No Opinions on Trump Reaction to White Supremacists?

[AUbritt 611]

Maybe it's in smacktalk, but I think we need a serious conversation about this topic.

EDIT: I see a bunch of posts in smacktalk. Again, I think we need a serious conversation.

[AUDub 11,131]

As I said in there, he screwed up by trying to play the fence here. This was a real opportunity  to distance himself from the notion that he  caters to the alt-right. John Oliver summed it up nicely in his segment last night. 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

President Trump was fine in postponing his feelings until today.  He was not elected by by a majority of complete idiots IMO. 

Nothing the man could have said Saturday would have satisfied his opponents.

I am concerned about his "fitness" for the job yet more concerned by the reaction from the anti-trump side and that includes our MSM.

dangerous

[AUbritt 611]

@Salty Tiger, do you not countenance John Oliver's claim that there's nothing closer to a slam dunk in American politics than disavowing Nazis, yet Trump whiffed on it?

I'll admit that the MSM held Trump to account.

Let me be as honest as I can about why I'm asking this question. I believe that most Auburn folks are above the kind of racism that I see supporting Trump, and not to his credit, in Trump himself.

I think this topic has very little to do with conservatism and states' rights. I think it has a lot to do with hatred and resentment. 

Frankly, I'm surprised not more conservatives (in the true sense of what that means) have come out against Trump.

I don't believe that Trump postponed his feelings. I think he grudgingly named the KKK, the alt-right, and others, because of the pressure he received from the left and the right. I was actually surprised he was so responsive to it. 

[Grumps 3,693]

I find it fascinating that Trump got bashed so bad for his Saturday comments. Maybe it is because I am very literal, but when you have multiple groups at odds with other with hate and violence, I don't see why it is inappropriate to lump them all together.

I think that the right calling out Obama for not saying "radical Islamic terrorism" was pretty lame, when he was condemning their actions. Similarly, I find it lame to bash Trump for calling out all hate and bigotry. It is bizarre to make the leap that Trump didn't specifically condemn white supremacists because he either is one or because he doesn't want to tick them off.

[Grumps 3,693]

Apparently these are the HORRIBLE words Trump said:

 Trump said. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. On many sides.”

So, "on many sides" is the offensive part? Who were the white supremacist fighting with? Whoever they were, they also had helmets and clubs and shields. The white supremacists SHOULD be condemned, but why should the white supremacists be the only group to be condemned for violence? Anyway, I can just add this to the many things these days that make me shake my head.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

It's a false equivalence when a hate group of Nazis, KKK and other white supremacists descend upon a city, fail to follow the plan they agreed to in coming for their little rally, scream racial epithets at and about all other groups of people, and there happen to be a few skirmishes with people who - you know - oppose Nazism.

And let us not forget, only one side had someone ram a car into a crowd that wasn't doing anything to him personally, killing one and wounding many more.

It's simply off base in that situation to act as if the wrongs committed by the respective sides are in the same league.  There may be a time to say something about how people should respond to mouth breathing knuckle draggers like these white supremacist morons, but in the wake of what had happened that day, that was not the time for it.  It was time to clearly repudiate white nationalism and make it clear that they are misguided if they see you as their ally.  He dropped the ball miserably.  Please tell me you see this.

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

President Trump was fine in postponing his feelings until today.  He was not elected by by a majority of complete idiots IMO. 

Nothing the man could have said Saturday would have satisfied his opponents.

I am concerned about his "fitness" for the job yet more concerned by the reaction from the anti-trump side and that includes our MSM.

dangerous

You make it very difficult to keep this in the "serious" section.

[homersapien 11,354]

12 hours ago, AUbritt said:

@Salty Tiger, do you not countenance John Oliver's claim that there's nothing closer to a slam dunk in American politics than disavowing Nazis, yet Trump whiffed on it?

I'll admit that the MSM held Trump to account.

Let me be as honest as I can about why I'm asking this question. I believe that most Auburn folks are above the kind of racism that I see supporting Trump, and not to his credit, in Trump himself.

I think this topic has very little to do with conservatism and states' rights. I think it has a lot to do with hatred and resentment. 

Frankly, I'm surprised not more conservatives (in the true sense of what that means) have come out against Trump.

I don't believe that Trump postponed his feelings. I think he grudgingly named the KKK, the alt-right, and others, because of the pressure he received from the left and the right. I was actually surprised he was so responsive to it. 

