Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism?

[NYcarbineer]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years.

Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.

No he didn't. He pandered to the white supremacists in his base.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Hey SHYTFE, what is more dangerous to the country and the world? A few hundred white people protesting about a statue, or radical Islam and the oppression and terrorism that comes with it?

 

[theHawk]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

 

[Si modo]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years.

Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.

No he didn't. He pandered to the white supremacists in his base.

No he didn't. He spoke out about violence by ALL. What the fuck does your pea brain think ALL means?

 

[Si modo]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

wow.........f you and barry to.

 

[Si modo]

----------------------------
Because if he does, he alienates at least 50% of his supporters.

Using your "logic", then 50% of dems are ISIS.

You are ugly.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years. Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.

I can actually understand that argument, but there is a time and place for everything. A President has to have the awareness to understand, appreciate and act in accordance with the broader context of any event.

Should Trump have discussed gun control the day Steve Scalise was shot and laying in the hospital in June?

I realize Trump is not being held to normal standards regarding the fundamental dignity of his office, but he had a clear and easy opportunity to demonstrate some intellectual honesty, and he chose not to. He looked like he was sucking up to the white "supremacists".
.

 

[Norman]

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.

What is missing from the picture?

Burning cars by Antifa.

Perhaps you should take note, it was a peaceful LEGAL protest until Antifa thugs decided to attack. Fail.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

Okay, for the fun of it, let's pretend the rightwing neo-Nazi terrorist with the car never happened and thus the rest of the violence was a wash.

That leaves the causes that the protestors and the so-called counter-protestors supported...

One group white supremacist neo-Nazis.

The other group, anti-white supremacy, anti-Nazi.

If you can't discern the moral difference between the two, you are stupid.

 

[theHawk]

Okay, for the fun of it, let's pretend the rightwing neo-Nazi terrorist with the car never happened and thus the rest of the violence was a wash.

That leaves the causes that the protestors and the so-called counter-protestors supported...

One group white supremacist neo-Nazis.

The other group, anti-white supremacy, anti-Nazi.

If you can't discern the moral difference between the two, you are stupid.

Correction:

One group white supremacist neo-Nazis.
The other group is anti-white, anti-American, anti-Christian, and pro-Islam and pro-cop-killing.

 

[Si modo]

He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years. Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.

I can actually understand that argument, but there is a time and place for everything. A President has to have the awareness to understand, appreciate and act in accordance with the broader context of any event.

Should Trump have discussed gun control the day Steve Scalise was shot and laying in the hospital in June?

No. It's a constitutional right.

I realize Trump is not being held to normal standards regarding the fundamental dignity of his office, but he had a clear and easy opportunity to demonstrate some intellectual honesty, and he chose not to. He looked like he was sucking up to the white "supremacists".
.

Look...I can't stand whitey supremacists. They disgust me. However, I will defend their right to protest because, if we don't defend the most offensive speech, free speech dies.

I'm pretty sure the whiteys weren't fighting themselves, so both sides partook in violence. Each side lost their right to protest once each side participated in violence. Each side was blamed...by the POTUS.

As far as the murder is concerned, I don't think he is in a position to jump to conclusions about that. Obama practiced similar prudence when, what appeared obvious to most of us, were acts of terrorism committed by Islamic terrorists.

The difference will remain to be seen. If it ends up one of the whiteys had the intent to murder another, will this POTUS do what Obama didn't do when it came to Islamic terrorists and blame the whitey group...for terrorism?

We will see.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The answer to the OP is simple:

Trump is unfit and incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300+ million people. He has in six short months alienated the vast majority of our citizens, our allies and members of Congress.

 

[Si modo]

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

Okay, for the fun of it, let's pretend the rightwing neo-Nazi terrorist with the car never happened and thus the rest of the violence was a wash.

That leaves the causes that the protestors and the so-called counter-protestors supported...

One group white supremacist neo-Nazis.

The other group, anti-white supremacy, anti-Nazi.

If you can't discern the moral difference between the two, you are stupid.

Morals have little to do with my statement. The 1st Amendment has everything to do with it. Frankly, I believe the 1st Amendment is pretty fucking moral on it's face...freedom and shit.

 

[Si modo]

The answer to the OP is simple:

Trump is unfit and incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300+ million people. He has in six short months alienated the vast majority of our citizens, our allies and members of Congress.

This POTUS won, in part, because the last POTUS alienated too many of the voting public.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I'm thinking there's more than one side to this reality ... But ..Why did Obama/Democrats kiss Black Lives Matters ass including in the White House after domestic terrorists chants like this?


Chanting... "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"

Pretty desperate to change the subject doncha think Lumps?

Nope, we all know that the KKK, Antifa, Black lives matter and other domestic terrorist groups were/are founded, funded and sponsored by the Democratic Party, just pointing out the potential gross hypocrisy here...

Whelp --- no I'm afraid we don't know that at all, in fact we know better and you already know we know better.

So the question stands -- not only did you try to change the subject.......... you just did it again.

Sheesh .. post/thread nazi's .. you just can't please them ..

 

[Lumpy 1]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

He made a statement to mitigate divisiveness. I know...it's a change from the last eight years. Violence is violence, regardless of who does it during a protest.

I can actually understand that argument, but there is a time and place for everything. A President has to have the awareness to understand, appreciate and act in accordance with the broader context of any event.

Should Trump have discussed gun control the day Steve Scalise was shot and laying in the hospital in June?

I realize Trump is not being held to normal standards regarding the fundamental dignity of his office, but he had a clear and easy opportunity to demonstrate some intellectual honesty, and he chose not to. He looked like he was sucking up to the white "supremacists".
.

That's what you were trained to think...

 

[Kosh]

Of course if Trump called out "Radical White Terrorism", then all far left drones would be considered Terrorists!

One counterprotester apparently deployed a chemical spray, which affected the eyes of a dozen or so marchers. It left them floundering and seeking medical assistance.

One dead as car strikes crowds amid protests of white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville; two police die in helicopter crash

 

[Mac1958]

He looked like he was sucking up to the white "supremacists".

That's what you were trained to think...

I know, I know, anything Trumpsters don't like is "fake news", I get it.
.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Trump's initial message that placed blame on BOTH sides was clearly designed to mitigate the blame on the neo-Nazi side.

Why wouldn't blame be on both sides?

The violence here was by both. Both are wrong.

Okay, for the fun of it, let's pretend the rightwing neo-Nazi terrorist with the car never happened and thus the rest of the violence was a wash.

That leaves the causes that the protestors and the so-called counter-protestors supported...

One group white supremacist neo-Nazis.

The other group, anti-white supremacy, anti-Nazi.

If you can't discern the moral difference between the two, you are stupid.

I see that both are extreme and closed minded haters, much like yourself.