VV wrote: 
He definitely was NOT the one to end them.  My boss was one of the members, and I listened on the call.  They chose to walk away from this.  Here's the public statement from my boss:

You may be aware of media coverage today regarding the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum. I participated in a call this morning with all of the CEO forum members that concluded with a decision to disband the group.

I wanted to make you aware of the statement below that was issued to the media by members of the forum. I remain deeply committed to improving healthcare for all Americans and appreciate your ongoing support.

STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC AND POLICY FORUM

August 16, 2017

"As our members have expressed individually over the past several days, intolerance, racism and violence have absolutely no place in this country and are an affront to core American values. The President's Strategic and Policy Forum was conceived as a bi-partisan group of business leaders called to serve our country by providing independent feedback and perspectives directly to the President on accelerating economic growth and job creation in the United States. We believe the debate over Forum participation has become a distraction from our well-intentioned and sincere desire to aid vital policy discussions on how to improve the lives of everyday Americans. As such, the President and we are disbanding the Forum. Job creation and supporting an inclusive pro-growth agenda remain vitally important to the progress of our country. As Americans, we are all united in our desire to see our country succeed."

 VV wrote: 
So well said; mind if I quote you? I do, however, disagree with your contention that Trump had an opportunity to 'demonstrate leadership...' Looking at his history (birther ranting; Central Park Five; blatant housing discrimination), him showing himself is far preferential to him performing in order to make  his suppporters, and fellow Republicans who still fail to denounce him, feel a little more comfortable, don't you think? He is who he is, and no conciliatory speech written for him to woodenly recite will change that. Better for it to be laid bare, IMO.

 kcar wrote: 

He had to end them... was looking mighty bad that people were quitting the councils en masse.
 
Funny, but just a day ago he was hate-tweeting the five or so that initially left and said he would have no problem replacing them. 

The alt-left have to be careful, or they lose the moral high ground and become legally culpable.

Best example: the Westboro folks are perfectly within their legal rights to stand with picket signs and say stupid shit.
But once their protestors lose control and start violating the law, you can't say that they're OK. There's objective evidence that fuels the self-righteousness of the alt-right. Don't give them that.

That's why I support things like the SPLC, who use legal means to incarcerate or bankrupt the assholes that are trying to #MAGA.

Alternate idea: the media can ignore them and not act like they're important. If we know they're planning a rally on the courthouse steps, how about if their opponents throw a free family day with food, entertainment, and musicians on the other side of town? I bet there are plenty of big names who would happily show in order to lure folks away from a supremacist rally. 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
The religious right are the worst hypocrites of all in my personal opinion.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I know that, and you know that... 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
real moral high ground

introspective moralization

not that fake stuff

you know, political dressing

 kurtster wrote: 
Really? Take another look... all of them are Trump's!
 
All he does week-in-and-week out is to s*ht the bed and leaves it to his people to try and clean up after him. This week he shat the bed, then begrudgingly and half-heartedly tried to clean it up and then turned around the next day left an even bigger pile than the first one. The bottom line this week is that the president in no uncertain terms exposed himself as sympathetic to various hate-groups and cemented himself as a racist. I know that you have long ago abandoned trying to truly defend him because you have realized doing so is a losing proposition. Instead you would rather redirect any discussion away from dealing with Trump in order to discuss the history of racism, what Obama did or didn't do... etc. It's sad though that even though you no longer can credibly defend him you still seem entirely comfortable in blindly supporting him. Was Trump speaking to you directly when he said he could kill someone on the street and still have people support him? 

This is a president who seems to thrive on division... whether that division be in his cabinet or in the Nation at-large. This president had a golden opportunity to demonstrate his leadership and immediately denounce hate but he ultimately decided to embrace it. This isn't a person anyone should support, emulate or follow. At least not anyone with a shred of dignity, morals or basic common sense. He's a hateful unbalanced sociopath totally unfit to lead this country and needs to be removed immediately before he can do more damage to the position and the Nation.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I was thinking more in terms of who purports to lay claim to any "moral high ground".

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
isn't political belief a subset of religious belief?

you think they're worried about a president?

besides most of those guys purchased congress long ago

lobbying is the best insurance money can buy

Strikes me that Trump is trying to pretend that he walked away from the advisory councils when the reality is that they walked away from him...



Trump Ends C.E.O. Advisory Councils as Main Group Acts to Disband

President Trump’s main council of top corporate leaders disbanded on Wednesday following the president’s controversial remarks in which he equated white nationalist hate groups with the protesters opposing them. Soon after, the president announced on Twitter that he would end his executive councils, “rather than put pressure” on executives.

The quick sequence began late Wednesday morning when Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of the Blackstone Group and one of Mr. Trump’s closest confidants in the business community, organized a conference call for members of the president’s Strategic and Policy Forum.

On the call, the chief executives of some of the largest companies in the country debated how to proceed.

After a discussion among a dozen prominent C.E.O.s, the decision was made to abandon the group altogether, said people with knowledge of details of the call.