Republicans - with a few exceptions - have totally compromised themselves over Trump.  

It has the potential to destroy the party.

[homersapien 11,354]

28 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I find it fascinating that Trump got bashed so bad for his Saturday comments. Maybe it is because I am very literal, but when you have multiple groups at odds with other with hate and violence, I don't see why it is inappropriate to lump them all together.

I think that the right calling out Obama for not saying "radical Islamic terrorism" was pretty lame, when he was condemning their actions. Similarly, I find it lame to bash Trump for calling out all hate and bigotry. It is bizarre to make the leap that Trump didn't specifically condemn white supremacists because he either is one or because he doesn't want to tick them off.

You also are making it difficult to keep this in the "serious" section.

One of those "parties" consisted of white supremacists and Nazis for Chrissakes!

Sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land on this forum.

[homersapien 11,354]

28 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Apparently these are the HORRIBLE words Trump said:

 Trump said. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. On many sides.”

So, "on many sides" is the offensive part? Who were the white supremacist fighting with? Whoever they were, they also had helmets and clubs and shields. The white supremacists SHOULD be condemned, but why should the white supremacists be the only group to be condemned for violence? Anyway, I can just add this to the many things these days that make me shake my head.

You added a qualifier there than attenuates the proper focus - on the message that each party represented. 

Clever but it won't wash.

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You make it very difficult to keep this in the "serious" section.

Pretty hard to keep a lot folks feelings and opinions about this administration serious. Two way street my Auburn Brother Homer.. 

[AUbritt 611]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

Apparently these are the HORRIBLE words Trump said:

 Trump said. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. On many sides.”

So, "on many sides" is the offensive part? Who were the white supremacist fighting with? Whoever they were, they also had helmets and clubs and shields. The white supremacists SHOULD be condemned, but why should the white supremacists be the only group to be condemned for violence? Anyway, I can just add this to the many things these days that make me shake my head.

Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter. The words "on many sides" -- which Trump repeated for emphasis in his initial statements -- suggest that he views anti-fascists as equivalent to white supremacists.

That move also encouraged the white supremacist groups, who took the message to be that Trump loves them. They already felt emboldened. This was the largest gathering of white supremacists in years, and none felt the need to mask their identities. 

So, there are several interesting questions here: 1) Was Trump wrong not to call out the white supremacist groups by name? 2) Are groups like Antifa just as bad as the white supremacists? 3) Should hate speech be protected by the first amendment?

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, AUbritt said:

This was the largest gathering of white supremacists in years, and none felt the need to mask their identities. 

This will change. People have already lost their jobs because others spotted them at the rally, and, supposedly, a father disowned his son. If pushback of that effect is going to continue, they'll go back to hiding.

 

1 hour ago, AUbritt said:

Are groups like Antifa just as bad as the white supremacists?

 They are if they share the same violence and hatred tactics.

 

1 hour ago, AUbritt said:

Should hate speech be protected by the first amendment?

To varying degrees, yes. When hate speech takes the form of threats or fighting words, they are no longer protected by the first amendment. 

1 hour ago, AUbritt said:

Was Trump wrong not to call out the white supremacist groups

No,  I had the same position when people bemoaned that Obama wouldn't call radical Islamist extremists for what they were. 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

2 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

This will change. People have already lost their jobs because others spotted them at the rally, and, supposedly, a father disowned his son. If pushback of that effect is going to continue, they'll go back to hiding.

True.  But I do find it troubling that they felt the tide had shifted enough that they no longer had to do this.  Something emboldened them to put aside such precautions that have more or less been in place since the late 60s for people who persisted in holding these abhorrent views.

 

Quote

Was Trump wrong not to call out the white supremacist groups

I think given the open support by these groups for Trump's candidacy, and the fact that someone from these groups had literally just run over and killed someone for opposing them, it was incumbent upon Trump to call them out by name - not only to disassociate himself from them and their support, but also because despite whatever wrongs the counterprotestors did, they didn't murder or attempt to murder anyone.  In not doing so, and just saying "on many sides," he put out a false equivalency on the respective guilt and responsibility each side had this past weekend.

[Mims44 1,864]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Conservatives - with a few exceptions - have totally compromised themselves over Trump.  

It has the potential to destroy the party.

