Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Itssoeasy

And at least trump actually said the names of the kkk, white supremacists, and white nationalists. If he had made the remarks he just made at the weekend then I'm sure there wouldn't have been the reaction there was from both sides.

Leroy42

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. Confronting the Nazis may not end well.

We pay taxes for a reason, and indeed one of those reasons is security. I'd prefer let the army deal with them. I don't think this is overly complicated.

1st off, it is lucky that people didn't take that approach for WWII.

2nd, the car driver drove at those people. How was marching down a street confronting the car?

Water John

That's rambling stuff. WTF has Darwin got to do with it?

BTW it's not the army that patrols the streets of the USA.

Itssoeasy

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. Confronting the Nazis may not end well.

We pay taxes for a reason, and indeed one of those reasons is security. I'd prefer let the army deal with them. I don't think this is overly complicated.

"Confronting the nazis may not end well" sorry ? What delusional planet are you inhabiting ? Well if you believe in darwins theory maybe the knuggledraggers will die out over time.

Christy42

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. Confronting the Nazis may not end well.

We pay taxes for a reason, and indeed one of those reasons is security. I'd prefer let the army deal with them. I don't think this is overly complicated.

And if the commander in chief of the army does not seem to pushed about dealing with the nazis? What then? Run away and hide?

At a certain point someone has to stand up to bullies or else the bullies will keep taking what they want. Therefore people have to remind politicians that votes are at stake and they should actually deal with it.

Should people simply sit idly by hoping that Trump will remember to restore their right to protest without being attacked?

B0jangles

Christy42 wrote: »

And if the commander in chief of the army does not seem to pushed about dealing with the nazis? What then? Run away and hide?

At a certain point someone has to stand up to bullies or else the bullies will keep taking what they want. Therefore people have to remind politicians that votes are at stake and they should actually deal with it.

Should people simply sit idly by hoping that Trump will remember to restore their right to protest without being attacked?

Well isn't how every civil rights' movement achieved its aims? They all sat quietly and patiently at home and waited for their oppressors to spontaneously give them equality.

InTheTrees

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. Confronting the Nazis may not end well.

That didn't stop us from confronting them before and we destroyed them.

aloyisious

Rightwing wrote: »

Basically what I'm saying is: stay at home.

It's usually losers and bunch of thugs mixed in that attend these protests. Not everyone marching was a thug, nor were all those that confronted them, but let's be realistic, and it's not rocket science, watch at home on tv if you enraged about Trump or anyone else, and shout at the TV, you won't end getting hurt.

Sometimes hunkering down to stay out the storm doesn't work.

The sole death directly caused in relation to the rally was caused by a thug. Those who engaged in the torchlight rallies in Charlottesburg, ala Nuremberg in the 30's, are like-minded.

ancapailldorcha

Rightwing has been permabanned for trolling.

Overheal

Trump's days late denouncement of white supremacists and racists read like a prepared hostage memo.

He had more energy this morning when he was fuming over Merck's CEO Kenneth Frazier quitting his Manufacturing Council:

https://twitter.com/Merck/status/897065338566791169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fon-leadership%2Fwp%2F2017%2F08%2F14%2Ftrump-fires-back-after-the-ceo-of-merck-resigned-from-his-manufacturing-council%2F

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897079051277537280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fon-leadership%2Fwp%2F2017%2F08%2F14%2Ftrump-fires-back-after-the-ceo-of-merck-resigned-from-his-manufacturing-council%2F

I also find it humorous that online, the alt-right apologists are mocking the need for "words" - to denounce radical white terrorism - when they spend a decade whining about the neglect of the phrase "radical islamic terrorism"

aloyisious

Aw shuck's... Overheal, you got there ahead of me...

Really Interested

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. Confronting the Nazis may not end well.

We pay taxes for a reason, and indeed one of those reasons is security. I'd prefer let the army deal with them. I don't think this is overly complicated.

How should the army deal with them?

For Forks Sake

Overheal wrote: »

Trump's days late denouncement of white supremacists and racists read like a prepared hostage memo.

Read like he had a gun being held to his head. Wonder who managed to persuade him to go against his support base?

ThisRegard

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. Confronting the Nazis may not end well.

We pay taxes for a reason, and indeed one of those reasons is security. I'd prefer let the army deal with them. I don't think this is overly complicated.

Well that makes no sense whatsoever as anyone claiming to be a Nazi are the bottom of the quagmire.

