This branding people with gang association is so right wing.
I was on the verge of creating a thread for this general topic, but this one has appeared, so I'm posting some of my remarks here. I had something more comprehensive and potentially enlightening to say, but I'll hold off on that for now.
My views re: how Mr. Trump handled Mr. Tapper's inquiry about David Duke's endorsement notwithstanding, I agree with that.
The thing that is clear to me and that I honestly don't think is clear to Mr. Trump is that by and large racism is one of those things about which the objects of racism's negative impacts have to trust that the historic perpetrator of racism have truly forsaken. Trust is something that like love, and more so than money, is earned, and the only persons who can say whether it has been earned are the ones called to give it.
If one has ever cheated on one's spouse or lover, one will immediately understand that. If one has ever experienced someone's misrepresenting the truth to oneself and one relied on what one was told, only to be let down later, one will immediately understand that. One will understand exactly what's going through the hearts and minds of minorities with regard to Mr. Trump's refusal to of late be less that patently clear on this matter of the KKK, David Duke and racism.
We know, just as Mr. Trump does, that having been married three times, having raised multiple children, having been many people's boss, there is no way in hell he doesn't understand what it means to trust someone and what it means to have that trust betrayed. And we know it doesn't matter what side of the situation he was on in those situations. He should absolutely know from square one what trust all about. Yet his way of handling this issue suggests that maybe he does not...this even while the very thing he's asking literally millions of Americans to give him is our trust in him as our President.
Well, I'm sorry, but "I disavow" doesn't cut it. Why not? What exactly is he disavowing? I don't know. I know what I can assume he's disavowing, but I don't know that my assumption is accurate. Why leave me and everyone else with the need to presume what he's disavowing?
Here is just one example of a very clear statement on the matter:
"Although I cannot stop racists, white supremacists, the KKK, David Duke or anyone from voting for me or supporting my candidacy, I want to be clear: I do not want or seek anything of any sort from any of those folks. If elected, I will do nothing to purposefully aid in achieving anything -- not general policies, not specific laws, not portions or provisions of laws -- that racists want to see achieved. If they get anything they like or want during the term of my Presidency, it's purely coincidental; their interest will not ever be a consideration in designing, enacting or enforcing any policies I support, propose or enforce. Period."
Now Mr. Trump can plagiarize my words above if he wants to. He can create is own. The key is that whatever statement he makes must be one that leaves no "wiggle room" whatsoever. From that point forward, all Mr. Trump would have to do is live up to his words.
Mr. Trump has "wiggle roomed" himself up and down the campaign trail since the day he announced his candidacy. He knows that just as surely as everyone does. Well, the matter of racism is one topic whereof there is no national tolerance for equivocation; thus there is no need for it. It is the one topic on which one has to take a stand, make a stand, and leave not one iota of doubt where one stands.
Now I realize that for some political candidates, the stand they would make may land somewhere between flat out racist and the polar opposite of flat out racist. I don't cotton to support or encourage middle-ground positions on this matter, but if that's where they stand, and someone else stands at a slightly different place in the middle-ground, then it just is. I have no control over that; all I can do is say what I think of it, and say it I will. Regardless of the place whereupon either of them stands, everybody and their brother, their worst enemy, their best friend, even their housecat, had best be able to tell with nary a shadow of doubt how those two middles differ. And the reason for that is this: ain't nobody gonna trust neither one of 'em on that or much else if they aren't perfectly plain and clear about where they stand. For a political office seeker, it's that simple.
