Trump -- once again -- fails to condemn the alt-right, white supremacists

[ThatRobGuy]

Also you're incorrect in calling out a comparison between this and Obama's refusal to blame "radical Islam". Obama always put the blame exclusively on the radicals even if he used different names. He never said "Paris was bombed. Look, I think the French and the radical extremists both should calm down and stop the violence".

He did when there was a clear "good guy" and "bad guy" in the situation. However, in a case where both sides were undesirable (like the attacks that occurred at the Pam Gellar rally...the "Draw Muhammed" contest), he didn't play favorites.

Between the alt-right v. antifa, there is no good guy in this scenario.

If the Latin Kings and the Vice Lords get in a prison riot and I were to publicly say "I condemn the violence that the Latin Kings have committed", and I don't mention the Vice Lords at all, what does that say to the public? It would appear to the public that I was quasi-playing favorites would it not?

...so it's your comparison that's incorrect. Unless, that is, you're comparing Paris to Antifa?

 

[Rion]

Moral cowardice in the face of evil completely discredits this man as a leader. There were actual Nazis in Charlottesville with swastikas and Luftwaffe markings on their shields.

Orrin Hatch: "We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home."

And the Neo-Confederate racists waving traitor flags don't get a pass, either. This is the day when Americans take a stronger stand against racist evil and domestic terrorism. The clowns with tiki torches are on the losing side of history and they know it.

There were also communists and black nationalists. I wish he would have called all of them out by name. That would be entertaining.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It's literally asking the president to publicly pick a side in a street brawl between one team with Nazi regalia and Rebel flags, and other team with ski masks and Commie flags.

One side had a permit to hold a rally; the other did not.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

One side had a permit to hold a rally; the other did not.

The permitting aspect isn't really relevant.

If a controversial group is holding a rally, people have a right to show up and voice their displeasure with it. For example, the KKK occasionally holds rallies in Cleveland, and people show up to protest their rallies. It's completely legal to do so.

For the context of this discussion, I'm merely just discussing the fact that in terms of this conflict, there are no good guys and it's literally like asking "Hitler vs. Stalin...pick a side" ...and in this instance, I'm not using those names merely as hyperbole, you literally had one side with Nazi flags, and the other with Commie flags and there were going at it.

 

[szechuan]

The permitting aspect isn't really relevant.

If a controversial group is holding a rally, people have a right to show up and voice their displeasure with it. For example, the KKK occasionally holds rallies in Cleveland, and people show up to protest their rallies. It's completely legal to do so.

For the context of this discussion, I'm merely just discussing the fact that in terms of this conflict, there are no good guys and it's literally like asking "Hitler vs. Stalin...pick a side" ...and in this instance, I'm not using those names merely as hyperbole, you literally had one side with Nazi flags, and the other with Commie flags and there were going at it.

It's not picking a side, it's called Calling it like it is. The incident was due to Radical White Extremists which Trump failed to point out. But then again people only want to be Anti-PC when it fits them.

 

[Hank77]

Well, to be fair (and as everyone on CF knows, I don't go soft on Trump or the alt-right), I think this a combination of what I call "creative presentation" of the information, and a sticky situation for Trump.

It's not that he "didn't condemn the alt-right", it's that he didn't specifically name them (and only them) for being at fault for the violence.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-on-clashes-draw-strong-reactions/104540810/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rawls-there-no-place-kind-violence/562077001/

President Trump publicly denounced a deadly eruption of violence at a Virginia rally of white nationalists Saturday, declaring that the "hatred and division must stop.''

Trump, interrupting a signing ceremony for legislation benefiting veterans at his New Jersey golf club, called the street clashes, ending with a car plowing through a group of counter-protesters, "very, very sad.''

"I condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of violence and bigotry,'' Trump said, calling for a "swift restoration of law and order.'' "Above all else, we must remember this truth," Trump said. "No matter color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first.''
View attachment 204759



The left's reaction to his response is very reminiscent the right's response to Obama's addresses following Islamic attacks, all of that "Why won't you call it by its name?!?!" stuff we heard out of them during Obama's presidency.