Edit, nevermind, he's banned for reasons that are of no surprise.

Really Interested

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Read like he had a gun being held to his head. Wonder who managed to persuade him to go against his support base?

If I could get odds my money would be on Flynn.

My name is URL

Overheal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/897079051277537280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fon-leadership%2Fwp%2F2017%2F08%2F14%2Ftrump-fires-back-after-the-ceo-of-merck-resigned-from-his-manufacturing-council%2F

What an absolute psycho he is

He was happy enough to have that guy on the council in the first place, but gets personally attacked by Trump for speaking out against violent nazis.

Rjd2

That was a pretty strong speech by Trump to be fair which he deserves credit for.He also did not divert to Antifa also which I am pleasantly surprised by.

However he would have done a lot of good if he had made this speech sooner than he did which can't be ignored either sadly.

Hopefully the Sessions investigation yields some results after all that.

ThisRegard

You can't really credit him much for it other than the fact he eventually read it.

Manic Moran

ThisRegard wrote: »

You can't really credit him much for it other than the fact he eventually read it.

This seems pretty damned strong, though.

"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution."

We have all agreed that Trump is a bit of a political neophyte, and is not necessarily in tune with the undercurrents. It is quite possible that he believed "violence at protests is bad, no matter the cause behind it, mmmkay?" to be an sufficient summation of his position. On the face of it, what's wrong with that position? Sure, we have politcal underdones which indicated that perhaps specifically calling out racists/supremacists would be a good idea, but is there anything wrong with emphasising a simple "I don't care who you are over the past few months, don't break the law"?

Rjd2

ThisRegard wrote: »

You can't really credit him much for it other than the fact he eventually read it.

Yeah if you ignore how late it was which is obviously tricky, the speech was fine, no diverting and he called out the racists for what they were.

Trump is still awful, but there will be plenty to criticise him over in the next few months (hours knowing him!), the speech itself was a rare non **** up for him.

ThisRegard

True, it's sullied by its tardiness but it was direct and to the point.

Christy42

The lateness does not help but at least the statement was made. Better than it not being made.

Water John

Well those to whom it applies, see it being delivered with a wink to them. Damage done.

Overheal

"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution."

Said by this guy:

"Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know."

"I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him."

Professor Moriarty

Really Interested wrote: »

If I could get odds my money would be on Flynn.

You'd get very long odds on Flynn. On the other hand, Kelly.....

Water John

Richard Spencer understood the wink and nod, from Trump.
Believed it wasn't about him and others like him.

Ozymandius2011

NY Times journalist has tweeted that the Far Left protesters she saw were equally violent and "hate filled" as the neo-Nazis ones. I personally agreed with Trump in his original statement that the violence came from "many sides". I agree with the second statement also.

https://twitter.com/SherylNYT/status/896575560650035200

ThisRegard

The difference being that not everyone protesting against the supremacists were militant, you would have had a lot of moderates and regular people.

The ACLU were also there monitoring both sides.

aloyisious

Ann Coulter was on BBC 2 newsnight interview tonight about the situation. First time I've ever seen and heard her, she is very definitely in the camp of David Duke and his kind, a very scary person.

Now what I'd like to see from the Admin as recompense for Don's screwing up his last few statements about Charlottesville is for Kelly or McMaster ask the family if either of them could attend the funeral of Heather Hayer. The notion of Don, his AG or some others of his Admin attending it would be stupid and risky but they'll have to make an effort to do the right thing.

Ozymandius2011

aloyisious wrote: »

Ann Coulter was on BBC 2 newsnight interview tonight about the situation. First time I've ever seen and heard her, she is very definitely in the camp of David Duke and his kind, a very scary person.

Now what I'd like to see from the Admin as recompense for Don's screwing up his last few statements about Charlottesville is for Kelly or McMaster ask the family if either of them could attend the funeral of Heather Hayer. The notion of Don, his AG or some others of his Admin attending it would be stupid and risky but they'll have to make an effort to do the right thing.

I heard the same interview and she made clear she is not KKK. Shes a best selling author of conservative books on Amazon from time to time.

Rjd2

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yeah if you ignore how late it was which is obviously tricky, the speech was fine, no diverting and he called out the racists for what they were.

Trump is still awful, but there will be plenty to criticise him over in the next few months (hours knowing him!), the speech itself was a rare non **** up for him.

