recovery meaning seawater is pumped down injection wells to push oil toward producers. Shut in the producers and you must also shut in the injectors, or the field over-pressurizes. Stopping injection lets pressure decline. Restarting injection costs hundreds of millions of dollars and typically returns the field to lower output than before. There is no clean reset button.
‎
‎And oil is 30-40% of iran's government budget. Stop pumping for 90 days and the iranian currency collapses, subsidies on bread and electricity vanish, and the regime faces a domestic crisis worse than the 2022 protests. They cannot stop. They are physically and politically incapable of stopping.
‎
‎What is actually happening right now
‎
‎iran continues pumping because it must. The u. S. Blockade, which began february 28, prevents shipment.
‎
‎Iranian onshore storage at kharg island and bandar abbas filled up within weeks. After that, the regime began using its own fleet of aging very large crude carriers as floating storage, anchored off the strait of hormuz with their ais transponders dark.
‎
‎The floating storage filled up next.
‎
‎What happens then is what petroleum engineers call a production disposal crisis. Each pumping platform is producing oil that has nowhere to go and gas associated with that oil that, if not flared, will over-pressurize the entire system. So iran is now flaring increasing quantities of associated gas (visible from nasa viirs night satellite imagery), burning off the secondary product into the sky just to keep the primary product moving.
‎
‎Flaring is wasteful, expensive, and visible from orbit. It is what countries do when they have run out of options.
‎
‎The long-term damage
‎
‎even when this war ends, iran's oil sector will not return to where it stood on february 27, 2026.
‎
‎A reservoir engineer can model the damage. Estimates range from 20-35% permanent productivity loss across iran's giant fields, depending on how long the chaos continues and how badly the wells are mishandled while it is going on. That is hundreds of billions of dollars of reserves that will sit underground forever, because the regime did not have the technology, the time, or the strategic patience to manage a controlled shut-in properly.
‎
‎This is what makes the u. S. Naval blockade strategically devastating in a way that ordinary sanctions are not.
‎
‎Sanctions reduce demand for iranian oil. The blockade physically prevents its movement. And because iranian oil cannot be turned off and cannot be shipped, every barrel pumped now becomes either flared waste or reservoir-damaging backpressure.
‎
‎The islamic republic is not facing a financial squeeze. It is facing a geological squeeze the kind that does not get undone with a ceasefire, a sanctions waiver, or a billion-dollar qatari escrow account.
‎
‎It is the kind of damage that the rocks themselves remember.
‎
‎A blockade held for six months is a decade-long revenue hit to the islamic republic.
‎

bayelsaowei:
Can someone please take this man to the clinic?

I don tire

😢😢😢😭😭😭

I copy pasted 3 long posts here an hour ago.
I am not one to agree with you on anything..
Trump is more sinned against than sin itself.
If you can agree that most hits against him are malicious and overblown, I can consider taking your opinions seriously.
Otherwise I will never join your lynch mob baying for an otherwise imperfect Trump at every opportunity, where none exists the lymch mob creates one.

DeepSight:
This does not mean I agree with there being very fine people on both sides.

Would there be some fine people in a crowd of people protesting the removal of a Hitler statute?

DeepSight:
Even though I can also concede that some of those who defend the history of the Confederate War effort may not be doing so from support of slavery. They may however be either or both ignorant and hypocritical.

When you decide to leave your house and protest the removal of a statute of a traitor who fought and killed Americans in defense of slavery, standing shoulder to shoulder with the KKK and Neo Nazis, ignorance can no longer be a defense.

If you look around and see there are people in white hoods on your side, you better figure out what side you are actually on.

Ijebosc:
Would there be some fine people in a crowd of people protesting the removal of a Hitler statute?



When you decide to leave your house and protest the removal of a statute of a traitor who fought and killed Americans in defense of slavery, standing shoulder to shoulder with the KKK and Neo Nazis, ignorance can no longer be a defense.

If you look around and see there are people in white hoods on your side, you better figure out what side you are actually on.

Very well said.

Just to be clear, I dont subscribe to the view that there were fine people on both sides. I only note that Trump was widely quoted out of full context deliberately. Perhaps he said what he said in a bid to appease both sides, but I certainly do not personally agree with it.

Let me add, on an academic note that there is the argument that there were other issues at play in the American Civil War beyond slavery alone, even if that was clearly the major and overriding difference.

