Read This and Tell Me Trump's Not Crazy

[TemplarKormac]

Dude. Did you truly not pick up on the fact that Trump was asked about how he intends to deal with the rise in anti-Semitism and he responded by talking about how he's proud of himself for having won the Presidential election.

Did you not read the last paragraph of his response? Seems like we have a couple of liberals here in this thread immersed in the art of selective outrage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The question the guy asked was tantamount to a slow pitch with a Nerf Ball and Trump missed.

More like a poison-laced blow dart.

 

[xband]

Lilith was a modern woman in the Old Torah and she should be an inspiration to all present and future day women.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Dude. Did you truly not pick up on the fact that Trump was asked about how he intends to deal with the rise in anti-Semitism and he responded by talking about how he's proud of himself for having won the Presidential election.

Did you not read the last paragraph of his response? Seems like we have a couple of liberals here in this thread immersed in the art of selective outrage.

I did read it; I also listened to and watched it. The question Trump was asked is:

Mr. President, since your election campaign and even after your victory, we’ve seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents across the United States. And I wonder what you say to those among the Jewish community in the States, and in Israel, and maybe around the world who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.
​

The last paragraph of his response, seeing as that's what you want to focus on, is below.

As far as people -- Jewish people -- so many friends, a daughter who happens to be here right now, a son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren. I think that you’re going to see a lot different United States of America over the next three, four, or eight years. I think a lot of good things are happening, and you’re going to see a lot of love. You’re going to see a lot of love.
​

I remarked on that part of the speech in two places:

• Here, in a different thread, I specifically addressed the "some of my best friends are Jews" aspect of his response, saying:

I know, you binary types out there are chomping at the bit to point out that Trump's son in law is Jewish. Well, that is true, but so are these things:

• That's Trump's son-in-law, not Trump.
• That's his son-in-law, not his son.
• It's not as though he could stop his daughter from marrying the man without ostracizing her in the process.
• We all know of the "XYZs are crap, but not you. You're not like the rest of them" line. There's no reason to think that's now how Trump perceives his son-in-law.
• His daughter is Jewish, but she's religiously Jewish, not ethnically Jewish, so in this context, that she is Jewish isn't relevant. That's not to say she's not entirely a Jew; she is. It's to note that the matter of anti-Semitism is more than merely disdain for Jews. It's a matter pertaining to ethnic discrimination and ethnically. Quite simply, Ivanka Kushner, nee Trump, is not Semitic; moreover, one need not be Jewish to be a Semite.
  • Semite | people
  • Semitic people - Wikipedia
  • Who Are the Semites?

• Of his daughter's conversion to Judaism, Trump said, "This wasn’t in the plan."

• Here, in this thread, I addressed the vague and ambiguous aspect of that paragraph, saying:
  • Trump said, among other inane things (see post #7), "I think you're going to see a lot different USA over three, four or eight years."
    
    What's that supposed to mean, given the question the man was asked?
    • Anti-Semitism will become more prevalent over the noted time period?
    • Anti-Semitism will be less prevalent over the noted time period?

The part of my comments to which you replied happens to refer to the first part of Trump's answer. As he has done in the past, Trump refrained from simply offering a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal response to a question pertaining to race/ethnicity matters. In response to the question he asked, instead of making it about him, which is what the first part of his response does. After touting his own election win, by pointing out his son-in-law, he resorted thematically to the grizzled cliche "some of my best friends are....", a line that is decidedly defensive on the part of the speaker [1]. He was asked a question not attacked by a statement. There was no reason for him to adopt a defensive posture.

As I noted earlier, the man was given a "lightweight" question that provided a fine opportunity for him to make a strong and assertive statement on the matter. Trump first went straight to building himself and never got around to offering a firm statement that, if not laying out a specific plan for quelling anti-Semitism, positively asserted his denouncement of anti-Semitism. Something simple would have been just fine. Perhaps something like, "Though anti-Semitism may be on rise -- I don't know if it is or not -- I do not condone it or any other form of racism, overt or covert. Neither I nor my administration will not tolerate anti-Semitism or racism."

His response was a failure in many ways:

• Missed opportunity
• Ignorant
• Insensitive
• Cliched
• Self-aggrandizing/egotistical

And thing that makes those aspects become the focus is that he didn't say a thing specifically about anti-Semitism and doing someting to attenuate its proliferation. Had he simply addressed the issue about which he was asked, nobody would have a thing to say about the rest, but he didn't. He "danced around" the issue; thus that he did is what we're discussing because he didn't give us anything else to discuss re: his response to the question.

Endnote:

• The "some of my best friends are Jews" defense was perhaps most infamously uttered by none other than Hugo Black in 1937 while he underwent scrutiny re: his being nominated to Supreme Court. A year earlier, the phrase was the title of Robert Gessner's book thus titled. In the book, Gessner detailed the history of anti-Semitism. Variations of phrase have been used by a variety of people who land at various places on the spectrum ranging from merely insensitive to overtly racist -- George Bush, Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan, and Michele Bachmann, to name some.
  
  That's not to say such claims are false, but rather that its verity doesn't establish that one is not a racist. For instance, many an Antebellum Southerner developed meaningful, sometimes even (seemingly?) romantic relationships with a black or two -- after all, it's pretty hard not to develop a degree of respect for someone who helps raise and care for one's children -- and racists have long patronized Jewish owned retailers. The typical justification for their abject racism while yet establishing a relationship of sorts with the objects of their derision is "oh, but you're not like the rest of them." Quite simply, displaying a few instances of egalitarianism does not a non-racist make. At best, it makes one not racist in specific circumstances.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The question the guy asked was tantamount to a slow pitch with a Nerf Ball and Trump missed.

More like a poison-laced blow dart.

What made the question "like a poison-laced blow dart?"