Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?

[Valerie]

Trump tweeted: "We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!"

President Trump on Saturday initially denounced what he called "this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides".


But this drew criticism for failing to single out neo-Nazis and the KKK for criticism.


The White House added on Sunday: "The president said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred, and of course that includes white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together."





Racist conspiracy theorist Duke, the KKK's former Imperial Wizard, replied: "I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists."


He also told the President over social media: "So, after decades of White Americans being targeted for discriminated & anti-White hatred, we come together as a people, and you attack us?"




^ aww look at the KKK playing victim to trump's flimsy "ATTACK" on "all sides"




Duke arrives in Charlottesville to address supporters (Image: REUTERS)

Duke, who attended the rally, told reporters at the scene: "We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.


"That’s what we believed in - that’s why we voted for Donald Trump.


"Because he said he’s going to take our country back. That’s what we've got to do."

 

[Mac1958]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years. Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.

I can actually understand that argument, but there is a time and place for everything. A President has to have the awareness to understand, appreciate and act in accordance with the broader context of any event.
.

This is absolutely true. For "a President".

But this one has always been pointedly specific, absolutely when it results in a broad brush, about "Mexicans", about "Muslims", even jumping in to take credit for his own fingerpointing in the face of some attack, even pointing the Mexican finger at a judge from Indiana.

Now suddenly he wants to go all-inclusive and the finger goes flaccid?

You gotta be not paying attention to miss that.

Sure. It couldn't be much more obvious, he doesn't want to piss off the wrong people.

He's so clumsy that he doesn't hide it very well.
.

the wrong people?

a decent human being would be proud to piss off neo-Nazis.

it's about time people stop making excuses for him. he chooses his words carefully.

Oh, I don't think he chooses his words carefully. That would be giving him too much credit.

He knows how much he needs the Alt Right, and just did a characteristically poor job of hiding it.
.

 

[jillian]

He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years. Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.

I can actually understand that argument, but there is a time and place for everything. A President has to have the awareness to understand, appreciate and act in accordance with the broader context of any event.
.

This is absolutely true. For "a President".

But this one has always been pointedly specific, absolutely when it results in a broad brush, about "Mexicans", about "Muslims", even jumping in to take credit for his own fingerpointing in the face of some attack, even pointing the Mexican finger at a judge from Indiana.

Now suddenly he wants to go all-inclusive and the finger goes flaccid?

You gotta be not paying attention to miss that.

Sure. It couldn't be much more obvious, he doesn't want to piss off the wrong people.

He's so clumsy that he doesn't hide it very well.
.

the wrong people?

a decent human being would be proud to piss off neo-Nazis.

it's about time people stop making excuses for him. he chooses his words carefully.

Oh, I don't think he chooses his words carefully. That would be giving him too much credit.

He knows how much he needs the Alt Right, and just did a characteristically poor job of hiding it.
.

then maybe the orange sociopath is in bed with the wrong people.

 

[Si modo]

Jillian needs to get a grip. She's having a meltdown...even said Trump chooses his words carefully. Her plantation won't be pleased.

 

[Valerie]

david duke and the kkk apologists should get a grip and realize it is not only "radical leftists" who denounce them.

 

[easyt65]

trump's bread and butter is racial anger by angry sick white Christian supremacists....

quiet, Vladimir.

You're the one throwing temper tantrums and cussing, vlad.

No, dear, you are once again having another rabidly deranged, triggered, highly emotionally and opinionated episode, declaring the stupidest things you can think of in the midst of your hatred of the President...while thinking personally attacking me with 'Vlad' - after it has just been exposed that there NEVER WAS any Russian hacking of the DNC, that it has always been a DNC butt-hurt conspiracy to seditiously attempt to overthrow the newly elected President - would somehow bother me or make the moronic thing you said more real.

As I stated before, F* OFF, you mental, triggered snowflake...

 

[bendog]

On November 15, 2015, as the world grappled with the horrors of a multipronged ISIS attack in Paris, Donald Trump, who was then an improbable but officially declared candidate for the presidency, tweeted, “When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can’t say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!”

I raise the subject of this tweet, and the sentiment that motivated it, in light of President Trump’s remarkable reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,” he said. Trump, when presented with the chance to denounce, in plain, direct language, individuals who could fairly be described as “white supremacist terrorists,” or with some other equivalent formulation, instead resorted to euphemism and moral equivalence.

