Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?

[NYcarbineer]

If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.

 

[Reasonable]

Look at the white supremacists on thi

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

a

Because the white supremacists were the ones that created most of the violence, your people. So glad your failing president has been smacked upside the head by both sides by not having the balls to call out his base.
The uproar has been so loud low energy Don had to leave his 17 day golf outing to return to the White House. Isn't that a shame.
The Dump not being able to call out the white supremacists by name will live in infamy.
America is calling out for the the firings of the white supremacists in Trump's WH, Bannon and Gorka.
Gee.... he hires white supremacists then people are miffed with his tepid response to the C- Ville tragedies.

 

[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.

look at you all fired up for the kkk.

You're still crazy, val****.

Get a grip.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The answer to the OP is simple:

Trump is unfit and incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300+ million people. He has in six short months alienated the vast majority of our citizens, our allies and members of Congress.

This POTUS won, in part, because the last POTUS alienated too many of the voting public.

Odd, Obama left office with a 58% approval ratting. That after 8-years of being lambasted by the same set who support Trump today. Need I name the bigots, racists, and biddable fools who dominate every issue on this message board?

 

[Si modo]

If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.

Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.

 

[Si modo]

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

I wasn't aware it was a defense.

 

[easyt65]

Eric Holder calls out Trump over Charlottesville attack — and gets obliterated

"If ISIS rammed a car into a crowd this would be labeled quickly & logically. Charlottesville – call it what it is, domestic terrorism."
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) August 13, 2017

The response was immediate....

"Maybe you should sit this one out, Mr. Workplace Violencehttps://t.co/rpmKr9MVeA"
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 13, 2017


Bwuhahahaha.....

Hypocrites Libs love to pile-on, completely ignoring their own 1st actions....

 

[Pogo]

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.
.

I take a lot of significance from the delivery. He pauses, raises his eyes to make sure everybody's listening, raises his voice to make sure everybody hears, and pointedly utters "on many sides" --- and then repeats it. It comes off as entirely defensive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.

Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.

Pretending that the RW'ers here only see this as 1st amendment issue is bullshit.

 

[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.
.

I take a lot of significance from the delivery. He pauses, raises his eyes to make sure everybody's listening, raises his voice to make sure everybody hears, and pointedly utters "on many sides" --- and then repeats it. It comes off as entirely defensive.

Yeah. And I also think it was an ad lib from a prepared statement. It's easy to tell when he goes off script.
.

 

[Si modo]

Eric Holder calls out Trump over Charlottesville attack — and gets obliterated

"If ISIS rammed a car into a crowd this would be labeled quickly & logically. Charlottesville – call it what it is, domestic terrorism."
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) August 13, 2017

The response was immediate....

"Maybe you should sit this one out, Mr. Workplace Violencehttps://t.co/rpmKr9MVeA"
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 13, 2017


Bwuhahahaha.....

Hypocrites Libs love to pile-on, completely ignoring their own 1st actions....

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I wasn't aware it was a defense.

Clear your head. Your posts are falling into incoherence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We're actually hearing Republican after Republican condemning the white supremacists outright.

 

[Si modo]

If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.

Conflating "pro-white" sentiment with folks who value the 1st Amendment is not too bright.

Pretending that the RW'ers here only see this as 1st amendment issue is bullshit.

That's the way I approach it; that's the way others are also approaching it. I see racists, too.

If you're wanting to imply I am racist because I appreciate the 1st Amendment, I suggest you nut up and do it.

 

[Pogo]

As much as Obama's "bread and butter" were Islamic terrorists.

on what planet does that make any sense...?

Obama financed, supplied, armed, trained, defended, and protected Islamic Terrorists...
- He helped overthrow the Pro-US allied Egyptian leader who was replaced by the Terrorists Muslim Brotherhood (Interfering in a nation's election / governance)

- He dragged the US into an Un-Constitutional, Un-approved war to help Al Qaeda, who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 1nd 4 Americans on 9/11/12, take over Libya, murdering and overthrowing a nation's leader who was HELPING THE COALITION FIGHT TERRORISTS IN NORTHERN AFRICA (Interfering in a nation's election / governance)

- He dragged the US into an Un-Constitutional, Un-approved war to help ISIS attempt to take over Syria

- Despite being warned of an attack in Boston and knowing exactly who the two terrorists were, he allowed them to detonate bombs, commit the attack, wound and kill Americans, then after wards run ads asking the American people to help identify them even though he knew exactly who they were

- Defended the Ft hood Terrorist by claiming it was a case of workplace violence before being pressured to admit it was a terrorist attack

- Defended Islamic extremists by refusing to call the Orlando attack a terrorist attack

- Poor vetting and giving a terrorist a visa enabled the terrorist attack that killed 7 Americans in California...just weeks before that Obama mocked Americans for their concern for their safety and national security, claiming they were afraid of was Orphans and widows....

Obama aided and abetted terrorists his entire time in office....not that snowflakes would ever admit to that....

Pogo's Law strikes again.

In any point that dares take a critical eye to the Orange Rumpgod, some obedient bot will come sauntering in to change the subject to "But--- O'bama!" or "But ..... Clinton!" or "But ....FDR!" or "But...Grover Cleveland!" or literally anything that serves to pull the plug on the spotlight.​

 

[Reasonable]

This forum is filled with neonazis. Of course they're going to defend our white supremacist president..

 

[bendog]

If it wasn't USMB and its history, I might be shocked by the amount of pro-white supremacist sentiment that is welling up around here.

Yep. As much as I question the BLM intellectual honesty, people officially tied to it, didn't call for killing cops or anyone. As much as I dislike the PC "targeting" statues, it's even worse when people won't be honest about what messages those statues were erected to convey.

I mean you can go to various civil war battlefield parks and see statutes and commemorations to soldiers, and there's no complaint about what is represented. You may disagree with the reason the men fought and died, but both sides were supporting their view of patriotism. The Klan was in Charlottesville to support Jim Crow history. There's no comparison to BLM or anything like that.

 

[Si modo]

Clear your head. Your posts are falling into incoherence.

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

Me: I wasn't aware it was a defense.

You, again: Clear your head. Your posts are falling into incoherence

 

[Crixus]

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.

That wan increadib

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.

Probably because he has more important things on his plate then making you retards feel he is sufficiently NOT racist. I mean damn, it's not like he could say anything that would satisfy you children. You would post the same shit until Monday's Russia storyline got the week started for you.

 

[easyt65]

Pogo's Law strikes again.

Pogo's Law FAILS again. I did not change the subject. The question was asked about Obama...not by me. I merely answered it. Try blaming the individual who asked the question.