Dime con quien andas, y te diré quien eres

[320 Years of History]

So what has changed?

Some of you may recall these remarks I posted some time back:

When somewhat bright political leaders and aspirants, people who routinely (or should) very carefully choose their words, remark ambiguous[ly] about matters racial rather than commenting unequivocally -- for example, "disavowing" what David Duke has to say rather than "denouncing" or "reprehending" him and what he has to say -- trust isn't built or maintained. The situation isn't made better when some conservatives do denounce such remarks and others attempt to cast them in a favorable or at least neutral light.

Trump "disavowed" the remark from his butler, and that's better than some of the things he might have done in response. Now here's the thing..."disavow" is somewhat similar in tone/connotation to "denounce," but it isn't denotatively the same as "denounce."

Disavow can mean either to deny responsibility for, or to fail to acknowledge. Well, Trump clearly acknowledged -- recognized -- that the man said what he said and Trump obviously thinks it's important enough that he respond to the remark. We know this is so because Trump has responded to the remark. That leaves the other meaning of disavow, which is to deny responsibility for.​

Well, okay, I suspect Trump didn't instruct the man to post that comment. So, sure, I believe Trump's disavowal of the remark.

Denounce is a stronger term and it's meaning is materially different: "to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil." That is to say, denouncing carries with it not only abjuration, but adds to it condemnation.​

And therein we find the problem. Trump went to precisely the same sort of fancy Northeast boarding schools I did. That they are fancy schools isn't the point; what one learns there is the point. I know perfectly well that he was taught there because exactly the same sorts of things are still taught in those schools, and among them are the connotative and denotative distinctions between words like "disavow" and "denounce." For folks coming through that kind of curriculum, those distinctions aren't ever lost or overlooked.

Thus the substance of Trump's remarks pertaining to his butler's comments as well as David Duke's and those of other white supremacist groups is this. "I didn't make them say those things and I didn't ask them to say them." It is not "I condemn the sentiments expressed in their statements." The latter is what folks are looking to hear, and they simply aren't hearing it.

And then yesterday,

...Trump himself has not by any measure denounced the racists who have publicly endorsed him. The closest he came to it was to say he's not responsible for whom they choose to endorse. There again, however, few and far between are the Republicans who show the integrity it takes to openly chide Trump for his wishy-washy response to the racists in the GOP.

As you can see, I've been for months "on about" the distinction between "disavow" and "denounce" and pushing hard to get folks to address the nuance of distinction between them. Yesterday's question by Adam Sexton was the first time I've seen Trump unequivocally remark upon white supremacists. "Asked whether he wants the votes of white racists, Trump unequivocally said no. 'No, I don't, not at all,' Trump said."

Finally, he takes a step in the right direction. It's a small thing in comparison to the overwhelming body of words and actions from him....

• When one's words and deeds do not align, it's very hard to come off as credible
  
• This is the kind of person Trump hired as his butler and historian
  
• CDZ - GOP Mixed Messages on Trump and Racism
  
• CDZ - This is what you get when you believe and rely on Donald Trump....
  
• So you like things kept simple, well this is: Trump repeatedly retweets racists
  
• CDZ - Donald Trump asserts that he knows nothing about David Duke and white supremacists

....but it's still a start.

 

[Harry Dresden]

im sorry....who are you again?.....

 

[occupied]

Trump says he does not want the vote of White Supremacists but he's going to get them because they find his politics appealing and that is what's important.

 

[DarkFury]

Why is this ADMITTED hack still here?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is this ADMITTED hack still here?

You are talking about yourself, darkfury, yes, you, the admitted hack?

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump says he does not want the vote of White Supremacists but he's going to get them because they find his politics appealing and that is what's important.

Maybe so. And maybe they are better mind readers than the rest of the country. LOL

 

[320 Years of History]

You are talking about yourself, darkfury, yes, you, the admitted hack?

Oh, is he posting?