I know you can be balanced to some point.
I know that most hits against Trump are just malicious, I've disagreed what he says many times, not that I posted here.
Media has an unwritten rule never to shine Trump in any positive light at all, I will not join them in rubbishing everything about Trump.

DeepSight:
I found out a long time ago that Trump was mis-represented on the "very fine people on both sides" remark concerning Charlottesville. He clearly had exempted Neo Nazis etc.

This is further evidence of how balanced and rational I am in this matter.
Whereas you can never concede anything. You will defend even the most glaring atrocities and wrongs.

bayelsaowei:
Read 2 nigerians were killed recently in SA from xenophobic attacks.

It is unacceptable.

One woman was telling a heavily pregnant woman that she is not going to have her child here. You can see hate from her voice

DeepSight:
Let me add, on an academic note that there is the argument that there were other issues at play in the American Civil War beyond slavery alone, even if that was clearly the major and overriding difference.

Were there other issues in play with Hitler?

DeepSight:
Just to be clear, I dont subscribe to the view that there were fine people on both sides. I only note that Trump was widely quoted out of full context deliberately. Perhaps he said what he said in a bid to appease both sides, but I certainly do not personally agree with it.

This was what the stated goal of the Unite the Right Rally by the organizer
I understand what you are saying.
I am saying even if he did leave out the KKK and White Nationalists there were not fine people on both sides.
Because the intent of the rally was to foster white nationalist ideology and those who chose to show up understood what they were there for.

IjeBos:
Were there other issues in play with Hitler?



This was what the stated goal of the Unite the Right Rally by the organizer
I understand what you are saying.
I am saying even if he did leave out the KKK and White Nationalists there were not fine people on both sides.
Because the intent of the rally was to foster white nationalist ideology and those who chose to show up understood what they were there for.

I concur. Well said.

Let me just emphasize yet again that I dont agree that there were fine people on both sides.

I only note that that statement made by Trump was almost universally quoted without completing his sentence.

Deepsight, you're at a rally and it's filled with these people. Are you staying?

And why would any US President instead of roundly condemning the rally, equivocate and rely on false equivalencies?
Is the side fighting White Supremacy equal to the side fighting for White Supremacy?

It was a dog whistle plain and simple.
Just like his "stand back and stand by" comment to the Proud Boys. Just like pardoning the Jan 6ers.

IjeBos:
Deepsight, you're at a rally and it's filled with these people. Are you staying?

Not for a nano second.

And why would any US President instead of roundly condemning the rally, equivocate and rely on false equivalencies?
Is the side fighting White Supremacy equal to the side fighting for White Supremacy?

It was a dog whistle plain and simple.
Just like his "stand back and stand by" comment to the Proud Boys. Just like pardoning the Jan 6ers.

I wholly concur.

Let me repeat yet again for overwhelming emphasis that I dont agree with what Trump said. I just note that virtually every report on it deliberately cut his sentence short.

I am sure my posts here are clear enough on what I think of the man - and his racism, so please do not think that in anyway I see eye to eye with him on the matter.

Ijebosc:
It was a rally protesting the removal of a Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the US who led the South in a Civil War in the US to keep slavery and black people enslaved and killed countless Americans in the process.
I have no idea why there is any statute to any traitor to the US esp. a traitor who fought to keep slavery still standing in the US.

Noone there protesting the removal of that statue was a "very fine person".

Most irrational argument I've read in a long time.
The Roman Colosseum was the site where thousands of christians were put to death.
Do you see christians demanding it be brought down?
Several busts of Nero exist,why do Christians whom he persecuted fervently plus the Jews don't demand their destruction. Instead they study the history it represents

What is it with progressives that offends them when they see historical statues that have been there for hundreds of years.

I doubt you are capable of reasoning beyond what modern day liberals think and project
If you hate something for good reason,who are you to force me to hate it too when I can sell burgers to those who want to see it?

DeepSight:
I concur. Well said.

Let me just emphasize yet again that I dont agree that there were fine people on both sides.

I only note that that statement made by Trump was almost universally quoted without completing his sentence.

It was universally quoted that way because leaving out the rest of the sentence didn't matter.
Everyone understood it to be a white nationalist protest.
And those protesting were protesting in support of White Nationalism.