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/897224197566414848

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/897261347402067968

FFS

While I wouldn't say his speech was a win due to how late it was, it's content was spot on. However as I suspected give him a few hours he managed to blow most of the goodwill that speech had bought him. :mad:

Oh and French and Shapiro are not exactly left wing, so there comments do carry some serious weight.

BuilderPlumber

ThisRegard wrote: »

He was specifically asked at his golf resort if he wanted the support of such people, and he suddenly became speechless and refused to acknowledge or answer the question.

Trump needs to admit that there are many forms of terrorism out there. He would not be the first US president to ignore real threats by focusing on so-called 'enemies'. US animosity towards Saddam, Iran, North Korea, etc. for years neglected management of a real threat in al Qaeda and ISIS.

The jury is out on whether Trump is a true racist or not. What he is doing is using white supremacists to consolidate power and he does not care who supports him.

Water John wrote: »

He has stayed at one remove from full condemnation. Leaving it to a WH unnamed spokesman.
That shows his difficulty in truly acknowledging it.

He is too tied into a lot of bad people in the far right/neo Nazi/neo KKK. Sadly, these types are not a small minority but are influential among many religious whites in America. Trump is the latest to take advantage of this but the Republican party has for decades become too close to such violent white militants. The Tea Party movement for example was soaked in the same thing with the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords being a very low point.

It can be argued that while Republicans themselves may not have done such acts as what happened Saturday or what happened Gabrielle Giffords, these acts were done by extremists who used hardlike Republican party dogma to justify it.

super_furry wrote: »

Trump's never going to condemn neo-nazis or white supremacists now he's in power - look how long it for him to move away from David Duke during the election. Trump owes his election to the likes of Steve Bannon and he's not going to back away from people like that.

People like David Duke and Steve Bannon should have no place or no say let alone be endorsed as a supporter and a member of government. Bannon's continued membership of government is the major problem and his racist, negative and dangerous hardline policies on every issue could spell danger and leave America and the world a worse and more violent place. David Duke is a leader of a terrorist organisation who should get what he deserves. If he was a Muslim, he'd be in prison. He is free to inspire hatred and encourage things like the Oklahoma bombings, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the Charlotteville riots because he is a white Christian in a country sympathetic to that.

seamus wrote: »

His own father was a white supremacist, and Trump's business history indicates that even if he's not into it himself, he's certainly sympathetic to it.

No doubt many of those he would consider "friends", such as Bannon, would be unhappy with strong talk against the white supremacy movement.

Trump's father may have been a white supremacist but Trump himself is more of an experimenter who cannot pay attention to anything for too long. Trump's really after opening a can of worms though and has turned himself into a stepping stone for Bannon and other white fanatics to gain more power.

Trump is all talk and to be honest, is anything but sincere and is playing to a gallery. But he is playing to a gallery of very sincere racists. While Trump and many of the government will yield to pressure and racist policy will not be implemented, those who supported Trump will feel let down and you have Duke saying this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ex-kkk-leader-david-dukes-10985823

Trump and other Republicans are wrong to court the KKK and other such racists in any way. Sadly, the Trump campaign, that of other 2016 Republican candidates and the whole 2008-2012 era Tea Party movement all was heavily influenced by the KKK.

If similar was happening in Iraq and Syria where a future government comprised of people associated with ISIS and al Qaeda members who are responsible for many terrorist acts. You can bet the US would be the loudest in the chorus of global condemnation and there would be calls for sanctions and war. The US should look at itself before it judges anyone else though.

Christy42 wrote: »

It is interesting to note that Tump and his supporters spent years giving out about Obama for not using their exact preferred phrasing for ISIS inspired attacks and yet suddenly a vague statement about violence in general is enough here.

That is true. Trump showed he was pandering to racists when he more or less condemned all Muslims for ISIS inspired attacks. Obama was always careful to diffferentiate ISIS from Islam. Trump showed he was pandering to racist and sectarian forces by not differentiating.

By not condemning the specifics here is wrong. Obama criticised ISIS not Muslims whereas Trump criticised violence and not the KKK until now. Now he is pressurised into saying more but he does need to rid his government of Bannon and others like that to prove he is sincere. Will he or won't he will determine his true nature.

Christy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/897224197566414848

https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/897261347402067968

FFS

While I wouldn't say his speech was a win due to how late it was, it's content was spot on. However as I suspected give him a few hours he managed to blow most of the goodwill that speech had bought him. :mad:

Oh and French and Shapiro are not exactly left wing, so there comments do carry some serious weight.