At it's essence, we're talking about a violent clash between 2 groups (Alt-right and Antifa) in which there are no "good guys". Singling out only one would be a silent endorsement of the other in the eyes of many.

It's literally asking the president to publicly pick a side in a street brawl between one team with Nazi regalia and Rebel flags, and other team with ski masks and Commie flags.

Vs. View attachment 204761

If I were in his shoes, I'd probably do the same thing, condemn all of it.

Ivanka Trump didn't have any problem calling them out by name, but then she doesn't have to worry about losing their support.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not picking a side, it's called Calling it like it is. The incident was due to Radical White Extremists which Trump failed to point out.

Just so we're not mincing words here...let's remove all titles and monikers here and just discuss the underlying ideas.

Your official positions is:
If a person holds a controversial view, and someone reacts to that controversial view with violence, it is the fault of the person who hold the controversial view?

Or in other words:
If Mike says something Joe doesn't like, and Joe walks over and starts a fight over it, it's Mike's fault for making Joe angry. That's essentially what you're saying, right?

In terms of the right to free speech, people do have a right to hold a rally, no matter how disgusting the rest of us find their cause. Thus the reason why the ACLU (who typically leans on the left side of the fence more often than not) has sided with Unite the Right in terms of this particular rally. Why the ACLU defends white nationalists’ right to protest — including in Charlottesville

 

[szechuan]

Just so we're not mincing words here...let's remove all titles and monikers here and just discuss the underlying ideas.

Your official positions is:
If a person holds a controversial view, and someone reacts to that controversial view with violence, it is the fault of the person who hold the controversial view?

Or in other words:
If Mike says something Joe doesn't like, and Joe walks over and starts a fight over it, it's Mike's fault for making Joe angry. That's essentially what you're saying, right?

In terms of the right to free speech, people do have a right to hold a rally, no matter how disgusting the rest of us find their cause. Thus the reason why the ACLU (who typically leans on the left side of the fence more often than not) has sided with Unite the Right in terms of this particular rally. Why the ACLU defends white nationalists’ right to protest — including in Charlottesville

And people are free to hold Anti-Protests.
There aren't any underlying ideas, you're just too PC to call it like it is the "Extremist White Supremacist" were the one Killed people, and there organization itself is disgusting.

Trump refuses to call them out unlike Muslims.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And people are free to hold Anti-Protests.

Agreed, I said that very thing in post #24

There aren't any underlying ideas,

There absolutely are underlying ideas. One of the core ones being, that controversial groups have a right to assemble and protest regardless of whether or not the rest of us approve of their ideas. If someone has ideas that I don't like and they pay for the permit to hold a rally expressing those ideas in a public place, I'm not allowed to show up and throw rocks that them.

you're just too PC to call it like it is the "Extremist White Nationalist" were the one Killed people.

Not at all, do a search here on CF for my username and the topics "alt-right", "breitbart", "nazi", "KKK", etc....

I've made no shortage of criticisms of them.

Again, this is not what my post was about. It was about the fact that people seem have this expectation that the president should indirectly endorse a side in a conflict where it's bad guys vs. bad guys (IE: expecting him to publicly call out only the alt-right people and not mention the people on the other side of the conflict)

At no point did I deny they were extremists...I think you're using the strawman approach here because you're getting frustrated with the fact that you don't have a valid rebuttal.

 

[Hank77]

...no, he took the exact same approach that Obama took when there were instances of Islamic terrorism.

Which is to choose ones words carefully so that they can condemn the actions without potentially appearing to take sides when neither side is favorable.

A close example would be the political bickering that happened after the shootings that took place at the "Draw Muhammed" context in Texas.

There were calls from Republicans at time asking Obama to "call it what it is, and publicly condemn Islamic terrorism"...and they wouldn't accept just "terrorism", he was pressured to use the specific words "Islamic terrorism" or they would claim he was "being too soft on them".