Let's rephrase what he was saying.
"There were very fine people on both sides, [even on the side of those who showed up to protest in support of "White Nationalism]. I'm not just talking about the KKK and Neo Nazis."

Does that give his statement more context?
No, again everyone understood it was a White Nationalist protest.
It was all over the national media that it was a White Nationalist rally and counter demonstrators organized because of it.
Everyone knew it may be violent and that is was a White Nationalist rally, so the city tried to prevent the rally from even happening.
But a federal judge blocked the city from doing so and let it go on on First Amendment grounds.

The idea that "good people" just moseyed along to this rally is fantasy.
Whomever was there, knew they were at a White Supremacy rally.
So, it wasn't matter of a rally you just heard about happening in the town square and you wanted to check it out.
Everyone in that city knew, everyone in the counrty knew it was a White Nationalist thing long beore the rally heppened.
Trump knew it was a white nationalist rally.
Does that give more context to Trump's remarks and why what was left out didn't matter?

Apologies, the more I think about the more I remember it.

IjeBos:
It was universally quoted that way because leaving out the rest of the sentence didn't matter.
Everyone understood it to be a white nationalist protest.
And those protesting were protesting in support of White Nationalism.

Let's rephrase what he was saying.
"There were very fine people on both sides, [even on the side of those who showed up to protest in support of "White Nationalism]. I'm not just talking about the KKK and Neo Nazis."

Does that give his statement more context?
No, again everyone understood it was a White Nationalist protest.
It was all over the national media that it was a White Nationalist rally and counter demonstrators organized because of it.
Everyone knew it may be violent and that is was a White Nationalist rally, so the city tried to prevent the rally from even happening.
But a federal judge blocked the city from doing so and let it go on on First Amendment grounds.

The idea that "good people" just moseyed along to this rally is fantasy.
Whomever was there, knew they were at a White Supremacy rally.
So, it wasn't matter of a rally you heard about happening in the town square and you wanted to check it out.
Everyone in that city knew, everyone in the counrty knew it was a White Nationalist thing.
Trump knew it was a white nationalist rally.
Does that give more context to Trump's remarks and why what was left out didn't matter?

Apologies, the more I think about the more I remember it.

I concur.
I did feel blindsided though, by not seeing or hearing of the full quote for a long time.

You see, I think deliberately cutting that sentence short was wrong especially because it gives his base ammo to cite it as an instance for him being deliberately sabotaged.

You need have no doubt - I am clear in my mind that the fellow is a white supremacist racist and I dont agree with his statement, shortened or not.

Bemeruca

Kemi Badenoch just delivered the line every western conservative leader has been dodging for a decade.
An lBC caller asked Badenoch how a muslim could trust The Conservative Party after shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy criticized mass ramadan public prayer in Trafalgar square as an act of domination.
Badenoch did not duck. Her opening, " My grandmother was a muslim. I was born in a country that was 50% muslim. I said muslim prayers on friday because that's what happened there when i was at school. I have good friends who are muslim".
Then the line. "In my view, the law and our culture and norms triumphs any religion, whether it s christianity, whether it is islam".

Then the clincher, " If we are trying to tell people that you are not allowed to criticize any religion, then we are changing the very fabric, nature and culture of this country. And I i fundamentally disagree with that. British law over religious law. British culture over religious deference. The right to criticize any religion christianity, islam, all of them is a non-negotiable feature of a free society, not a privilege the majority granted to the minority. This is the western mainstream conservative position".
Badenoch, daughter of Nigerian immigrants, raised christian, lived among muslims her whole childhood said it on national radio without hedging, without apologizing, and without softening it for the audience.
The British Conservative leader just said what every western conservative leader for the past decade has been afraid to say. That fear is dying.
Video from @lbc.



Who you think on this wall will disagree with that?

DeepSight:
I concur.
I did feel blindsided though, by not seeing or hearing of the full quote for a long time.

You see, I think deliberately cutting that sentence short was wrong especially because it gives his base ammo to cite it as an instance for him being deliberately sabotaged.

You need have no doubt - I am clear in my mind that the fellow is a white supremacist racist and I dont agree with his statement, shortened or not.

I think you bought in to the Republican Propaganda on that sentence trying to rewrite history.
Do a deep dive into what happened that summer.

