Trump Tells It Like It Is Re: The Klan Et Al.
Props to the President for this.
posted by Winston Smith at
1:53 PM
Monday, August 14, 2017
Previous Posts
- Heather Heyer, Killed By Charlottesville Car Attac...
- 106-Year-Old Fruitcake From Scott Expedition "Almo...
- Tiki Nazis
- What Trump Has To Say Clearly
- Frank Bruni: "I'm A White Man--Hear Me Out"
- Is Liberalism Dying?: The Most Amazing Article You...
- Centrist Dems Push Back Against Sanders, Liberals
- Did The Man Who Ran His Car Into Protesters On The...
- Ohio Man Charged With Murder At "Unite The Right" ...
- State Police Helicopter Crashes Near C'ville
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
7 Comments:
Whaaaat? Seriously? He waits two days before condemning it, two whole days and then only bows under extreme pressure. Two days of equating (or semi-equating) fighting on both sides when clearly the most violent in this instance were those on the far right. It was the same thing he did during last year's (or the year before) David Duke controversy. Wait, wait, make false equivalency, bow under pressure. Props? I think not (but I hate the SOB so...)
I don't really deny what you say, but he did speak the truth, and so I'm happy about that.
Also, IMO, what he said before was true, if not particularly apt. (There *was*, I have no doubt, violence from both sides. It's just a bit odd to say that when one side has murdered someone and the other hasn't.)
Admittedly, though, I've probably set the part a bit low for Mr. Trump.
Sorry about that quote in my last.
Thought you might appreciate this little bit of bias in the [Steve-Colbert-channeling-Sarah-Palin voice] lame-stream media. Headline in the NYT: 'Amateur Sleuths Aim to Identify Charlottesville Marchers, But Sometimes Misfire'. In other words: Narcissist Vigilantes Ruin Lives. Totally pukemaking.
On the other stuff, though, I'm with Aa's 'Seriously?' It's not just that one side killed someone; the white supremacists were carrying Trump banners. He knew exactly what he was doing: he was the only prominent Republican who was doing it. And he probably knew from the start that he wouldn't be able to get away with witholding explicit condemnation forever. The jaw-dropping gap of a couple of days was surely enough to send the message to the relevant section of his supporters, most of whom also know that he would have to cave eventually (because inexorable pressure of the Deep State and the Lame-Stream Media). The damage has already been done.
Yeah, I just disagree.
I think you guys are letting your anti-Trump imaginations run wild. I just plain do not buy the claim that a gap of two days is some kind of big victory for the Klan.
The initial statement was not good, but at least he cleaned things up as best he could. (Though the statement was hardly inspiring. It was hard not to think about what Obama might have said on such an occasion.)
And, again, I'm not commenting in this post on the whole arc of this thing. I'm just saying that he did finally say the right thing (if inelegantly).
If you guys can't even give him that much, it's gonna be a long however-long-we-have-left-of-this-guy.
If he condemned it immediately, I would still hate the guy but say okay, he did the right thing. Condemned it like...oh, every other politician, many of whom I intensely dislike.
Drum:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/508086/
Eh, I'm terrible at this stuff, and wiling to defer to wiser heads...but I'm disinclined to buy it, and disinclined to agree with Drum in this case, as much respect as I have for the guy.
I can't stand Trump, obviously, but I think he did the right thing--or *a* right thing, anyway--in this case. He could have done a *better* thing, but he did, eventually, do a right thing.
He could have gotten away with a much, much weaker claim. He could have basically just said that *white supremacists* (Nazis, Klansmen, etc.) are *bad*. Instead, he said that *racism* (a much, much broader category) is *evil* (a much more serious charge.*
Hell, I think that claim is *too strong*. I, personally, don't think that all racism is evil. I think a lot of people have minor racist beliefs and attitudes, some of which are excusable.
If he's trying to finesse this, why make a stronger claim than he has to?
If it's a "dog whistle," I can't hear it...but obviously it's not intended for me.
But I'm skeptical about the "dog whistle" business anyway. I think that people on the left lean way, way too heavily on hypotheses about secret, undetectable beliefs and attitudes--and, in this case, messages. The hermeneutics of suspicion has infected mainstream liberals. He didn't say what we wanted him to say. So we bitched about it, and then he said what we wanted him to say--exactly in fact. More even!...and then we say that the delay in saying it was a secret message in itself.
It could be. I'll admit that I do not understand the psychology of these people, and I'm just generally bad at this sort of thing.
But I don't buy it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home