 

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

You also are making it difficult to keep this in the "serious" section.

One of those "parties" consisted of white supremacists and Nazis for Chrissakes!

Sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land on this forum.

A lot of white supremacists see Trump as their avenging angel and are getting more vocal about their beliefs.

 

A lot of white trump supporters who fell for his campaign lies are too embarrassed or prideful to admit that in hindsight their vote was bad, or that they would change it if they could. Which leads to a lot of denial and apologists. But I highly doubt that can last for 4 years.

 

Someone posted an article in these forums near election that said Trump winning 2016 could be the biggest boon for Democrats in 2020. So far that claim seems to be prophetic.

[homersapien 11,354]

3 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Someone posted an article in these forums near election that said Trump winning 2016 could be the biggest boon for Democrats in 2020. So far that claim seems to be prophetic.

Don't know about any article, but I posited that opinion before the election.  I felt at the time - and still do - that a Trump victory would be a long term boon for the Democrats.  Of course, that was based on Trump being an obvioius disaster as POTUS which was sort of a slam-dunk prediction.

[AUbritt 611]

29 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think given the open support by these groups for Trump's candidacy, and the fact that someone from these groups had literally just run over and killed someone for opposing them, it was incumbent upon Trump to call them out by name - not only to disassociate himself from them and their support, but also because despite whatever wrongs the counterprotestors did, they didn't murder or attempt to murder anyone.  In not doing so, and just saying "on many sides," he put out a false equivalency on the respective guilt and responsibility each side had this past weekend.

For the sake of argument, suppose someone were to hold that the demonstrations by the white supremacists would have proceeded peacefully but for the intervention of the antifa.

Let's suppose that this is true (that, in fact, the white supremacists would have come, spewed their hate, and left without anyone getting hurt).

Under such circumstances, would antifa share some of the blame for what happened?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Someone also posted an article involving DHS reports saying right wingers were more dangerous than ISIS. Heads exploded.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

1 minute ago, AUbritt said:

For the sake of argument, suppose someone were to hold that the demonstrations by the white supremacists would have proceeded peacefully but for the intervention of the antifa.

Let's suppose that this is true (that, in fact, the white supremacists would have come, spewed their hate, and left without anyone getting hurt).

Under such circumstances, would antifa share some of the blame for what happened?

For the record, the police chief has already said that the white supremacist groups violated their own stated agreements with the city for how and where they would come into the park for their protest.  Rather than proceed in the orderly fashion and through the entrance agreed upon, they came from all directions and ended up thwarting the setup by which the police had worked to keep the groups separate.

That said, if your "for the sake of argument" hypothetical were true, yes there would be *some* blame on antifa.  However, even that blame would be far overshadowed by two factors:

1.  The mowing down of (and the murder of one) anti-white supremacy protesters in the car overshadows everything else in terms of responsibility and severity.  In other words, even if there is blame to go around, not all blame is equal in degree.

2.  The reasons for protesting are far different.  The reason for the white supremacist demonstration is at a severe moral deficit to those who are protesting against them.  One could make the argument that sometimes you just ignore people with stupid views so as not to give them more of a platform.  But also, sometimes we must stand up and be counted as those who oppose evil and not remain silent.  The mere presence of anti-fascist, anti-white supremacists here is not culpability for bad things that happen as a result.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Don't know about any article, but I posited that opinion before the election.  I felt at the time - and still do - that a Trump victory would be a long term boon for the Democrats.  Of course, that was based on Trump being an obvioius disaster as POTUS which was sort of a slam-dunk prediction.

I'm not yet convinced that the Democrats have pulled it together enough to understand why they lost to take advantage of this.  There's still way too much deflecting - blaming Hillary's loss on sexism, racism, etc. and refusing to understand that there are some who do not easily fit into these labels who would not vote for her.  Until they come to terms with the reasoning behind those folks' votes, they are prone to put forth more bad candidates in the future because they misread the electorate.

[AUbritt 611]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

1.  The mowing down of (and the murder of one) anti-white supremacy protesters in the car overshadows everything else in terms of responsibility and severity.  In other words, even if there is blame to go around, not all blame is equal in degree.

2.  The reasons for protesting are far different.  The reason for the white supremacist demonstration is at a severe moral deficit to those who are protesting against them.  One could make the argument that sometimes you just ignore people with stupid views so as not to give them more of a platform.  But also, sometimes we must stand up and be counted as those who oppose evil and not remain silent.  The mere presence of anti-fascist, anti-white supremacists here is not culpability for bad things that happen as a result.