And now he may as well have never given that speech. I had suspected he had given it under duress but figured it was important it was given. Outright stating it was given under duress removes anything it could have helped with.

Donald Trump: the president that has issues condemning nazis.

Manic Moran

Was his father a white supremacist? I've not seen anything other than internet speculation.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

aloyisious

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I heard the same interview and she made clear she is not KKK. Shes a best selling author of conservative books on Amazon from time to time.

Ann irritated me when she was talking loudly across the interviewer, a classic shout "them down move" not usually used against the interviewer, but the person one was debating with. She made no effort to damn the Klan or it's allies and their activities in Charlottesville.

Samaris

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was his father a white supremacist? I've not seen anything other than internet speculation.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

White supremacist - hard to say. Racist, yes. One of the first big lawsuits Trump himself was involved in was one in which the Trump Organisation under both Trumps were condemned in the ...1970s or 80s, for being incredibly racist in their letting of property - no blacks, pretty much. It takes a rather extreme and blatant level of racism to get condemned for treatment of black people in the US in either the 70s or 80s, so it was presumably pretty bad.

dudara

And there's also the story of Donald Trump and the Central Park Five in 1989, where 4 black & 1 Hispanic teenager were later found to be wrongfully convicted of rape.

Really Interested

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was his father a white supremacist? I've not seen anything other than internet speculation.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

Fred was arraigned and granted bail, that means he was arrested at a rally.

Leroy42

I find it strange that people are even questioning whether Trump is racist.

He surrounds himself with others who are clearly racist (Bannon etc), struggles to condemn racism, has openly criticised entire sections of society based on either their country of birth or religion (this isn't technically racism but it shows the thought process). He also seems to have an issue with women.

Are people really expecting him to come out with a nazi flag? Most of the people on those marches the other day I am sure live normal quiet lives. But deep down their is the racism that is only waiting for an excuse.

Even his speech yesterday, whilst better than what had gone before, was nothing more than the least you would expect of any politician. He could have said that those thinking they were his supporters could go away, that he didn't appreciate them wearing his hats of using his name. That David Duke was wrong to claim they were working on Trumps promises. That the KKK would be dealt with as a terrorist organisation. That he would instigate a committee to review the use of confederate symbols.

That the civil war for 200+ years agi and that people now live in the US of America. The US stood for equality, inclusion. If people had a problem with the this then maybe they should move somewhere else.

Pelvis

Samaris wrote: »

White supremacist - hard to say. Racist, yes. One of the first big lawsuits Trump himself was involved in was one in which the Trump Organisation under both Trumps were condemned in the ...1970s or 80s, for being incredibly racist in their letting of property - no blacks, pretty much. It takes a rather extreme and blatant level of racism to get condemned for treatment of black people in the US in either the 70s or 80s, so it was presumably pretty bad.

I'd say money is the first thing on a Trumps mind in the morning, and anything they do is directly related to that.

I would imagine in the 70's, not allowing people of colour into one of their buildings could very well have been a business decision, rather than one borne out of racism itself. That's not to say they aren't racist anyway,.

Peregrinus

Pelvis wrote: »

I'd say money is the first thing on a Trumps mind in the morning, and anything they do is directly related to that.

I would imagine in the 70's, not allowing people of colour into one of their buildings could very well have been a business decision, rather than one borne out of racism itself. That's not to say they aren't racist anyway,.

Victimising black people in order to make money is racism, Pelvis.

Pelvis

Peregrinus wrote: »

Victimising black people in order to make money is racism, Pelvis.

The act is racist, yes. It doesn't automatically follow that the person committing the act is racist.

Peregrinus

Pelvis wrote: »

The act is racist, yes. It doesn't automatically follow that the person committing the act is racist.

I think it does. If I victimise black people for my own satisfaction/gratification, I'm a racist. I don't think it matters whether my gratification is financial or emotional or something else.

Pelvis

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it does. If I victimise black people for my own satisfaction/gratification, I'm a racist. I don't think it matters whether my gratification is financial or emotional or something else.

I think context is important. Bill Maher made an off the cuff joke a couple of months ago that was quite racist, he's a comedian and he did it to get a laugh. What he said was racist but I don't think he is a racist himself, nor would most people think that.