Again, that was a tough spot to be in...if he only singled out "Islamic Terrorism" in that scuffle, it would've been viewed as him siding with the "let's have Muhammed drawing contest to mock Muslims" crowd...which obviously he didn't want to do. So, much like Trump did in this instance, he took the opportunity to condemn violence, some generic platitudes about how "we all need to come together as Americans", and thanked law enforcement that got the situation under control.


One there's one group setting out to intentionally provoke, and another group takes the bait and violence breaks out, singling out one side for condemnation comes across as "teaming up" with the other side.

Obama's strategists understood this, as do Trump's...


I'm the first one to criticize the alt-right and Trump (and often times, call out people who support him in various aspects of his policies .. @Rion and @brinny can attest to that as I've been in many debates with those two, right guys? ...it's not like I'm pro-Trump guy who tries to defend his every action)

However, this is a blatant case of a double standard by many on the left. They're taking the exact same stance here that many of the Anti-Obama people took when he'd make statements about violence, and refrained from specifically using the words "Islamic terrorism".

I couldn't care less about what Obama did. Trump needs to grow some, like he brags about all the time, and tell these white...and Neo=Nazis to shape up. He's called out others why not these creeps? As one poster put it very aptly, he has no problem talking smack about anyone, including federal judges, why not these guys.

Several prominent white nationalists and neo-Nazis, however, praised Trump's comments.
The founder of the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi and white supremacist website that considers itself a part of the alt-right, celebrated the fact that Trump "outright refused to disavow" the white nationalist rally and movement.


"People saying he cucked are shills and kikes," wrote the founder, Andrew Anglin. "He did the opposite of cuck. He refused to even mention anything to do with us. When reporters were screaming at him about White Nationalism he just walked out of the room."
Neo-nazis and white supremacists are celebrating Trump's remarks about the Charlottesville riots

They certainly see it as him being on their side.

 

[mark46]

David Duke continues to support the president as he was called the rally a first step in re-claiming America. The newsletter of those supporting the rally thanked Trump for his remarks that the newsletter said failed to condemn their movement.

AT BEST, trump condemned the violence of the far right and equated it to that of the far left.

What Trump refuses to do is to disavow the far right and their support of his presidency and views. Trump doesn't condemn white supremacists or Nazis as long as they support him. The 2020 election is far away. IMHO, Trump could politically afford to attack nazis, white supremacists and white nationalists. But Trump takes a different view. These are his followers. The best he can do is to chastise them for being too violent.

 

[Obliquinaut]

He did when there was a clear "good guy" and "bad guy" in the situation. However, in a case where both sides were undesirable (like the attacks that occurred at the Pam Gellar rally...the "Draw Muhammed" contest), he didn't play favorites.

Between the alt-right v. antifa, there is no good guy in this scenario.

If the Latin Kings and the Vice Lords get in a prison riot and I were to publicly say "I condemn the violence that the Latin Kings have committed", and I don't mention the Vice Lords at all, what does that say to the public? It would appear to the public that I was quasi-playing favorites would it not?

...so it's your comparison that's incorrect. Unless, that is, you're comparing Paris to Antifa?

This moral equivalence is not bullet-proof. The Anti-fa groups are a response to the white supremacists. Not the other way around. The NeoNazis had their rally the night before. No one asked them to come to UVA and do the whole Nazi Torchlight Parade.

The Anti-fa groups are not necessarily blameless. They were in their fighting with the best of 'em and I don't know who "threw the first punch", but in the end who came with guns? (The Right) . Who drove a car into a crowd?

Who stands for "hatred"? The anti-fa who seem to hate facists or the neo-nazis/white nationalists who seem to hate everyone who isn't white?

 

[GondwanaLand]

He did when there was a clear "good guy" and "bad guy" in the situation. However, in a case where both sides were undesirable (like the attacks that occurred at the Pam Gellar rally...the "Draw Muhammed" contest), he didn't play favorites.

Between the alt-right v. antifa, there is no good guy in this scenario.