Trump’s position on the matter of President Obama’s anti-terrorism rhetoric did not place him outside the Republican mainstream. Obama’s critics argued throughout his presidency that his unwillingness to embrace the incantatory rhetoric of civilizational struggle—his reluctance to cast such groups as al-Qaeda and ISIS as vanguards of an all-encompassing ideological and theological challenge to the West—meant that, at the very least, he misunderstood the nature of the threat, or, more malignantly, that he understood the nature of the threat but was, through omission, declaring a kind of neutrality in the conflict between the United States and its principal adversary.

It is true that Obama calibrated his rhetoric on the subject of terrorism to a degree even his closest advisers sometimes found frustrating. They hoped that, on occasion, he would at least acknowledge the legitimacy of Americans’ fears about Islamist terrorism before proceeding to explain those fears away. But Obama had a plausible rationale for avoiding the sort of language his eventual successor demanded that he deploy. He believed that any sort of rhetorical overreaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism by an American president would create panic, and would also spark a xenophobic response that would do damage to America’s image, and to Americans Muslims themselves.

[snip]

But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trump’s own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trump’s refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.

Whole article here: Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?

----------------------------

Because if he does, he alienates at least 50% of his supporters.

For God's Sake man, Our President is polling slightly higher that dog shit on shoes. Now you expect him to come out and say he's opposed to dog shit? He's down to his base of dog shit, and cannot alienate it.

 

[jillian]

Jillian needs to get a grip. She's having a meltdown...even said Trump chooses his words carefully. Her plantation won't be pleased.

no, *you* get a grip and stop deflecting and stop changing the subject and stop defending kkk scum.

 

[Pogo]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

"Violence" is a very relative term. It can range from something as innocuous as ad hom here, to something as dastardly as ramming a car into pedestrians. Clearly the degree we're speaking of, as well as the POTUS commentary, is the latter. Had the car attack not happened and the day continued without such a major event, Charlottesvile would have been page 5 news and the POTUS wouldn't have even brought it up. Therefore the only reason TO bring it up to this level --- is the car attack.

 

[rightwinger]

Why weren't there more (any) Trump supporters in the crowd?
Aren't they as offended by racism as anyone else?


You are a Trump supporter.
You want to make America great again

There is a major gathering

One side is full of Nazis, KKK, White supremacists and alt right
The other side is full of those who are opposed to those groups

Which side do you join?

 

[blastoff]

On November 15, 2015, as the world grappled with the horrors of a multipronged ISIS attack in Paris, Donald Trump, who was then an improbable but officially declared candidate for the presidency, tweeted, “When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can’t say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!”

I raise the subject of this tweet, and the sentiment that motivated it, in light of President Trump’s remarkable reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,” he said. Trump, when presented with the chance to denounce, in plain, direct language, individuals who could fairly be described as “white supremacist terrorists,” or with some other equivalent formulation, instead resorted to euphemism and moral equivalence.

Trump’s position on the matter of President Obama’s anti-terrorism rhetoric did not place him outside the Republican mainstream. Obama’s critics argued throughout his presidency that his unwillingness to embrace the incantatory rhetoric of civilizational struggle—his reluctance to cast such groups as al-Qaeda and ISIS as vanguards of an all-encompassing ideological and theological challenge to the West—meant that, at the very least, he misunderstood the nature of the threat, or, more malignantly, that he understood the nature of the threat but was, through omission, declaring a kind of neutrality in the conflict between the United States and its principal adversary.

It is true that Obama calibrated his rhetoric on the subject of terrorism to a degree even his closest advisers sometimes found frustrating. They hoped that, on occasion, he would at least acknowledge the legitimacy of Americans’ fears about Islamist terrorism before proceeding to explain those fears away. But Obama had a plausible rationale for avoiding the sort of language his eventual successor demanded that he deploy. He believed that any sort of rhetorical overreaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism by an American president would create panic, and would also spark a xenophobic response that would do damage to America’s image, and to Americans Muslims themselves.

[snip]

But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trump’s own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trump’s refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.

Whole article here: Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?

----------------------------

Because if he does, he alienates at least 50% of his supporters.

Um...because it's just workplace violence?

