Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?

[ptbw forever]

Because there is no radical white terrorism

Look up IRA.

Supposedly the Irish aren't white, according to the contemporary left.

 

[rightwinger]

So Trump has caved

He now admits Nazis are bad

 

[rightwinger]

According to Barry his parents met at the bridge in Selma......3 years after he was born.

According to the right

That bridge is in Kenya

 

[Rustic]

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.

The KKK and the like are no different than BLM... Shit for brains

 

[WEATHER53]

Why did police not intervene?
Mayors or whomever gives these stand down orders should be instantly incarcerated

 

[jc456]

Breaking: President Denounces KKK. Not sure why it's in black and white....

​

someone stole your crayons?

 

[theHawk]

Why weren't there more (any) Trump supporters in the crowd?
Aren't they as offended by racism as anyone else?


You are a Trump supporter.
You want to make America great again

There is a major gathering

One side is full of Nazis, KKK, White supremacists and alt right
The other side is full of those who are opposed to those groups

Which side do you join?

Is this your "You're either with us or against us" speech?

 

[jillian]

Well, two reasons.

First, I find the behaviors of partisan ideologues fascinating. I don't know why.

Second, it's possible to normal, honest, symmetrical conversations from time to time.
.

but you have no idea who the hell you're communicating with. you call people partisan without knowledge of their belief systems. It is you that is actually partisan, partisan to label. and that label has to fit someone all the time. you are worse than anyone on either side.

Sounds good, thanks.
.

anytime. BTW, who did you vote for?

Hillary.
.

a fking known criminal. wow.

No loon. That would be the Russian operative.

Wait til the money laundering stuff comes out, wackadoodke.

 

[jillian]

because he condemned violence of all kinds? how exactly do you work that in that he left out the group to which you base your argument?

There was specific violence directed at one group. Just like at that softball field in June.

But you know that.
.


.

there was? who committed the violence but a kid from Ohio, that drove eight hours. he wasn't part of the protest at all, and so you should regroup and get the story correct. Now who came with weapons? any guesses?

Never mind. You win.

I can't do this any more.
.

that's why I disregard everything the loon says.

I no longer engage in asymmetrical conversations.

It's a waste of time.
.

Indeed. But occasionally there is someone normal to disagree with.

 

[jillian]

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.

The KKK and the like are no different than BLM... Shit for brains

Really, white trash? BLM lynches people?

Quiet

 

[Snouter]

Supposedly the Irish aren't white, according to the contemporary left.

The late Mayor of NYC, Eddie Koch, a jew, used to say the Irish descended from the 10 lost tribes of Israel!

 

[Rustic]

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.

The KKK and the like are no different than BLM... Shit for brains

Really, white trash? BLM lynches people?

Quiet

Black lives matter are cop killers... dip shit
Hate is their motto

 

[jc456]

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.
.

the wrong people?

a decent human being would be proud to piss off neo-Nazis.

it's about time people stop making excuses for him. he chooses his words carefully.

Oh, I don't think he chooses his words carefully. That would be giving him too much credit.

He knows how much he needs the Alt Right, and just did a characteristically poor job of hiding it.
.

because he condemned violence of all kinds? how exactly do you work that in that he left out the group to which you base your argument?

There was specific violence directed at one group. Just like at that softball field in June.

But you know that.
.


.

I know it was the group that came to interrupt the protest by the antifas. You know this right? Or are you one of those that can't see the obvious because your hatred of group blinds you?

One question, do you believe the white supremacist group had a right to protest? yes or no?

Do you think that permit they got was gotten illegally?

And finally, why did the antifas believe they had a right to inject violence against someone elses right to free assembly? I'll be waiting.

Why did the city react the way they did because some people are offended by our history? what is it exactly are you afraid of?

 

[jc456]

Set the violence aside for a moment. Why won't Trump simply condemn the white supremacist, neo-Nazi movements for what they are?

Putting the violence aside for a moment and looking at exposed personal e-mails, why are Democrats a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic Anti-Semites who LIVE for moments like this so they can call Conservatives / others 'racist'?

Is that supposed to be a defense of Trump, or are you having a stroke?

well shit, it is a fact.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

the wrong people?

a decent human being would be proud to piss off neo-Nazis.

it's about time people stop making excuses for him. he chooses his words carefully.

Oh, I don't think he chooses his words carefully. That would be giving him too much credit.

He knows how much he needs the Alt Right, and just did a characteristically poor job of hiding it.
.

because he condemned violence of all kinds? how exactly do you work that in that he left out the group to which you base your argument?

There was specific violence directed at one group. Just like at that softball field in June.

But you know that.
.


.

I know it was the group that came to interrupt the protest by the antifas. You know this right? Or are you one of those that can't see the obvious because your hatred of group blinds you?

One question, do you believe the white supremacist group had a right to protest? yes or no?

Do you think that permit they got was gotten illegally?

And finally, why did the antifas believe they had a right to inject violence against someone elses right to free assembly? I'll be waiting.

Why did the city react the way they did because some people are offended by our history? what is it exactly are you afraid of?

You obviously don't know my politics.

Of course they had a right to be there. I'm a freedom of expression purist. Let 'em talk.

The protestors would have been much smarter to ignore them.

This was all a waste.

Anything else?
.

 

[Pogo]

Because there is no radical white terrorism

Look up IRA.

Supposedly the Irish aren't white, according to the contemporary left.

Ummmmmmm................ huh?

 

[ptbw forever]

Because there is no radical white terrorism

Look up IRA.

Supposedly the Irish aren't white, according to the contemporary left.

Ummmmmmm................ huh?

https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Pogo]

Because there is no radical white terrorism

Look up IRA.

Supposedly the Irish aren't white, according to the contemporary left.

Ummmmmmm................ huh?

https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095&tag=ff0d01-20

So you can't explain your own point? You link to some obscure book on Amazon and actually think that represents "the contemporary left"? And you can't explain what's in it?

Whelp, I represent the Irish because it's my DNA and this is the first I've heard of it.

Matter of fact I'm what's called "Black Irish", which doesn't make me black but does serve as an amusing fact to tell my black GF.

Next time you come in here with an assertion --- don't come emptyhanded. K? You will be searched.

 

[SYTFE]

Because there is no radical white terrorism

Look up IRA.

Supposedly the Irish aren't white, according to the contemporary left.

Ummmmmmm................ huh?

https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095&tag=ff0d01-20

That book does not make the argument that Irish "aren't white."

 

[Picaro]

Because there is no radical white terrorism

Look up IRA.

Supposedly the Irish aren't white, according to the contemporary left.

Ummmmmmm................ huh?

https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095&tag=ff0d01-20

That book does not make the argument that Irish "aren't white."

I see you're still struggling with English and what the book title is referring to, Skippy.

Have you tried giving up meth for a while? Maybe that would help.