If the Latin Kings and the Vice Lords get in a prison riot and I were to publicly say "I condemn the violence that the Latin Kings have committed", and I don't mention the Vice Lords at all, what does that say to the public? It would appear to the public that I was quasi-playing favorites would it not?

...so it's your comparison that's incorrect. Unless, that is, you're comparing Paris to Antifa?

Running over people of the opposite side is not a "clear bad guy" situation? Ohhhhkay then......

 

[GondwanaLand]

This moral equivalence is not bullet-proof. The Anti-fa groups are a response to the white supremacists. Not the other way around. The NeoNazis had their rally the night before. No one asked them to come to UVA and do the whole Nazi Torchlight Parade.

The Anti-fa groups are not necessarily blameless. They were in their fighting with the best of 'em and I don't know who "threw the first punch", but in the end who came with guns? (The Right) . Who drove a car into a crowd?

Who stands for "hatred"? The anti-fa who seem to hate facists or the neo-nazis/white nationalists who seem to hate everyone who isn't white?

Well said.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Running over people of the opposite side is not a "clear bad guy" situation? Ohhhhkay then......

So one white supremacist running people over makes Antifa de facto "Good guys" in this scenario? Not sure I agree with that logic.

 

[Rion]

This moral equivalence is not bullet-proof. The Anti-fa groups are a response to the white supremacists. Not the other way around. The NeoNazis had their rally the night before. No one asked them to come to UVA and do the whole Nazi Torchlight Parade.

The Anti-fa groups are not necessarily blameless. They were in their fighting with the best of 'em and I don't know who "threw the first punch", but in the end who came with guns? (The Right) . Who drove a car into a crowd?

Who stands for "hatred"? The anti-fa who seem to hate facists or the neo-nazis/white nationalists who seem to hate everyone who isn't white?

They are both collectivist groups, so they both stand for hatred. Have you ever read The Road to Serfdom?

 

[GondwanaLand]

So one white supremacist running people over makes Antifa de facto "Good guys" in this scenario? Not sure I agree with that logic.

Your unwillingness to call murder a "bad guy" situation is noted.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This moral equivalence is not bullet-proof. The Anti-fa groups are a response to the white supremacists. Not the other way around. The NeoNazis had their rally the night before. No one asked them to come to UVA and do the whole Nazi Torchlight Parade.

The Anti-fa groups are not necessarily blameless. They were in their fighting with the best of 'em and I don't know who "threw the first punch", but in the end who came with guns? (The Right) . Who drove a car into a crowd?

Who stands for "hatred"? The anti-fa who seem to hate facists or the neo-nazis/white nationalists who seem to hate everyone who isn't white?

I don't know that "being a response to someone else who acted inappropriately first" is a validation of their actions.

So basically, the white hate extremists had a rally, the left wing extremists showed up as a response to it, both parts threw barbs and escalated it, and the white power ones happened to be first to escalate it to lethal violence. I still don't view that as making Antifa the "good guys".

Like I mentioned before, I view it as a "Hitler v. Stalin" sort of scenario on a much smaller scale (Nazis v. Commies) Publicly singling out only one of them for the blame comes across as a tacit approval of the other side.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Your unwillingness to call murder a "bad guy" situation is noted.

Wow...nice word play.

Please go back and read post #29 (I said they were all bad guys)

 

[GondwanaLand]

I don't know that "being a response to someone else who acted inappropriately first" is a validation of their actions.

So basically, the white hate extremists had a rally, the left wing extremists showed up as a response to it, both parts threw barbs and escalated it, and the white power ones happened to be first to escalate it to lethal violence. I still don't view that as making Antifa the "good guys".

Like I mentioned before, I view it as a "Hitler v. Stalin" sort of scenario on a much smaller scale (Nazis v. Commies) Publicly singling out only one of them for the blame comes across as a tacit approval of the other side.

Correction: the white power ones happend to be the ONLY ones to escalate it to lethal violence. The "left wing extremists" perpetrated NO lethal violence.