I just see the Trumps as quintessential asshole Gordon Gecko types, if option A makes them more money than option B, then always go with option A, ethics be damned.

robinph

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was his father a white supremacist? I've not seen anything other than internet speculation.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

If it wasn't for the quotes from Don himself in that article then you could be inclined to give Fred the benefit of the doubt that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But once Don starts with his "It never happened" - "Nope never heard about it before" - "he was never charged" - "A bunch of other people were charged with things but my dad wasn't" - "I never even heard of it before until you mentioned it to me just now" then that kind of confirms that it is definitely 100% true and Fred Trump was in the KKK rally.

Donald can't do denying things as he ties himself up in knots and contradicts himself before he even finishes each sentence.

oscarBravo

Pelvis wrote: »

I just see the Trumps as quintessential asshole Gordon Gecko types, if option A makes them more money than option B, then always go with option A, ethics be damned.

That's not incompatible with racism. Given Trump's dogged pursuit of the ridiculous Obama birther conspiracy theories, and his shameful attitude to the Central Park Five, I'm at a loss as to how his racism can be in any doubt.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote: »

This seems pretty damned strong, though.

"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution."

We have all agreed that Trump is a bit of a political neophyte, and is not necessarily in tune with the undercurrents. It is quite possible that he believed "violence at protests is bad, no matter the cause behind it, mmmkay?" to be an sufficient summation of his position. On the face of it, what's wrong with that position? Sure, we have politcal underdones which indicated that perhaps specifically calling out racists/supremacists would be a good idea, but is there anything wrong with emphasising a simple "I don't care who you are over the past few months, don't break the law"?

While Trump's statement did directly condemn racism, but it did so in extremely nationalistic terms which directly referred to americans being created by god, and american citizens all saluting the same flag and being bound by 'loyalty' to the flag...

This entire thing is all identity politics, and Trump isn't helping. Jingoistic, Nationalistic rhethoric about making america great again, and americans are all special and great etc is basically what the 1930s Nazis started with. Anyone who isn't a 'real' american like the jews, or the mexicans, or people of different cultural backgrounds who aren't flag waving 'god bless murica' nationalists are the enemy.

Trump's speech writer might have been trying to remind confederates that they're still americans, but the confederates think that they're the real americans and the yankees and liberals are traitors who are trying to give their country away to immigrants and terrorists.

Appealing to nationalism in the atmosphere of fear and xenophobia and racism that Trump has fueled is not going to make things better.

Christy42

Pelvis wrote: »

I think context is important. Bill Maher made an off the cuff joke a couple of months ago that was quite racist, he's a comedian and he did it to get a laugh. What he said was racist but I don't think he is a racist himself, nor would most people think that.

I just see the Trumps as quintessential asshole Gordon Gecko types, if option A makes them more money than option B, then always go with option A, ethics be damned.

At a certain point you are jumping through too many hoops to explain away racist behaviour.

People also always seem to think capitalists always make the best monetary picks. They really, really don't and racism can affect these choices. Maybe they thought option A would make them more money due to their racist views about black people. It would be a business decision but still one that comes from racism.

If someone thinks white people work harder than black people and thus hires only white people they are making a business decision for money but it is still absolutely coming from being a racist. This (amended slightly for the specific circumstances) seems the most likely explanation.

Added to that his other issues with black/Hispanics that had little to do with making money.

Christy42

Akrasia wrote: »

While Trump's statement did directly condemn racism, but it did so in extremely nationalistic terms which directly referred to americans being created by god, and american citizens all saluting the same flag and being bound by 'loyalty' to the flag...

This entire thing is all identity politics, and Trump isn't helping. Jingoistic, Nationalistic rhethoric about making america great again, and americans are all special and great etc is basically what the 1930s Nazis started with. Anyone who isn't a 'real' american like the jews, or the mexicans, or people of different cultural backgrounds who aren't flag waving 'god bless murica' nationalists are the enemy.

Trump's speech writer might have been trying to remind confederates that they're still americans, but the confederates think that they're the real americans and the yankees and liberals are traitors who are trying to give their country away to immigrants and terrorists.

Appealing to nationalism in the atmosphere of fear and xenophobia and racism that Trump has fueled is not going to make things better.

I feel a quicker counter argument is that Trump himself stated that the speech was only made for show. Any good that come from it is gone given it has been effectively retracted.

one armed dwarf

Christy42 wrote: »

I feel a quicker counter argument is that Trump himself stated that the speech was only made for show. Any good that come from it is gone given it has been effectively retracted.

Everyday this guy's lack of emotional intelligence is breathtaking.

It is a trite comparison I know but I can't help thinking a bit of Joffrey Baratheon with the way he behaves.