1. I agree with you that there are degrees of blame.

2. I think there's a difference between opposing the evil of white supremacy by speaking out (even counterprotesting) and showing up with the express intention of physically assaulting the white supremacists in order to drive them away from their demonstration. 

This may be a strained comparison, but from what little I know, it seems like the antifa take more of a Malcolm X approach than an MLK approach. 

In any case, it looked like to me from the coverage that there were people on both sides with weapons and who were decked out to fight (wearing batting helmets, for instance).

I'm not suggesting that the antifa are morally equivalent to white supremacists. I myself am antifascist in my beliefs, and I think the white supremacists ought to be repudiated. But that doesn't mean I would advocate going to a white supremacist rally with the express goal of getting into some sort of physical altercation with the bad guys. You can't defeat ideas with physical force.

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

1 minute ago, AUbritt said:

1. I agree with you that there are degrees of blame.

2. I think there's a difference between opposing the evil of white supremacy by speaking out (even counterprotesting) and showing up with the express intention of physically assaulting the white supremacists in order to drive them away from their demonstration. 

This may be a strained comparison, but from what little I know, it seems like the antifa take more of a Malcolm X approach than an MLK approach. 

In any case, it looked like to me from the coverage that there were people on both sides with weapons and who were decked out to fight (wearing batting helmets, for instance).

I'm not suggesting that the antifa are morally equivalent to white supremacists. I myself am antifascist in my beliefs, and I think the white supremacists ought to be repudiated. But that doesn't mean I would advocate going to a white supremacist rally with the express goal of getting into some sort of physical altercation with the bad guys. You can't defeat ideas with physical force.

 

It also could be argued that wearing protective gear isn't so much being "decked out to fight" as it is a precaution because you believe in the propensity for violence from the other side and merely want to be prepared.

[AUbritt 611]

46 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It also could be argued that wearing protective gear isn't so much being "decked out to fight" as it is a precaution because you believe in the propensity for violence from the other side and merely want to be prepared.

It could.

I'm trying to figure out antifa right now.

One of the interesting things is that, not being a government organization, but rather a group of citizens, they have every right to work toward the silencing of white supremacists or fascists. 

Legally, of course, they still are not allowed to assault others (or destroy property, which seems to be one of their things, or at least related). But they can do all sorts of things to prevent fascists and white supremacists from speaking.

They are certainly being portrayed by many as violent. 

I also think there's a case to be made -- although I'm not advocating it -- that violence is necessary in order to confront systemic racism. I am guessing this is where a lot of antifa (and BLM) are coming from.

One thing that could happen, of course, is that Sessions uses Charlotte to crack down on 'domestic terrorism', but he classifies antifa as one of the terrorist groups.

[Grumps 3,693]

13 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's a false equivalence when a hate group of Nazis, KKK and other white supremacists descend upon a city, fail to follow the plan they agreed to in coming for their little rally, scream racial epithets at and about all other groups of people, and there happen to be a few skirmishes with people who - you know - oppose Nazism.

And let us not forget, only one side had someone ram a car into a crowd that wasn't doing anything to him personally, killing one and wounding many more.

It's simply off base in that situation to act as if the wrongs committed by the respective sides are in the same league.  There may be a time to say something about how people should respond to mouth breathing knuckle draggers like these white supremacist morons, but in the wake of what had happened that day, that was not the time for it.  It was time to clearly repudiate white nationalism and make it clear that they are misguided if they see you as their ally.  He dropped the ball miserably.  Please tell me you see this.

Absolutely I think he could have handled the situation better, but I (seriously) don't automatically assume "moral equivalency" when I hear two people/groups being denounced. If a 12 year old and a 3 year old are arguing and their Dad says to them both that their behavior is unacceptable, I don't see that as saying that both children are equally responsible.

Some of my inability to understand as you all do is that I don't think that the white supremacists matter at all. I don't think they are a powerful group who are trying to get more powerful and take over the country. I think these guys mostly live in their mothers' basements and love to feel important by making other people angry. I could easily see dismissing them as pathetic little nothings. If we as a country  had ignored them then I think they would have gone back to their basements for more video games. NOW they feel important, but it is not because of Trump.