...


Before the president’s announcement, executives from his manufacturing council were expected to have a similar call Wednesday afternoon. The manufacturing panel has seen a wave of defections since Monday, as business chiefs who had agreed to advise the president determined that his remarks left them with no choice but to walk away. 

Interesting that the business leaders on Donnie's business councils have resigned, but the clergy on his evangelical council have not.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 


Quickly jumping into this discussion—apologies if someone else has raised some of the points I am quoting below: 


Trump Asks, ‘What About the Alt-Left?’ Here’s an Answer

Antifa and black bloc — the far left of today — engaging in street brawls and property damage, while reprehensible, is “not domestic terrorism,” said J. J. MacNab, a fellow in the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. Similar episodes of extreme violence certainly exist on the left: the recent congressional baseball shooting in Virginia, or the bombing of the North Carolina Republican Party headquarters.

But overall, far-right extremist plots have been far more deadly than far-left plots (and Islamist plots eclipsed both) in the past 25 years, according to a breakdown of two terrorism databases by Alex Nowrasteh, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.

White nationalists; militia movements; anti-Muslim attackers; I.R.S. building and abortion clinic bombers; and other right-wing groups were responsible for 12 times as many fatalities and 36 times as many injuries as communists; socialists; animal rights and environmental activists; anti-white- and Black Lives Matter-inspired attackers; and other left-wing groups.

Of the nearly 1,500 individuals in a University of Maryland study of radicalization from 1948 to 2013, 43 percent espoused far-right ideologies, compared to 21 percent for the far left. Far-right individuals were more likely to commit violence against people, while those on the far left were more likely to commit property damage.

...

The far left was far more active and violent in the 1970s, while the far right and, specifically, militia movements resurged in the 1980s. A decade later, environmental terrorists became active. And jihadist attacks dominated after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“The extreme left has not been nearly as organized” in recent decades, said Brent Smith, the director of Terrorism Research Center at the University of Arkansas. “Leaders of the extreme left died off and they’re floundering without leadership.”

While antigovernment activists, for example, have been fomenting and building their anger since 2008, Antifa is a more nascent movement, reflected in their scale. The far right has a scattered membership of a few hundred thousand, estimated Ms. MacNab, compared with a few thousand Antifa activists.

 

 black321 wrote:

 
Yep, totally agree. The most important thing is to occupy the middle ground and make a vociferous argument for decency and the underlying values. But the middle has to stand up and be counted. Like Bush senior and junior did. Good on them. Like most other leaders did. That is how social consensus is formed.  The worst thing would be growing polarisation of extremes, which if I am not wrong is what the alt-right is gunning for, if you pardon the expression.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:I didnt assume that.  I'm all for resisting against Trump.  I just see too many ineffective acts of resistance...such as some of the things that occured over the weekend.  I don't believe it needs to turn violent...and maybe not even so negative.  Take the link Miami posted with the black officer helping the white nazi who was under some type of physical duress.  He could have ignored or called for an ambulance to let them deal with him, but he overcame his hate.  I'm not a big fan for the eye for an eye mentality.  Again, not to say, as you say, we should stand in the corner with flowers in our hair.    In this situation, would it have been better to disarm trumps position with something like..."OK, right, the ones who got violent were out of line.  But the key problem with all of this is that we have nazis in this country.  You're against nazi rights?"  Bring the focus back to the real problem.

As we both agree, we can't change what a person may choose to believe, but we can change what is acceptable in this country.  We could do a better job managing Trump and all his blunders.  We could be a lot smarter in handling the situation to minimize the risk of things getting out of control, again.  Of course, it sucks we're in a situation where we have to do this with our elected president...but if he is not going to take control, the people need to. 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Beliefs are different from actions. Should we send nazis to re-education camps? A bullet to the brain would be cheaper and easier.
 
 
 
 
                             ****DISCLAIMER****
I DO NOT SUPPORT NAZIS OR ANY OTHER HATE GROUP.

 buzz wrote: 
now I feel bad for threatening to go back to Shop Rite.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Boy...CEOs are just above rapists and nazis on the socially accepted totem pole...and even they dont want to hang with Trump.

 black321 wrote: 
I presume you meant the protesters were protesting "against" something that was despicable.

I agree the protesters crossed the threshold of the legal. When they initiate the violence they should be punished under the law for whatever crime they commit.
I have no issue with that.  I've been there myself and was just lucky that I didn't get arrested.The point is, the protesters did what they did because they see it as their moral duty to stand up and resist.
There comes a point when not to do so verges on tacit consent.

The problem in your argument is that you automatically assume we live in a nice orderly civilised society where people respect each others rights and beliefs and do not threaten each other.
Wonderful thing, civilised society. But standing on the corner with flowers in your hair holding a poster advocating peace love and racial harmony is not going to cut it when you have KKK, racists and white supremacists actually sitting in the seat of government.

The beliefs these people hold have tangible consequences. Pretending they don't is moral vacuity.