Reply With Quote
Are you saying Trump's statement that "both sides were to blame" is wrong because of something David Duke said?
ON AUGUST 15th Donald Trump repeated his belief that “both sides” were to blame for the violence on August 12th at a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that left one woman dead. David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, thanked him for “condemn[ing] the leftist terrorists in BLM,” referring to the Black Lives Matter movement. David Clarke, the sheriff of Milwaukee County and a supporter of Mr Trump, has also called Black Lives Matter “purveyors of hate”, and urged the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), to include it among the hate groups it monitors. Many on the right share this belief. It is mistaken.
To be sure, some protestors who claim affiliation with BLM have said hateful things. A group outside the Minnesota State Fair chanted, “Pigs in a blanket; fry ‘em like bacon”. The previous night a sheriff’s deputy had been shot in Houston, for which some BLM opponents blame the movement—without evidence. Some have blamed BLM for the fatal car crash in Charlottesville last weekend, saying it happened because BLM supporters were throwing bricks at the car. The movement may have begun with honourable intentions, one argument runs, but it has been “hijacked by a group that hates white people and looks to burn down cities and towns”. And some seem to object to the name, hearing in the phrase “Black lives matter” the implication that other lives do not.
That argument is easily dismissed. Affirming one thing does not negate all else. Donating money to support, say, cancer research does not make one a cheerleader for tuberculosis. Someone who says that black lives matter does not imply that other lives do not—they are simply reminding people that for most of American history black lives have been valued less than white ones. The days of slavery and de jure segregation have mercifully passed, but black Americans remain poorer, less healthy and more likely to be killed by police than whites. You can agree or disagree with BLM’s platform, but nothing in it promotes hatred of any race or group.
Richard Cohen, who heads the SPLC, defines hate groups as “those that vilify entire groups of people based on immutable characteristics such as race or ethnicity”. BLM does not fit the bill: it welcomes white supporters, has condemned violence and addresses structural racial inequities. Jacob Levy, a political philosopher, argues that BLM is “one of the most significant political mobilisations in defence of freedom” in decades. Its supporters oppose police brutality, mass incarceration, America’s drug war, police militarisation and civil-forfeiture abuses. All of those are causes that liberals, libertarians and conservatives—anyone who fears unchecked state power—ought to cheer.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/econ...st-explains-15
Are you saying Trump's statement that "both sides were to blame" is wrong because of something David Duke said?
No, not really.
I would say that trope is wrong, because that isn't what the vast majority of the eyewitness accounts say.
The violence was overwhelmingly initiated by the Nazis.
"Overwhelmingly" doesn't mean nothing was initiated by the far left. Trump even specifically condemned the KKK, neo-nazis, and white supremacists 2 days later. I am surprised people make such a big deal over his statements on this.
Sure, some small amount of people went there and did some things to the poor helpless Nazis.
The entirety of the Nazis went there specifically to be violent.
If you think Trump meant any word of his prepared script, you are a fool. He went back on it less than a day later, and started drawing moral equivalency between the two groups.
The two aren't equal. The far-right Nazis were much, much more in the wrong in every way than anyone on the left.
So you think Trump is a neo-nazi, white supremacist, or KKK member? Or possibly all 3? That is the only possible explanation for not believing Trump meant his scripted statement.
It's possible he values the support of such groups to some degree without being a member of any.
I don't think so. Their support does more harm than good. I think he knows that.
2 days later he try to walk it back, but the next day he walked back the walking back. The "both sides" bull is trying to walk det fine line between pandering and denouncing.
"only possible explanation for not believing Trump"
believe Trash?
Quite the opposite.
He knows that white racists are the core of his base. The violent parts hurt him, but he goes out of his way not to antagonize them, because they are so thoroughly mixed in with his core.
As Pav/Chump noted he values their support without being an active member of any white supremacy movement.
That is ridiculous. I agree that white racists are included in his supporters, but to call them the core of his base is hyperbole.
Dixiecrats.
The core of his base are white racists.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/205832/ra...-approval.aspxTrump's strongest backers tend to be older, white, male and those who do not hold college degrees.
It is not hyperbole.
It is a very arguable assertion, reasonably backed by a fair amount of polling data.
(edit)
To be clear:
Not all of his supporters are white racists.
Most white racists are Trump supporters.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-22-2017 at 01:39 PM.
Definitely not racist
That is hyperbole. If you dont recognize this I can't help you.
fixed that for you.
Every single one?
Wouldn't think of that as hyperbole, but it's not logically consistent. We can all agree that most white nationals preferred Trump, but that was far from the only reason why people supported him. The unfortunate thing, though, is that's like the only group whose faith in Trump has been rewarded so far.
Can you name one groupd besides wall street, MIC that was rewarded because of their faith in Obama?
Are they still not being rewarded?
Who besides wall street and the mic??
I can.
Go ahead
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