 

[Si modo]

no, *you* get a grip and stop deflecting and stop changing the subject and stop defending kkk scum.

Stop killing puppies.

 

[Si modo]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

"Violence" is a very relative term. It can range from something as innocuous as ad hom here, to something as dastardly as ramming a car into pedestrians. Clearly the degree we're speaking of, as well as the POTUS commentary, is the latter. Had the car attack not happened and the day continued without such a major event, Charlottesvile would have been page 5 news and the POTUS wouldn't have even brought it up. Therefore the only reason TO bring it up to this level --- is the car attack.

There were physical fights before the murder.

And, the cops stood by doing nothing.

 

[Pogo]

I'm thinking there's more than one side to this reality ... But ..Why did Obama/Democrats kiss Black Lives Matters ass including in the White House after domestic terrorists chants like this?


Chanting... "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"

Pretty desperate to change the subject doncha think Lumps?

That's pretty rich after your totally off topic rant above.

It is precisely on the topic. Read it again:

Trump handled it perfectly. No news here.

"Perfectly" huh.
Then was he fucking up when he got specific about "when Mexico 'sends' its people"? And when he called for "a complete and total (not an incomplete and total mind you) shutdown of Muslims" --- which cost him an EO? And when he whined that a judge was "Mexican" --- even though he was from Indiana?

Finally he got it right by stopping that specific finger-pointing. Huh.

Fatter o' mact I just expanded the same point.

Literacy: a lost art

 

[Valerie]

Jillian needs to get a grip. She's having a meltdown...even said Trump chooses his words carefully. Her plantation won't be pleased.

funny how you always claim everyone you engage in discussion supposedly is in "meltdown".

si moo moo the hangry houndawg saves its vigilance for defending the kkk, ted nugent, and government mandated vaginal probes.

 

[Pogo]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

"Violence" is a very relative term. It can range from something as innocuous as ad hom here, to something as dastardly as ramming a car into pedestrians. Clearly the degree we're speaking of, as well as the POTUS commentary, is the latter. Had the car attack not happened and the day continued without such a major event, Charlottesvile would have been page 5 news and the POTUS wouldn't have even brought it up. Therefore the only reason TO bring it up to this level --- is the car attack.

There were physical fights before the murder.

And, the cops stood by doing nothing.

I don't know that the latter is true (and I've seen evidence to the contrary) but yes there were fisticuffs and torches and throwing of things. None of which rose to the level of national news and murder.

We also have no evidence that said fisticuffs etc caused the car attack or were related to them at all.

 

[Si modo]

Jillian needs to get a grip. She's having a meltdown...even said Trump chooses his words carefully. Her plantation won't be pleased.

that is hilarious that you think that. i laugh HEARTILY in your general direction...



funny how you always claim everyone you engage in discussion supposedly in "meltdown".

si moo moo the hangry houndawg saves its vigilance for defending the kkk, ted nugent, and government mandated vaginal probes.

 

[Valerie]

Jillian needs to get a grip. She's having a meltdown...even said Trump chooses his words carefully. Her plantation won't be pleased.

that is hilarious that you think that. i laugh HEARTILY in your general direction...



funny how you always claim everyone you engage in discussion supposedly in "meltdown".

si moo moo the hangry houndawg saves its vigilance for defending the kkk, ted nugent, and government mandated vaginal probes.

look at you all fired up for the kkk.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

"Violence" is a very relative term. It can range from something as innocuous as ad hom here, to something as dastardly as ramming a car into pedestrians. Clearly the degree we're speaking of, as well as the POTUS commentary, is the latter. Had the car attack not happened and the day continued without such a major event, Charlottesvile would have been page 5 news and the POTUS wouldn't have even brought it up. Therefore the only reason TO bring it up to this level --- is the car attack.

There were physical fights before the murder.

And, the cops stood by doing nothing.

Will you be conveying that defense to terrorist's lawyers?

 

[Si modo]

There were physical fights before the murder.

And, the cops stood by doing nothing.

I don't know that the latter is true (and I've seen evidence to the contrary) but yes there were fisticuffs and torches and throwing of things. None of which rose to the level of national news and murder.

We also have no evidence that said fisticuffs etc caused the car attack or were related to them at all.

About the cops, I hope YOU are right.