officegirl has a valid point ... who decides whom is a "scumbag", and what are the qualifications?
We can take the KKK as an example. I'm sure most people agree that their views on race relations are extremely wrong. But many of their members were "pillars of the community" and "outstanding citizens". In other words, if you didn't know they were members of the KKK - you would have thought them highly respectable.
So, I guess it's contextual. KKK MemberA calling MemberB "a very fine person" has a different standard than someone who doesn't know MemberB is in the KKK "a very fine person".
I asked a question and provided the dictionary definition of SCUM and SCUMBAG. Of course anyone at anytime for any reason can rationalize anything. Humans are very good at that. They parse the language and shred it to death. Remember Bill Clinton saying it depends on what the definition of is is or something equally ridiculous. I did not buy that. I do not buy the what you wrote based on what another replier wrote. At all. If someone belongs to the KKK he/she is not and never will be a "pillar" of the community or an "outstanding" citizen. They will be liars fakers phonies. Hiding under a sheet and burning crosses in grass or lynching people by night and a "pillar of the community an d outstanding citizen by day"? My a**. it doesn't track. It makes no sense. Lots of folks are liars. You are what you do in private. Not what your pretend to be in public. I'm gonna ask. Thanks Walt. I don't buy a word of it. :)
But we only see what people do in public. So if I see someone doing good works in the community, I believe they are a "pillar of the community". If they never show their identity as a KKK member ... I don't know they are actually a scumbag.
To those who know they are KKK - and who are KKK members also - that person is "a very fine person" because they share the same beliefs.
What does any of this have to do with the question I originally asked Walt? It sounds like massive equivocation. What's the point of it? If someone is a scumbag in private how would I know about it? I am speaking to and about those who are SCUMBAGS in front of our noses. Equivocation or justification or rationalization or any other ation is irrelevant immaterial and beside the point. Can you please explain to me the point of this? I fail to grasp it. Thanks. You're a pal.
My point is that ... if the person is a scumbag in public, then yes - you have to be a scumbag to call that person "a very fine person". But if the person is a scumbag in private (or known to a few) - then anybody could call them "a very fine person".
To add my own observation: When the second scenario happens ... if it is later revealed to the public that the person is a scumbag, then anyone who called them "a very fine person" will be accused of supporting the scumbag. Unless they immediately state that they were tricked.
If you haven't read the full transcript of the conversation, it might be worthwhile to do so. He admonished the neo-nazis and supremacists while attempting to explain that not everyone who wanted the statue in Charlottesville to remain was part of those groups. The latter was the "very fine people" he was referring to, not the former. Ironically, you seem to actually agree with Trump's sentiments. He said there were "some very bad people in that group" meaning the neo-nazis he referenced earlier.
...So, if we're inferring that if he had implied neo-nazis were "very fine people" (which he did not), and that makes him a scum bag, and we now know that he was saying the opposite, is the inverse true as well? Is he a great man for admonishing the neo-nazis? Curious indeed.
Trump is like the boy who cried "Wolf" all the time---When the boy was actually doing what he should have, his past actions made it impossible to believe he was actually telling the truth.
If Trump actually said something reasonable that indicated that he could actually come to considered conclusions, the world is still easily forgiven for missing the one time his damaged intellect flashed a diminutive light that the world failed to notice.
The discovery of an anachronism is proof of nothing.
I was merely addressing the question and argument at hand. Suggesting he was a great man for admonishing the neo-nazis was flippant. The question proposes that we be the judge, jury, and executioners of character based upon a single quote. If that's so, then the sentiment should continue when it has been proven the opposite is true. Your reply is precisely my point. We shouldn't be playing judge, jury, and executioner based upon a single quote.
FYI, I can't stand Trump. But, I'd rather work with facts than misrepresenting quotes. The man does a fine job of vilifying himself. He doesn't need anyone's help.
Walt O'Reagun 