This was the night before the "very fine people on both sides" rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN7vm9mIPBs

And here is a documentary on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I&t=36s

Everyone knew what this was.
Just because they didn't have neo Nazi bandanas or white hoods didn't change who came out to protest that day.

There’s a reason why people who were here 10-12 years ago don’t argue with certain monikers.

You see them and move on.
Because they’ll shock you when you least expect it

DeepSight:
Let me confess something. There was a post which TV01 made on a thread long ago that I read, which was so balanced and sensible that i really thought here was a sound mind.

I have since been relieved of that delusion. It reaffirmed my longstanding thought that one should not hastily conclude on anyone no matter how much one may agree or disagree with them in the early stages of an interaction. The seeming devil could be an angel and vice versa.

I thought TV01 would be a knowledgeable chap but it turns out he isnt and makes the most elementary gaffes which tell one he knows very little to start with.

But you see, no one knows it all and we learn everyday so I have no issues with that. What I have issues with is stark irrationality.

IjeBos:
I think you bought in to the Republican Propaganda on that sentence trying to rewrite history.
Do a deep dive into what happened that summer.

This was the night before the "very fine people on both sides" rally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN7vm9mIPBs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I&t=36s

Everyone knew what this was.
Just because they didn't have neo Nazi bandanas or white hoods didn't change who came out to protest that day.

No I didnt buy into any propaganda, and rest assured I agree with you.

So asking a question not even directed to him about the Epstein files is now considered a promotion of violence against the President?

You would think that he would demand justice for all the little girls and he would do whatever it takes to get all those involved.

Only someone guilty would behave this way. We are Still missing about 2.5 million files….. why is the party of family values not upset about this?

Somehow, the question brought up about Epstein files is proof they need a new ballroom. Y’all MAGAts don’t see how ridiculous this is?

Really? 🤦🏽‍♀️

cococandy:
So asking a question not even directed to him about the Epstein files is now considered a promotion of violence against the President?

You would think that he would demand justice for all the little girls and he would do whatever it takes to get all those involved.

Only someone guilty would behave this way. We are Still missing about 2.5 million files….. why is the party of family values not upset about this?

Somehow, the question brought up about Epstein files is proof they need a new ballroom. Y’all MAGAts don’t see how ridiculous this is?

Really? 🤦🏽‍♀️

wtf?

DeepSight:
No I didnt buy into any propaganda, and rest assured I agree with you.

But, do you see what I am saying?
Whoever is making this argument is trying to argue that outside of the KKK and Neo Nazis it was a fine rally full of fine Americans.
But, without the KKK, Neo Nazis and their sympathizers, there would be no rally because there would have been no people there.

They are attempting to normalize/sane wash the rally and Trump's support of the White Nationalists who showed up there.

IjeBos:
But, do you see what I am saying?
Whoever is making this argument is trying to argue that outside of the KKK and Neo Nazis it was a fine rally full of fine Americans.
But, without the KKK, Neo Nazis and their sympathizers, there would be no rally because there would have been no people there.

They are attempting to normalize/sane wash the rally and Trump's support of the White Nationalists who showed up there.

Indeed. Agreed.

Still the media should not have clipped the sentence they way they did. You know, when you hide something you look shifty already.

cococandy:
So asking a question not even directed to him about the Epstein files is now considered a promotion of violence against the President?

You would think that he would demand justice for all the little girls and he would do whatever it takes to get all those involved.

Only someone guilty would behave this way. We are Still missing about 2.5 million files….. why is the party of family values not upset about this?

Somehow, the question brought up about Epstein files is proof they need a new ballroom. Y’all MAGAts don’t see how ridiculous this is?

Really? 🤦🏽‍♀️

Jesus Christ of Nazareth. A Head of State posted that? A western, democratic head of state?
These are the end times. Its clear.

Apostle must hear this.

DeepSight:
Indeed. Agreed.

Still the media should not have clipped the sentence they way they did. You know, when you hide something you look shifty already.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Here are more of the remarks.
Even the reporter is trying to help him because they seem incredulous at what he was saying.
This is a video on the protests. Maybe you can point out the very fine people with the tiki torches who were protesting the night before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F2kPRW6ZuA

Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

"So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

"But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead."
....
Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was 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 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: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"

Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If 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 if you reported it accurately, you would say."

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- 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: "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 statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So 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."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.